Recently in Politics Category

Apparently equal rights organizers in New England really know what they're doing, because those activist legislators are at it again. Next stop: New Hampshire?

This is a major milestone, because 5 states is the exact number where I can't remember the names of the individual states without looking them up on Wikipedia. The next major milestone is 7 states, the number it takes before I look at the Wikipedia list and think, "wait, Iowa's on there?"

Vermont -- formerly known as the first state to recognize civil unions among gay couples -- is now the first state to legalize gay marriage without the help of those pesky activist judges. It went a little something...like this...

Ohhh yesss!

Actually, in this case the bill was, first of all, much more gay; and secondly, it was actually vetoed by Republican governor / equality-hater Jim Douglas. (Booooo! Hisssss!) But the House of Representatives squeaked out a two-thirds majority with a 100-49 vote for the ninth inning veto override. That's like if Rocky III was about equal rights and the legislative process, and not about the dangers of consumerism.

So which state is next? I have no idea! So I'm going to guess...Texas. That's the next one.

Iowa becomes the third state, following Massachusetts and Connecticut, to legalize gay marriage. According to the Des Moines Register, if the state were to vote in a constitutional amendment reversing the decision (like Prop 8 in California), it wouldn't take effect until 2012, which, as we know, is when the reptilian Annukai from the solar system's invisible twelfth planet will return to Earth and life as we know it will cease to exist.

Justice Mark Cady, who wrote the unanimous decision, acknowledges the religious aspect of the dispute:

The ruling also addressed what it called the “religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate,” and said judges must remain outside the fray.

Some Iowa religions are strongly opposed to same-sex marriages, the justices noted, while some support the notion.

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,” the opinion says.

The ruling explicitly does not affect “the freedom of a religious organization to define marriage it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman,” the justices stressed.

It's a new year, and I'm still hung up on my same old boring political issue: equal rights for everybody. Well, it's on my mind, and I have a blog, so I guess I may as well write it down.

I've been thinking back to the Vice Presidential Debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin last year, and the weird vibes I got from both candidates on the subject of gay marriage. Specifically there was Palin, who, with a confused tone, said: "...no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties."

As I see it, this statement showed that Palin -- and, perhaps by extension, some portion of the GOP's voter base -- doesn't really understand what marriage legally entails. If a dying spouse's family objects to their unholy gay union in the first place, you can bet that spouse won't get to say goodbye, which is pretty heartbreaking; and even in the best circumstances, gay partners sometimes have to depend on empathetic hospital employees who are willing to break the rules at their own risk.

Meanwhile Biden said: "[neither] Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it."

Note that Biden did not say that this is a decision best left to the individual states; he said it's best left to the churches! Isn't there something a bit off about that? I mean, sure, I've been spouting off that marriage is an intrinsically religious institution for years, but I'm a fringe whackjob with a website. Joe Biden essentially said to all my married atheist friends, "you're affiliated with a church."

The problem with both of these views is that they fail to boil the debate down to its practical application. Palin, Biden, Republicans in general and Democrats in general get all hung up on semantics, as if it's more important how we define a word than how we apply the law. This is America, dammit, we're all supposed to be treated equally by our government -- at least in theory, if never in practice.

Barack Obama has received his Secret Service codename, "Renegade," after his favorite Lorenzo Lamas TV series. Michelle is "Renaissance" (because she's so classy) and the kids are "Radiance" and "Rosebud".

Those names might not actually mean anything, but sometimes they do; Sarah Palin's was "Denali" (the native name for Mt. McKinley in Alaska) and Todd's was "Driller." (Note that family members' codenames always alliterate.) John Kerry's was "Minuteman" -- ouch.

Some previous presidential codenames:
George W. Bush was "Tumbler" or "Trailblazer";
Bill Clinton was "Eagle" or "Elvis";
George H.W. Bush was "Timberwolf";
Ronald Reagan was "Rawhide";
Jimmy Carter was "Lock Master" or "Deacon";
Gerald Ford was "Pass Key";
Richard Nixon was "Searchlight";
Lyndon Johnson was "Volunteer";
John F. Kennedy was "Lancer" or "Dazzle";
Dwight Eisenhower was "Scorecard" or "Providence."

AVClub's Friday Buzzkills echoes my thoughts:

...“separation of church and state” is still just a phrase we make little kids learn so that when they grow up they have a fundamental understanding of how hypocrisy works.

CNN.com blows the lid open on "HENRYs" -- "High earners, not rich yet." Hilarious. The story highlights Bill Kwon, "a wealth advisor earning $375,000 at Morgan Stanley, with a five-bedroom brick home, a minivan, a son in private school, and three younger kids to follow." I know what you're thinking: where's the part about him not being rich yet?

One thing that every rich person I've ever met has had in common: none of them believed they were rich. Even people who this article would call rich ("hedge fund managers, investment bankers, or CEOs", "net worth in the multimillions") have said to me something along the lines of, "Oh, I'm not rich. I know some guys who are worth ten times what I'm worth -- they're rich." Knowing this is a big part of the reason why I decided early on not to pursue money as a primary goal...it's a race you just can't win.

What really irks me about Bill Kwon, though, is his notion that your income is directly proportional to how hard you work.

""Raising taxes for people at my income level is like being punished for success, for working hard." ...Kwon fears that America risks killing the incentive for people like him by shrinking the rewards for logging extra hours or starting a business, diminishing the dream that brought his father from Korea.

Believe me, Bill, those of us who make one-tenth of what you rake in are also putting in extra hours.

Aspiring HENRYs played by the rules and did everything right: They won the best grades in high school, got accepted at good colleges and grad schools, and worked daunting schedules as medical interns or associates in law firms.

Screw you, article! We blogging Furdells all have degrees from a top twenty university! So we didn't decide to go to law school or med school -- does that mean we didn't work hard enough, because we wanted to do something else with our lives, something that maybe doesn't pay quite as well? I guess we're just lazy?

Mr. Kwon's sense of entitlement reminds me of the words of American poet S. Tyler:

'Cause I'm sick of your complainin'/ About how many bills/ And I'm sick of all your bitchin'/ 'Bout your poodles and your pills/ And I just can't see no humor/ About your way of life/ And I think I can do more for you/ With this here fork and knife.

Eat the rich.

As of about a half hour ago, the AP and all the major networks have called the election for Barack Obama; come January, I'll never have super his name again. (We don't super the president, the pope, or the governor.)

I'm at work, on standby in case they need me (they probably won't), and just trying to stay out of everyone's way. The newsroom's Tension Machine is clearly cranked up to 11, with everyone running around and screaming at each other. Very exciting.

Unlike the rest of Earth, I'm keeping my eye on local ballot measures, and for the most part the results are quite depressing. In Florida, the presidential vote is still too close to call with what appears to be a slight Obama lead, but the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is way ahead.

Colorado, though not yet called, looks like a very likely Obama win; but they're also poised to end affirmative action and define life as beginning at conception. Who are these people?

Massachusetts went overwhelmingly blue in the national election -- but they even more overwhelmingly repealed the state income tax. Seriously, who are these people, and what do they think they're voting for?

Give Arizona and Arkansas credit: they're banning gay marriage and forbidding gay couples from adoption children, respectively, but at least they have the decency to vote Republican.

In other words, like I said four long, long years ago, people just don't base their vote on policy. In fact, maybe it goes beyond that: I don't think the electorate even understands the policies they're voting for.

To sum up: We won, and American democracy continues to be a total and abject failure.

In North Carolina, Senate challenger Kay Hagan is vehemently denying Elizabeth Dole's charges that Hagan is a dirty, dirty God-hating atheist.

"The overwhelming reaction to this ad has been disgust — directed at Sen. Dole — for stooping to this low and attacking a fellow Christian," said Colleen Flanagan, a spokeswoman for Hagan's campaign.

"Sen. Dole knows Kay is a strong Christian, a former Sunday school teacher and a member of Greensboro's First Presbyterian Church, and she knows that her advertisements are lies."

Well thank goodness for that! The last thing we need is those godless heathens having any hope of representation in government. If there's a litmus test for politicians, it should be whether they believe in Santy-Claus.

For a while now McCain's last leg seems to be the "close connection" between Obama and Bill Ayers, which McCain finds "troubling." He won't say exactly why it's troubling. Think about it: Obama had an "association" with a man who once bombed the Pentagon, one about which McCain says we don't know the whole truth. I think I've figured it out...

...McCain thinks that as president, Obama plans to bomb the Pentagon.

And with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, we'd be powerless to stop him. Oh. My. God.

POLITICS SIDE NOTE
Q: Who's the most liberal senator?
A: Whichever one just secured the Democrat nomination for president, of course.

Google "most liberal senator" and you'll find that the top 9 out of 10 results include "Obama" in the title. No surprise there; it's a talking point you've heard at least a few times if you're remotely interested in the election. (Note: if you're not remotely interested in the election, I will be reviewing Zapped! for Furdell Classic Cinema Theatre Vol. II. Keep hitting the "refresh" button.)

But if you add the name "kerry" to that search string...well, anyone who can remember back four years will tell you the results are predictable.

Things are looking worse and worse for McCain. Even North Dakota is slowly turning blue. It seems likely that he'll suffer an impossible defeat: not just against a Democrat, but against a black guy. In America. Oh my god.

Nobody's been saying it so I will: I don't think McCain can win with Palin. I think it's a longshot but his only chance is to dump her now, explain that he chose her based on bad advice and that he recognizes the error and is making an adjustment.

This week we learned that she's not just dangerously incompetent; she's dangerously incompetent at best. She's even turned off Christopher Freaking Hitchens, a man who refers to Obama's anti-war supporters as "the surrender faction" and who, as one of maybe three atheists who are more annoying than me, I find it very confusing to always disagree with.

Palin's multitude of truly bizarre interview gaffes, disturbing scandals, and hilarious soundbytes have added up to the point where conservative pundits can't even plausibly complain about sexism anymore, and liberal pundits (well, Bill Maher anyway) have become comfortable referring to Palin as a "bimbo" or a "stewardess" without repudiation. Or maybe it's not that the conservatives aren't able to defend Palin -- maybe they're unwilling.

So that's my advice, McCain: one last Hail Mary pass. Dump Palin, pick up Huckabee even though you can't stand him, and you might get the conservative base back. You don't have much hope with independents either way at this point, but an audible couldn't hurt. Yes, you'll look even more "erratic," but then as a losing campaign you can't really help but scramble.

So it seems the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned that state's gay marriage ban. Wow. Maybe all these states putting an unconstitutional discriminatory law on the books is actually speeding up the process rather than slowing it down?

On that note, in November, in between sessions of furious nail-biting while I watch the presidential election results come in, I'll be keeping one eye on California.

Gays have been marrying in California for about four months now, and the state doesn't seem to have crumbled into the sea, and the rivers still run with what appears to be water. Hopefully this will convince California voters to vote no on Proposition 8, which would ammend the state's constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage. (Supposedly, this would not work retroactively -- which means George Takai is safe. But still.)

Polling shows a tight race on Prop 8, so don't forget to pester all your California friends and relatives to vote "no". As we see it, California tends to lead the way in American equal rights progress; if they're not ready for gay marriage, we can't imagine the rest of the country is. But if California votes down Prop 8, that could be a very good sign for the future of equal rights in this country.

First of all I would just like to say that I am definitely not "live-blogging" the VP debate. I'm far too busy playing Palin Bingo.

We're about 45 minutes into the debate and the candidates agree on one thing: they're both against gay marriage. (This should come as no surprise to anyone who's followed their positions, but it's never fun to hear it.) Biden's position at least appears to be colored by the idea that "marriage" is intrinsically religious, as he suggests that it's the religious groups who need to make that specific decision.

Biden also explicitly states that Obama's White House will protect the full equal civil rights of homosexual couples. He lists two or three -- hospital visitation, property rights -- and notably leaves out parents' rights. Palin, in her response, doesn't seem to understand that rights like hospital visitation aren't currently easily available to unmarried couples.

Those of you who agree with me that the government should keep religion out of its policies might be interested in Bill Maher's movie Religulous, which comes out tomorrow and might be terrible, or maybe not.

Oh, Biden just called McCain out for saying he wouldn't talk to Spain. And I'm totally not liveblogging.

Talking Points Memo has been focusing on a bizarre McCain interview gaffe for the past couple of days. In an interview with Radio Caracol Miami, after a series of questions about Latin American leaders, the interviewer tried to switch gears and talk about Spain's PM, but McCain seemed to think they were still talking about Latin America. Unlike the so-called Bush Doctrine Gotcha Moment, McCain's interviewer is pretty forthcoming with the facts...

Interviewer: "But what about Europe? I'm talking about the President of Spain."

McCain: "What about me, what?

Interviewer: "Are you willing to meet with him if you're elected president?"

McCain: "I am wiling to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for humans rights, democracy and freedom. And I will stand up to those who do not."

Current interpretations in the Spanish-language press is some combination of:
1.) McCain is not aware that Spain is, in fact, in Europe
2.) McCain doesn't know who Prime Minister Zapatero is
3.) McCain knows exactly who Prime Minister Zapatero is, and that he has weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped at all costs, in Latin America if possible.

I've seen a lot of defenses of Sarah Palin's botched response to Charles Gibson's question about the Bush Doctrine. (Her response in a nutshell: "Doctorin'?! Is he sick?! Yeeeeeee-haw!!!!")

The defense of choice seems to be: there really is no one definition for "Bush Doctrine," but in fact many, so it's no wonder she was confused. Ehhrrrm, not quite. Palin's response appeared to indicate that she's never even heard the term. Basically anything you could think of would have been a better response:

1.) She could have said "which Doctrine" for the win.
2.) Based on what I've been reading, she could have guessed almost any aspect of Bush's foreign policy and been correct -- "Oh, you mean Bush's belief that democracy will spread in the MIddle East? Well I think..."
3.) How about a general statement that doesn't pull punches (and thus throws Gibson off): "I'd like to say I agree with the Bush Doctrine, Charlie, but look where it's gotten us."

Instead, she looked like a deer in the headlights of a helicopter full of hunters who are totally allowed to shoot her in the abdomen.

DID YOU KNOW: When John McCain was 30 years old, his current wife was only twelve. Can we afford to elect a pedophile?

Makes you think, right?

Full disclosure: I did not listen to the entire McCain speech last night. But I did see just enough to reaffirm my long-held belief that John McCain is among the worst public speakers in politics.

Why? Because right after he delivers this line -- "we will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles" -- he involuntarily raises his eyebrows for a half-second as if to say "yeah, we'll do that."

See the subtle tic yourself by skipping ahead on this video to 33:25 or so.

Okay, you can shut off the Matrix now. I am hereby fully aware that my sensory experiences are mere illusions.

How did I find out that my mind was being controlled by super-technology in the distant future? Well, it's quite simple, Possibly-Extra-Terrestrial Overmind: your misunderstanding of our human politics has led to a situation so hopelessly impossible that it has shaken me to the point of full awareness.

My first clue, of course, was the appointment of creationist, pro-life Alaska governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's vice-presidential running-mate, some kind of twisted through-the-looking-glass Hillary Clinton surrogate. Palin, who has less experience in politics than I do in blogging, is of course woefully unprepared for the likely scenario of four-time cancer-surviving older-than-dirt famously-tortured McCain's sudden death.

I confess, Mad Hatter, that even such an obviously false twist went right over my head. The idea that McCain would make such an obvious mistake seemed almost reasonable, even as you kept revealing strange scandals that would have disqualified any VP candidate during the vetting process.

So what specifically tipped me off, finally? It was a flaw in your extra-dimensional logic. Faced with the rumor that Sarah Palin's four-month-old baby actually belonged to her own 17-year-old daughter, McCain's people released a stunning rebuttal: "that CAN'T be her four-month-old daughter, because she's FIVE-MONTH'S PREGNANT! HAH!"

Robot abductors, let it be known: that makes no sense whatsoever. I was hoping that my sudden realization of my own mental imprisonment would short-circuit your brain-control machine and allow me to return to consciousness. But certainly whatever scientific understanding and/or perverse thrills you enjoyed during my extended delusion must be shattered by my knowledge. It's time to unplug me from your dark machine, spacemen.

Two notes from this week:

First off, I was thrilled to see our side actually play one right, for once. McCain, asked how many houses he owns, muttered that he'd have to consult his assistants; they came back with "at least four", which is of course technically true. Obama smelled blood in the water and struck; McCain's people came back with a weak-ass -- dare I say it, Democrat Party Style response: "...sure, Obama only has one house, but it was financed by money from a guy who blah BLAH BLAH BORING BORING ZZZZZZZZZ." So for the first time in recorded history, the Democrats have the interesting, concise storyline and the Republicans have the long-winded counter that nobody understands. Let's see how we screw this one up.

In other news this week, Obama selected Joe Biden as his VP, presumably because Biden helpfully pointed out that Obama is "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" who doesn't shout "motherfucker, I want more iced tea!" (Oh wait, that last one was someone else.)

So I've had a lack of output lately, partly due to creative laziness and mostly due to being beyond swamped at work this month. Argh.

But how could I not share with you, dear reader, my vitriol for our "presumptive" presidential nominees as they attend an all-important Pandering Forum -- no, I'm sorry, I meant Faith Forum -- no, that's not right either, I meant the "Let's Pretend We Believe in Invisible Ghosts Who Love Us Forever" Forum, held in some church somewhere.

Both candidates exceeded my usually high expectations for mind-numbing stupidity. On the one hand you've got John McCain, who seems to be absolutely sure beyond any shadow of a doubt that the microscopic clump of cells you conceived a few seconds ago has an immortal soul. Specifically he said that every American's rights begin at conception. Sure, it doesn't have any organs, or like thoughts or feelings or anything...but preventing its growth is murder. Murder most foul!

Of course both candidates agreed that equal marriage rights is an insult to the good American people. McCain went so far as to say that the California Supreme Court made a mistake. No big shocks there, but this is the topic where Obama let me down. When asked why he opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Obama gave a milquetoast response about how the constitution has never weighed in on marriage before. Sorry Senator, the correct response was "because the constitution is about granting rights, not limiting them, moron." (A lot of political pundits will tell you that it's bad form to call a debate moderator "moron," but those pundits are douchebags.)

I will give him this, though: Obama is at least thoughtful enough to realize that religion is the reason he supports social discrimination.

.Mr Obama called marriage "a sacred union", drawing applause when he added: "God is in the mix."

There you have it: the senator from Illinois totally agrees with me that marriage is an intrinsically religious institution. He just doesn't take my side that this can and should be reformed in our government, because, you know, he's in love with a 2000-year-old Arab who might not have existed.

And that's the guy I'm excited to vote for.

Bask in the vitriol, dear reader. Bask I tell you!!!

Leave it to former Bush administration spokesman Tony Snow to die exactly at the end of the news cycle.

Jesse Helms, who believed blacks should use separate and intrinsically inferior facilities and who was a U.S. Senator for 30 years until his voluntary retirement in two thousand fucking two, died yesterday, presumably of the creeping dread that a Negro might soon be president. (There goes the neighborhood!)

Here's a question for the political junkies among you: are there any ("former") segregationists still holding elected positions?

Angry British atheist/steadfast-Iraq-War-supporter Christopher Hitchens (that about covers it, right?) is known for his propensity for being just a little bit absolutely and completely certain that he's right at all times. (Evidence: he's still 100% sure that invading Iraq was a good idea.)

So when Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter challenged him to give waterboarding a go -- that's the "aggressive interrogation method" that Hitchens insisted wasn't torture -- how could he refuse?

Turns out -- yep -- it's torture. My favorite passage:

The interrogators would hardly have had time to ask me any questions, and I knew that I would quite readily have agreed to supply any answer. I still feel ashamed when I think about it. Also, in case it’s of interest, I have since woken up trying to push the bedcovers off my face, and if I do anything that makes me short of breath I find myself clawing at the air with a horrible sensation of smothering and claustrophobia. No doubt this will pass. As if detecting my misery and shame, one of my interrogators comfortingly said, “Any time is a long time when you’re breathing water.” I could have hugged him for saying so, and just then I was hit with a ghastly sense of the sadomasochistic dimension that underlies the relationship between the torturer and the tortured. I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.

(Don't forget to watch the video of Hitchens totally being tortured.)

And let's not forget that John McCain, who already is fully aware that waterboarding is torture and totally reprehensible, voted against a ban on its use. Have a happy 4th of July!

According to some armchair political strategists, Obama will probably try to piss McCain off during debates to remind everyone that he's a ticking time bomb of rage. ABC News found the trigger:

"McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency."

As Furdell.com has taught its longtime friends and allies, the very best way to piss people off is to mock their greatest strengths, because that's what they generally have the worst sense of humor about. McCain can laugh off remarks about his age, for example; but mock his military service and all he can do is seethe in frustration.

That said, Furdell.com would like to suggest the following talking points for Obama during debates:

"My distinguished opponent claims that he was tortured in Vietnam. But he seldom mentions that he was, in fact, staying at the Hilton!"

I was going to write a list of three or so talking points, but I actually don't think I can top that one.

Big Pinzur, in full Instigator mode, writes:

"I had dinner with Chan over the weekend and we predicted that your answer would involve the home state's lack of acknowledgment. We figure you'll eventually clarify your position to this: as soon as it's legal in all 50 states and recognized by the Catholic church and blessed by the Pope..."

Oh yeah, that's fair.

First off, you're the one who suggested that, since California allows anyone in the country to wed, I might be appeased. How could you not expect me to care that those out-of-state weddings wouldn't count in most cases? That is ridiculous.

As to the part about the 50 states: if you want a line drawn, well, I don't think I can do that. I'm not sure how much progress it'll take for me to feel comfortable that marriage isn't a prejudiced and intrinsically religious institution. The repeal of anti-miscegenation laws was a twenty year process that started with California's State Supreme Court and ended with Loving v Virginia, so clearly these things can take time -- although I like to think we're a more progressive and accepting culture than we were in the 50s and 60s.

(I find it shocking, by the way, that just over 40 years ago -- and just over 13 years before I was born -- it was illegal in sixteen states for whites to marry blacks. That is truly, truly amazing.)

Just like in 1967, I'm aware that there's a certain pathetic backwater region of our country, henceforth referred to as the Shame of our Nation, that will have to be dragged into the 21st century kicking and screaming. I don't necessarily need to wait for that day, but I would like to be a little more confident that it will ever come. It would also help if, at the very least, the state I was living in allowed equal rights. These are just a couple of basics.

On to the last bit: I know you were joking about the Catholic Church and the Pope, but dude. Dude. My whole statement of purpose here is that I, [supposedly] like our government, want nothing to do with religion. As far as I'm concerned, the Catholics can continue to practice homosexuality only in secret and only with the illegally young, and the Pope can continue to pretend that the Bible allows for life on Mars. But I think one of the biggest roadblocks in the struggle for equal rights is the fear that we intend to change the way the church does its business. I just want the church out of our law, like it's supposed to be.

In other news: Today I overheard a woman talking with disgust about "the gays." (We just had the Fremont Fair, sort of a celebration of freakiness and rampant nudity, and apparently it ruffled this woman's feathers.) I then overheard her mention (almost proudly) that the father of her two children is a "pervert" and that it would be illegal for him to come near their children. That's God's America.

Last and also least, here's a joke I came up with a couple of weeks ago. You can use this at snooty cocktail parties. Here goes:

"Did you hear that Gov. Bobby Jindal, possible Republican VP candidate, was once an exorcist? Well, it is the party of Regan!"

If you can figure out how to tell that joke without hyperlinks, I swear it'll have people shooting martinis out their noses.

The gay marriage train started today in California. That gives gay couples about five months before their unions are potentially annulled in November by a vote to change the state constitution.

That sounds grim, since gays can only marry in California because of those lousy willful activist judges. Last month Slate had a good article with an optimistic spin: over the coming months, as homosexual marriage becomes mainstream, voters won't remember what all the fuss was about and it'll stay on the books. (Apparently that's basically what happened in Massachusetts.)

Also in same-sex marriage's corner, as we've discussed on this blog: the economy. Marriage is an expensive business, after all, with all those inedible cakes and whatnot.

Place your bets now. My money's on the gays. Too bad for them.

Yesterday those stinking activist judges -- or as McCain calls them, "willful judges" (presumably to be replaced one day by impartial robot tribunals) -- asserted the rights of Gitmo prisoners to a fair trial, like, you know, where you can actually challenge the charges against you and not be tried for the same crime twice and whatnot.

And only six years after the fact! What's the rush, Supreme Court? Did deciding the 2000 election take too much out of you? Did you need a nap after that or something?

Well, I've been patiently waiting for McCain and/or his supporters to throw their first racist stone. No luck as yet, but FOX news is not disappointing us. Earlier this week, they introduced the phrase "terrorist fist jab" into the lexicon, but yesterday they one-upped themselves by referring to Michelle Obama -- that's Senator Obama's wife of almost 16 years -- as the Senator's "baby mama." Please note that the following exchange is entirely fabricated, but eerily plausible.

FIRST FOX PRODUCER
I need a graphic about how mad liberals get when we smear Michelle Obama.

SECOND FOX PRODUCER
How about "Outraged Liberals: Stop Picking on Obama's Baby Mama!"

FIRST FOX PRODUCER
"Baby Mama"? What does that mean?

SECOND FOX PRODUCER
You know...it means...his wife, but black.

FIRST FOX PRODUCER
Ohhhhh.

Dear Barack Obama,

We at Furdell.com have worked tirelessly to bring you the greatest campaign slogan ever. Feel free to use it, as long as you credit us appropriately, and give us some kind of kickback when it makes you the most powerful man on Earth. Like give us Guam or something. (It's just an itty-bitty place, Mr. Luthor.)

Ahem. Your new slogan:

Get ready to ride the changercoaster!

Eh? Ehh? Yeah? Whaddaya think? Sleep on it maybe? You sleep on it, and get back to me.

Love,
Furdell.com
Entity

In other news, here's a message from Hillary Clinton to you, her supporters:

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

(emphasis mine)

Apparently a significant chunk of Clinton supporters have decided that if they can't have the first female president, they'd rather have John McCain.

That's really smart. It proves that Clinton's supporters weren't just interested in advancing the station of women in American life. After all, they're switching over to the pro-life candidate, a man who recently described Roe v Wade as "tragic". From the horse's mouth:

I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it...As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn.

Real smart, former Clinton supporters. That's what they call throwing out the right to not have babies, with the bathwater you otherwise wouldn't have had to use on the baby you didn't want to have.

I wish the Democratic Primary would end already. I mean, if Bill Clinton can put his foot in his mouth with borderline-racist comments, just imagine the inventive and hilarious racism we'll get from John McCain's supporters! This is like Racist Christmas Eve, with all that great racism right around the corner!

Well, here's an early gift: a nonprofit called Women's Voices Women Vote^* surreptitiously robo-called black neighborhoods in North Carolina to inform them that their mail-in voter registrations were on the way -- even though the deadline for mail-in registration in NC has passed.

To put this another way, a women's voting organization (not associated with Hillary Clinton) is responsible for "accidentally" confusing black voters (not associated with Barack Obama), using an automated message from someone who identifies himself as Lamont Williams, a person who definitely doesn't work for WVWV and who possibly doesn't exist. "Oops!"

When is the last time we used vote suppression in a primary? This truly is a golden age.

^*What a totally stupid name. It's not even a backronym.

I completely agree with this woman. I have long said that I will be holding my own personal boycott of the China Olympics, and I believe James is with me (he can correct me in the comments if I'm wrong). We were horrified when China was awarded the Games, and more than skeptical of all the promises they made to get them. Not surprisingly, those promises haven't been fulfilled. (And that article was written before the recent Tibetan protests.) I am not under any illusion that whether or not I watch will make a difference. Nonetheless, I will register my disgust and by turning off the TV. (Or, more likely, by watching Marx Brothers movies instead.)

Hey, do you realize I haven't told you so in almost two and a half years? We're way past due.

Let's rewind back to the 2004 primary. I was disappointed that the Dem. nominee I was pulling for, Howard Dean, got passed over in favor of John Kerry. At the nominating convention, Barack Obama -- attractive, great voice, actually sounds sincere -- gave a rousing, almost angry speech that garnered an unforced standing ovation from the crowd, and I said -- and I quote -- "[n]ow that's the guy who should be running for president."

I continued to push this idea for the next several weeks, but you just kept shrugging me off with the ol' "he's too inexperienced." Remember? I know it was a while ago. But it still stings. And I whined in reply, "Bush doesn't have any experience, and he's been president for four years!" I'm clever that way.

Fast forward to now, and lo and behold, I was right again, and I totally told you so, jerk. (Local news note: both Clinton and Obama are in Seattle now that our vote is unexpectedly worth something.)

As one-fourth of Furdell.com, I hereby endorse Obama. And not just because I'm sexist.

First of all, I've come to the conclusion that whereas (now-almost-certain Republican nominee and pudgy old white man) McCain can't possibly beat Obama, against Clinton he has a fighting chance. I know, it's been our proud tradition since 2000 to nominate the most gratingly-unlikeable charmless smarty-pants we can find, but I think this year we should consider a different tactic. Hillary gains points when she gets weepy, but then the next day she lets out one of her demonic cackles and wipes away the goodwill.

There's more to it than that, as well. This isn't some run-of-the-mill unmarketable candidate, this is Hillary Flippin' Clinton. Those of you who didn't grow up in the South might not be aware of the illogical, unreasoned hatred that a certain type of conservative has for her. I grew up with people who, I swear, could not possibly have been able to articulate either the magnitude of nor the reason for their hatred of Hillary Clinton. I mostly blame Rush Limbaugh, who was less universally-despised at the time. Meanwhile, those same conservatives aren't particularly thrilled about a McCain candidacy -- if there's anything to unify the Republican base and send them to the polls to support McCain, it's Hillary Clinton. That may not be fair, but them's the brakes.

If I absolutely must make decisions based on policies: I've heard a lot of people compare Clinton's policies favorably to Obama's, but I don't see it. Her universal health care plan, like Obama's, isn't universal at all. (Just socialize medicine already, America. Our infant mortality rate is higher than any industrialized nation other than Latvia. What does it take? Geez.) She voted in favor of invading Iraq (which, hmm, if memory serves, yes, I seem to remember telling you so), which is bad (I should demand at least as much prescience from my presidential candidates as I have myself, right?); now she promises to pull all our troops out of Iraq within 60 days, presumably leaving behind a card that says "Please excuse our mess." Yes, the Iraq war was stupid, as so I told you, but you didn't listen, and now you've made a bed for us all to lie in, and there you have it.¹

But hey, screw it! I totally don't have to make decisions based on policies. Nobody else does! A Hillary candidacy may be the only way for the Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of the total failure that was our government for the last eight years.

So, there you have it. James and Kimberly, I don't know where you guys lie on this debate, but you can nullify my caucus vote at the Q Café, tomorrow at 1pm.

¹ Run-on sentences are the new alliteration.

Add him to the list: Republican (obviously) Washington state representative Richard Curtis secretly enjoys hot, sweaty man sex. Allegedly, of course. Once again, what we thought was among the last refuges of the fabled "straight man's moustache," last seen circa 1984's Cannonball Run II, turns out to be its dying gasp.

If my theory is correct -- that Reverand Gary Aldridge actually killed himself earlier this month with multiple rubber suits and strategically-placed dildos in a selfless attempt to deflect media interest in Idaho Republican Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, a man who obviously merely suffers from extreme and comical constipation -- then Curtis's late-breaking scandal must just be an attempt to steal the limelight. Come on, Richard Curtis. Are you so starved for attention?

(I mean, these guys wouldn't legislate against their own sexual leanings, right? That wouldn't make any sense. Like how segregation-candidate Strom Thurmond probably had no idea his maid was black.)

I think Janeane Garofalo and Bill Maher take turns. This week Janeane gets the award next week Bill gets it, and so on, infinity forever. We need more competition for this award! Anyone want to volunteer?

Wow. A plan for getting out of Iraq AND transparency concerning how we're gonna do it. I thought I might never see that in my lifetime. Obama took a big step forward today, in announcing his plan to end the war in Iraq (warning this PDF will probably only open if you are registered with nytimes.com). On reading this I started shaking my head, just thinking of the intricacies and complicated issues in the Middle East. Strategic thinking is going to be the way out, and Obama makes a good case for using diplomacy instead of military pressure to do it. The broad brush strokes the Bush administration has been using to tackle problems in Iraq, which mostly includes throwing more money and resources (American lives) at the problem, is not working. I think the answer to leaving "responsibly" is going to be in the details. Obama has convinced me that he is willing to think strategically about the issues in the Middle East and is not simply concerned with victory (whatever that means).

There's a sexual orientation anti-discrimination bill and a civil unions bill circulating in Salem at the moment. They're getting the usual flak from religious groups, of course, who would hate to have to share valuable rights with lesser people. And God forbid a church might have to hire a filthy homosexual to do clerical work or something. (Or, at least, one that isn't keeping it in the closet.)

I know I've gone on and on about this before, but -- why are so many gays willing to settle for civil unions? There's no reason for the state to legislate differences between people of different sexual orientation. They don't need their own set of special laws. There's not a special almost-marriage for the handicapped or something. If it all boils down to religious concerns, then why is it okay for the government to be involved in marriage in the first place?

Gay couples in Woodland, California were issued a "Certificate of Inequality" today by a disgruntled clerk.

In the interest of the Furdell brothers becoming the next big thing in advice columns, James and I will now respond to commenter Tanya, who writes...

So, this is unrelated but seeing as you are interested in pinball machines and appear liberal, I'm after your opinion. I am on the board of a local planned parenthood. We have a fundraiser coming up and a friend of planned parenthood said he would refurbish and donate a pinball game for us to raffle off. Great! Right? However, it is Bally's "Future Spa" which features nipples, naked women and women with spread legs. I find it hilarious but I'm in my thirties. I am concerned about the first wave of feminists of the 50s, 60s and 70s who will be there and take offense (objectification of women; bordering on pornography, etc)

Any thoughts? My instinct is to have it at the event and still raffle it off but to come up with some kind of funny sign to put on it that ties in with Planned Parenthood. Anything clever come to mind??
Thanks

Tanya chose us for advice because of our past history of excellent internet advice-giving¹, and not because we're relevant Google hit #5.

First off, Tanya, let me say that if you do choose to raffle off Future Spa, I will personally pledge to buy as many raffle tickets as I can afford on a local TV news director salary².

Secondly, as a hip young liberal who thinks that hot leftist chicks should have full rights over their bodies, I think it would be awesome if you raffled off Future Spa.

On the other hand, as I understand from my nonprofit-organization-managing lady love, you're probably not interested in courting broke twentysomethings.

In any case, it seems that your main fear is that you'll offend the older-school feminist in the hizz-ouse. Remind them that by reappropriating the sexist images and words of the past, we point out their inherent silliness and take away their power. (You know...like Womanhouse.³)

So we gotta come up with a funny sign. First rule of thumb: the pinball machine itself is the punchline, so the sign needs to be deadpan. (And that pinball machine is one hell of a punchline.) Tying it into Planned Parenthood adds a difficulty level. Here's my bid:

"Note that this startlingly accurate 1979 vision of today's spa makes liberal use of latex. Even then, pinball designer Jebediah Bally recognized the importance of safe sex in the spas of the future."

Maybe that's too wordy. Coming soon: James's response.

¹ Link not available.
² Expressed in mathematical terms, "five."
³ Judy Chicago? The C-U-N-T Cheerleaders? Anyone?

(Click the "read more" link to see photos James took of the art on Future Spa.)

I do not trust executive power. Why? Because executive power represents the dominant or oppressor culture. Sorry to take the extreme view, but polarizing times call for extremism. With Dubya in power for the last 6 years, there's hardly any need to make an argument over why we all should not trust the executive branch of our government (the branch of our government with the least regulation or evaluation procedures). Every day, it seems, I read articles about how The White House or should I say Bush and the special interests he represents are steadily increasing executive power. Today I read in the nytimes.com "Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation". Instead of dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency or other agencies representing citizen's interests, the executive branch makes it nearly impossible for them to create policy and change. I guess I could of picked one of a dozen awful policies the Bush Administration has enacted to the public's detriment. Nobody wants to be in Iraq anymore, and I didn't even want to be there to begin with. I feel like this whole country is stuck living out some fantasy brought about by special interests and we are all powerless to end it.
The more executive power exists the less power we the people have to make change. We all know that the people in power do not want change, because they want to stay in power. Reinforcing the power structure makes progress, already a formidable task, nearly impossible. Are we doomed to talk about global warming, or I'm sorry, climate change, forevever? Apparently there's not enough evidence to suggest there might be a problem to solve.
I admit I feel disempowered. It's almost enough to make me try to (do something!) enact legislation limiting executive power, but it seems that even the people in government don't know how to reign in executive priveleges. I wouldn't know where to start. Any suggestions?

Liaps, Pinz, and James all sent me this article about heterosexual couples deciding not to marry until gays can as well (normal heteros, not just Charlize and Stuart and Brad and Angelina).

Ms. McKay of Marriage Equality U.S.A. said heterosexuals can be instrumental in the push for gay marriage. ?It?s a very powerful decision to stand up against discrimination in a system where you benefit,? she said. ?There?s no more powerful way of saying, ?I object.? ?

Brad Pitt joins the ranks of Charlize Theron and me by declaring he won't get married until everyone else can, darnit.

Seriously, people: Brad Pitt. I rest my case.

Every now and then, the citizenry of Earth changes its mind and realizes I was right all along. In fact this happens so often, that every single time, I have to remind you of all the other times it happened, so that maybe, just maybe, next time you'll cut out the middle man and just listen to me in the first place. Yes, that day may never come. But I have to try.

What did you do this time? Well, it seems President Doofus's approval ratings just keep sinking, and suddenly everyone's starting to get the idea that the Iraq war was not such a great idea. Huh. Go figure. I mean, if you're all figuring this out now, then it must take some kind of genius to have realized it before the war even started.

Just to review, everything I said about the futility of the war more than a year ago still stands today. I, unlike you non-geniuses, do not have to change my mind at all, which is a very comfortable position for me. It's still entirely true that:

• Saddam didn't have weapons at all;
• Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11;
• we'll never frikkin catch Osama at this point, and he totally got away with it;
• we've made the world a slightly less populated, slightly less safe place for Americans.

Of course, if you'd just listened to me in the first place, we could have averted this whole disaster. Maybe saved thousands of lives. After all, you knew you'd eventually be admitting I was right all along (that's how it always happens, after all -- you must have noticed the pattern by now).

Perhaps next time. Just remember: Andrew's always right, and having your own opinion is an act of futility that won't last anyway. Next time, start out on the winning team -- Andrew's team.

A couple of months ago, on a drive from Atlanta to Eugene, I did what I always do on long drives: I listened to conservative talk radio. It keeps me awake with rage. Dr. Laura is best -- she amazes me with the consistently wrong advice she gives out, even about things that aren't politically charged.

Anyway. one of the more hilarious commentators is Michael Savage, author of Liberalism is a Mental Disorder and professional loud, obnoxious racist.

(Aside: I swear to god I heard this on his show one time -- "In fact, it is the people who call me a racist that are the racists. All I'm doing is trying to save our country from stupid spics who don't even speak English!")

Anyway, it was then that I first heard the oft-repeated-by-conservatives sob story of Casey Nethercott. Casey, defenseless puppy-loving Arizona rancher, who bleeds apple pie and picnics, "caught two illegal aliens sneaking onto his ranch," where he apparently held them for an hour.

Though the pair admitted Nethercott's ranch hands provided them with cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour, the illegal invaders enlisted the legal help of Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center to represent them in a suit charging they were abused by Nethercott.

Long story short, Nethercott's ranch is awarded to the illegals. That above quote is from an online account; on the radio, they don't even tell you about the allegation of abuse. Basically they don't give you any details. So I knew something was up. I figured it was something creepy and sexual.

It turns out the whole story is, well, an entirely different story.

First if all, the El Salvadorans did not, in fact, trespass on Nethercott's ranch. In fact they trespassed on some other guy's ranch; Nethercott was involved because he's part of an organization called Ranch Rescue, a group of nutty vigilantes akin to the Minutemen. Ranch Rescue was hired by the ranch owner to do, ahem, rescue his ranch from the overwhelming threat of illegal aliens.

Nethercott, who has prior convictions for assault and false imprisonment, and who is apparently a neo-Nazi -- Savage totally glossed over that -- evidently pistol-whipped one of the El Salvadorans in between plying him with cookies and blankets.

Crazy version: "And since he was in jail and unable to defend himself against Dees' civil lawsuit, Nethercott's ranch was seized and handed over to the illegal aliens."

Sane version: "Sutton, who'd invited the border watch group to his land because he was fed up with drug-traffickers and immigrants passing through on their way north, settled for $100,000. But Nethercott and Foote didn't respond to the suit, resulting in a combined $1.35 million default judgment against them. Nethercott's ranch, which he bought in cash for $120,000, was signed over to the immigrants Aug. 11. "

So there you have it, Nethercott-googlers. Furdell.com -- doing the web-research so you don't have to.

Apparently, Michael Brown wasn't assistant city manager, but was in fact assistant to the city manager.

It's rantin' time.

SECAUCUS ? Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said it all, starting his news briefing Saturday afternoon: "Louisiana is a city that is largely underwater..."

Well there's your problem right there.

If ever a slip-of-the-tongue defined a government's response to a crisis, this was it.

The seeming definition of our time and our leaders had been their insistence on slashing federal budgets for projects that might?ve saved New Orleans. The seeming characterization of our government that it was on vacation when the city was lost, and could barely tear itself away from commemorating V.J. Day and watching Monty Python's Flying Circus, to at least pretend to get back to work. The seeming identification of these hapless bureaucrats: their pathetic use of the future tense in terms of relief they could?ve brought last Monday and Tuesday ? like the President, whose statements have looked like they?re being transmitted to us by some kind of four-day tape-delay.

But no. The incompetence and the ludicrous prioritization will forever be symbolized by one gaffe by of the head of what is ironically called ?The Department of Homeland Security?: ?Louisiana is a city??

Politician after politician ? Republican and Democrat alike ? has paraded before us, unwilling or unable to shut off the "I-Me" switch in their heads, condescendingly telling us about how moved they were or how devastated they were ? congenitally incapable of telling the difference between the destruction of a city and the opening of a supermarket.

And as that sorry recital of self-absorption dragged on, I have resisted editorial comment. The focus needed to be on the efforts to save the stranded ? even the internet's meager powers were correctly devoted to telling the stories of the twin disasters, natural... and government-made.

But now, at least, it is has stopped getting exponentially worse in Mississippi and Alabama and New Orleans and Louisiana (the state, not the city). And, having given our leaders what we know now is the week or so they need to get their act together, that period of editorial silence I mentioned, should come to an end.

No one is suggesting that mayors or governors in the afflicted areas, nor the federal government, should be able to stop hurricanes. Lord knows, no one is suggesting that we should ever prioritize levee improvement for a below-sea-level city, ahead of $454 million worth of trophy bridges for the politicians of Alaska.

But, nationally, these are leaders who won re-election last year largely by portraying their opponents as incapable of keeping the country safe. These are leaders who regularly pressure the news media in this country to report the reopening of a school or a power station in Iraq, and defies its citizens not to stand up and cheer. Yet they couldn't even keep one school or power station from being devastated by infrastructure collapse in New Orleans ? even though the government had heard all the "chatter" from the scientists and city planners and hurricane centers and some group whose purposes the government couldn't quite discern... a group called The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

And most chillingly of all, this is the Law and Order and Terror government. It promised protection ? or at least amelioration ? against all threats: conventional, radiological, or biological.

It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water.

Mr. Bush has now twice insisted that, "we are not satisfied," with the response to the manifold tragedies along the Gulf Coast. I wonder which "we" he thinks he's speaking for on this point. Perhaps it's the administration, although we still don't know where some of them are. Anybody seen the Vice President lately? The man whose message this time last year was, 'I'll Protect You, The Other Guy Will Let You Die'?

I don't know which 'we' Mr. Bush meant.

For many of this country's citizens, the mantra has been ? as we were taught in Social Studies it should always be ? whether or not I voted for this President ? he is still my President. I suspect anybody who had to give him that benefit of the doubt stopped doing so last week. I suspect a lot of his supporters, looking ahead to '08, are wondering how they can distance themselves from the two words which will define his government ? our government ? "New Orleans."

For him, it is a shame ? in all senses of the word. A few changes of pronouns in there, and he might not have looked so much like a 21st Century Marie Antoinette. All that was needed was just a quick "I'm not satisfied with my government's response." Instead of hiding behind phrases like "no one could have foreseen," had he only remembered Winston Churchill's quote from the 1930's. "The responsibility," of government, Churchill told the British Parliament "for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in fact, the prime object for which governments come into existence."

In forgetting that, the current administration did not merely damage itself ? it damaged our confidence in our ability to rely on whoever is in the White House.

As we emphasized to you here all last week, the realities of the region are such that New Orleans is going to be largely uninhabitable for a lot longer than anybody is yet willing to recognize. Lord knows when the last body will be found, or the last artifact of the levee break, dug up. Could be next March. Could be 2100. By then, in the muck and toxic mire of New Orleans, they may even find our government's credibility.

Somewhere, in the City of Louisiana.

Adios, Michael Powell! Will we miss you? No. No we will not.

Somehow I've been invited to one of the gazillion Inaugural Balls. First of all, I don't understand why Bush has to be inaugurated again since, you know, he's already president. But also: Huh? Clearly they don't know me at all.

Also, on an only slightly related note, check out this blog.

I know you all will appreciate how they settled a tied election in White Pine County, Nevada. It's "the nuts!" [boing!]

I agree with Liaps: this is not the end of the world. However, it may be the end of my interest in politics. Politics, for me, has been an excercise in impotence all along.

Though I failed to vote in the 2000 election, as a Florida voter it does not escape me that my vote would never have counted anyway -- I'm not on the Supreme Court. It was these events, which I perceived as an affront to America's very self-governing system, that made me interested in politics.

When thousands of Americans died in September 2001, I struggled to understand the sudden outpouring of goodwill for Now-Actually-President Bush, who didn't seem to be doing all that much to me, and who I at least partly blamed for our nation's greatest defense failure.

When Bush geared up for war in Iraq, it was clear to me that he did so maliciously. I became convinced that the administration's evidence for WMD was at best mistaken, and at worst forged. I took part in all these different demonstrations and marches and sit-ins and pow-wows. I tried to convince anyone that would listen that war was not the answer, that weapons might not exist, that Iraq posed no threat. Nobody listened to me and my liberal rantings. On invasion day, it was all for nothing.

And now, this. Anyone who bothered to educate themselves on the subject would have known that Bush does not belong in the White House. He's made mistake after mistake, made our lives and our lifestyles less and less secure, and turned us further against each other. Voting for Kerry should have been a no-brainer. But instead, the majority of Americans voted for "more of the same."

It's obvious to me that this election had nothing to do with policies or track records or moral strength. It was all spin, and Republicans have Democrats powerfully outspun. I'm disappointed that so many are so easily fooled. I shouldn't be surprised, but I expected more. What an idiot I've been.

I think I was happier four years ago. Today I feel demoralized and defeated, and I think all the thought and interest that I put into this election was a total waste. But why should I have ever cared? So the courts decided the 2000 election -- it was just Coke vs. Pepsi anyway. So some buildings fell in New York -- hell, I've never even been to New York. So some brown people and some white kids died in the desert thousands of miles away. That has nothing to do with me.

So there it is. I'm not interested in politics anymore, and it's a load off my back. Keep turning, world. Keep burning, bed. Nuke the polar ice caps and exile the homosexuals. I'm totally okay with that.

Even moving to Canada won't be as easy as I thought. Man, nothing is going right today!

I realize that "you people" probably don't read this blog, but I'm going to direct my comments at them anyway. I have a really, really important exam on Friday that I should be studying for instead of doing this. However, most of my energy is going toward trying not to break into hysterical sobs, so there's not much left over for thinking about the finer points of education production functions. So, people who voted for Bush, give yourselves a round of applause and then take turns slapping each other upside the head, 'cause here's what you really voted for.

Think this hurricane season was bad? Just you wait. With four more years of environmental decimation awaiting us, and increasing evidence (no, not speculation, evidence) of the very real dangers of global warming, I can only conclude that Bush voters are tired of this planet and are looking forward to living on Mars. Even if we started right this second putting all our efforts into reversing all the damage we've done, it would take a generation, at least, to see any kind of turnaround. Who knows how much worse things can get in four years. But hey, what's life without risk?

Democracy? Hell no. Theocracy is WAY better. Your religion tells you abortion is wrong? Legislate it. God cries when gay people get married? Make it the law that they can't. Alabama: "OK, Mississippi. We see your gay marriage amendment, and we raise you one Ten Commandments monument on every piece of county and state property." Georgia: "Well played, Alabama. Well played. We see your monuments AND your constitutionally-mandated bigotry, and we raise you one ban on teaching evolution in schools."

The draft. Yes, I said the draft. I know everyone says they don't want a draft, and that Congress even put up the draft straw man just so they could knock it down. But what happens when we finally admit that we have to do something about North Korea and/or Iran, who (surprise, surprise) didn't respond to our show of force in Iraq by backing down but rather by making sure they had a way to fight back in the event we turn our sights on them, but we're still tied up in Iraq?

The collapse of the American economy. Say so long to whatever competitive advantage we have left. The current level of deficit spending is not sustainable. It's just not. The dollar will collapse, we will no longer be able to borrow to maintain our current spending levels, and I think we all know that it's not defense spending that will be cut. So to those of you who think you can judge the greatness of a country based on how it treats its poorest citizens, you might want to move to Canada. Or Iraq. I hear they'll have universal health care.

I could go on forever, but having this much bitterness is exhausting and I need a nap. If anyone would like to add to this list and address things I didn't get to (civil liberties, judicial stacking, the possibilities are endless) please do.

Looks like I won't be rubbing anything in anyone's face any time soon. I'm going to hold onto hope, but there's not much left to hold onto.

How did this happen? Kerry won all the debates. Bush has been doing a terrible job on pretty much all fronts. I can't even comprehend a Bush vote, let alone a Bush victory, and yet...

Well, I guess the people have spoken.

...for being optimistic... that never pays off. Looks like Bush is going to win after carrying Florida and Ohio.

Meanwhile, Mr. Pinzur wins the Instapundit challenge. I'll be in touch after you're through covering all the recounts.

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Sen. John Kerry is still working to get out the vote.

Kerry arrived in Boston in time to vote about midday Tuesday after spending the morning handing out materials in Wisconsin.

"Tell you the truth, the truck is, uh, you know, the most important thing for me," Kerry said. "I... I don't really... it doesn't matter if I, uh, become the president or anything. That's, that's not the most important... I... I need the truck."

Over the top, John!

</worst photoshop ever>

Well, it's just about Zero Hour, and I'm in heavily-Republican Jacksonville, Florida, waiting to cast my vote tomorrow. I plan to get up super-early, vote, and drive like hell. Then I'll watch the whole debacle on my honkin'-sized television with a good bottle of wine (or three) at my side.

I like to make predictions that later come true, so that I can hold it over everyone afterwards. That said, I predict that John Kerry will win tomorrow, and that it won't be as close as people think it will (either popular-vote-wise OR electoral-college-wise). I think the minor glitches in polling -- each of which seems to indicate an undue Bush-ward slant in the polls -- add up to a more decisive Kerry lead than anyone realizes.

Maybe I'm just saying that because most pollsters would consider me an unlikely voter, and because they wouldn't reach me anyway since I have no landline phone -- but you heard it here first. Kerry will win tomorrow, and I will rub it in all of your faces. And if you don't think I'm that kind of guy, well -- you just don't know me well enough.

With just six days to go until I officially start filling out Canadian immigration forms, a Mr. M. Pinzur (397) is in the driver's seat of the Instapundit "Indeed" Challenge. But Liaps (424) still has a chance!

Right now the counter stands at 398. If Glenn only manages to reach 410 by midnight next Tuesday, Mr. Pinzur wins the fabulous mystery prize. However, if our favorite pundit ("Missing weapons? What missing weapons?") manages to squeeze out enough "Indeeds" to crank it up to 411 by then, Liaps is assured of victory.

(And, I may have to rethink the fabulous mystery prize, since one or both of them may be lactose intolerant. I'm not sure.) At any rate, I'm leading both of them in the football pool, which is all that matters.

Any good sixth part in a series should revisit the themes of its first and perhaps third installments. That being the case...let's go back to Jacksonville. (Oh, dear.) Be sure to read the following excerpts with your best British accent...

A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals.

Two e-mails, prepared for the executive director of the Bush campaign in Florida and the campaign's national research director in Washington DC, contain a 15-page so-called "caging list".

It lists 1,886 names and addresses of voters in predominantly black and traditionally Democrat areas of Jacksonville, Florida.

An elections supervisor in Tallahassee, when shown the list, told Newsnight: "The only possible reason why they would keep such a thing is to challenge voters on election day."

Wow. Just...wow. Remember, this is the same county that disproportionately rejected new black voter registrations. Now it appears they intend to reject black voters as well.

When asked by Newsnight for an explanation of the list, Republican spokespersons claim the list merely records returned mail from either fundraising solicitations or returned letters sent to newly registered voters to verify their addresses for purposes of mailing campaign literature...

There was no explanation as to why such clerical matters would be sent to top officials of the Bush campaign in Florida and Washington.

I'm no expert on fundraising, but I'm sure it's a bad idea to focus your efforts on areas concentrated with people who are traditionally hostile to your beliefs and don't have any money.

Oh, and be sure to check out that bit on the end about the private investigator hired to film early (black) voters. I read about this a few days ago, and it reminds me of the intimidation tactics used on black voters back when they first got the vote. That's Jacksonville for ya -- steeped in tradition!

Okay, that title doesn't really apply to what I'm going to write about, but it's hard to find good fifth-in-a-series titles. It was between this and Assignment: Miami Beach.

Right, anyway. Somewhere in Ohio...

The caller interrupting a North Side couple?s dinner earlier this week said he was from the Franklin County Board of Elections.

He told the elderly woman that her voting site had changed and that on Nov. 2 she and her husband should cast their ballots at a South Side precinct.

Not bad, not bad. A good, subtle cheat.

At no time, Elections Director Matthew Damschroder said, does the board call voters...His office has received about a dozen calls since last week from voters checking on similar calls.

Damschroder said there are two scams: The caller tells voters their precincts have changed or the caller offers to pick up an absentee-ballot application, deliver the ballot to the voter and return the completed ballot to the elections office.

Well, this leaves me with some questions. How do the callers know which voters to call? Or is the person behind the calls just some vote-hating bastard who wants everyone to be equally disenfranchised? That would be hilarious. According to Talking Points Memo, the "recipients of the calls seem to be disproportionately elderly." Does that mean anything? I just...don't...know. In any case, the whole scam reminds me of something...

Lest I be accused of missing any stories from my home town that involve turning away black voters, here's a Cheat the Vote! bonus. Free!

Way back in the third presidential debate, I thought "President" Bush made a big mistake when he said...

My call to our fellow Americans is if you're healthy, if you're younger, don't get a flu shot this year...I haven't gotten a flu shot, and I don't intend to because I want to make sure those who are most vulnerable get treated.

That statement reminded me of an article from almost a year ago about flu vaccinations and why even healthy young people should get them.

"I'm young and healthy," you might say, "why do I need the shot?"

Whoa, this article is more apt than I remembered.

Even if spending a week violently sick and bedridden doesn't worry you, by immunizing yourself you vastly lessen the chances you will spread the virus to some child or older person (family member, friend, or stranger) who might die from it.

In medicine, this concept is called "herd immunity"?that is, if enough members of a group of animals (including humans) are immunized against a disease, the entire group is more likely to escape infection.

Watching the debate, it occured to me that people running for elected office shake a lot of old peoples' hands and kiss a lot of babies. Isn't Bush putting others at risk by not immunizing himself?

I didn't bring it up at the time because, well, it's a quibble. But now I have context!

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), a heart surgeon, sent letters urging his 99 colleagues to get the shots because they mingle and shake hands with so many people, his spokeswoman, Amy Call, said.

In conclusion, don't let George W. Bush kiss your baby.

Time's running out for Karl Rove, and Kerry seems to be pulling ahead in the polls. It's time to kick this fraud up a notch!

In Palm Beach, where nobody ever learns their lesson, Theresa LePore -- who you might remember for designing "butterfly ballots" that confuse old Jews into voting for anti-Semites -- has announced that electronic voting machines there have not yet been tested. Because of a server crash. Yeah, that's not ominous.

This should not be a partisan issue, but for some reason it is. Computer voting machines are illegal under Florida's state constitution, which stipulates that a manual recount must be done in certain circumstances. (Manual recounts can be done when these machines are used, ya see.) Even though the machines are clearly faulty, illegal, and very easily manipulated, Florida's Republican officials have practically insisted on it. Look for all of this to blow up in everyone's face on Wonder Tuesday*.

Ah, but that's not all! Somehow, a pile of Xeroxed fliers found their way into the trashcan of a Tennessee Democrat whose office shares space with the Kerry/Edwards campaign. From there, they mysteriously found their way into the hands of Republicans, who are clearly totally innocent in this whole thing.

The fliers, by the way, are not only crass, but totally unoriginal -- someone just took that image that says "Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics," changed the first part to "Voting for President Bush," and pasted Bush's head onto the retarded kid. I mean, come on. That image has been around for at least three years now. You'd think we could come up with something a little more original.

Beyond the point. It turns out Karl Rove is actually reusing an old trick that worked pretty well for him the last time. Step one: put out a flier that maligns your candidate in an unfair or disgusting way. Step two: ? Step three: profit. After all, who's going to think you actually tried to start a smear campaign against your own candidate?

Yep, there's a lot of evil in the world. With less than three weeks of vote cheating left, expect the dial to be turned up to "11" shortly.

* Originally, this text incorrectly used the term Super Tuesday.

for how angry this makes me, so I'll just ask you all to read it yourselves, and cultivate your very own righteous anger.

Since my attempt at non-politics blogging was by varying accounts whiny and boring, it's back to The Usual, and it's time for the long overdue 3rd segment of Cheat the Vote!^tm

Remember how, in Episode One, we visited James & Andrew's home town of Jacksonville, Florida? Let's check back in on the old boys and see if things have improved down there.

In Duval County, 31,155 black voters had been added to the rolls by the end of last week. [...] But hundreds more could show up at the polls only to find they cannot vote. The office has flagged 1,448 registrations as incomplete, and as of last week had yet to process 11,500 more.

A Washington Post analysis found nearly three times the number of flagged Democratic registrations as Republican. Broken down by race, no group had more flagged registrations than blacks.

This, in a heavily GOP county where records show that the number of blacks added to the rolls since 2000 approximately equals the number of non-Hispanic whites.

Sweet Christmas! How could such a thing happen? Who could possibly be to blame? I think the culprit is pretty obvious. It's the Democrats.

[The Jeb Bush-appointed Republican Secretary of State's office] said the real blame belongs with the Democratic-leaning groups that targeted minority voters and then turned in sloppy and incomplete registrations. The disproportionate number of black Democratic registrations flagged...is a function of "who those groups are targeting."

According to the article, a lot of the registrations are being flagged because of a new directive -- ignored by many counties, but diligently enforced in Duval -- that new voters must both sign an oath and check a box attesting to their citizenship. Failure to do either one is like crossing your fingers behind your back. Thanks, Duval County, for so diligently protecting our rights!

Oh, but the fun doesn't stop there! Let's take a plane to the city named "City We Most Often Fly To" by furdell.com three years running! That's right, it's...Las Vega$!!!

If the stuff in Jacksonville irked you, you're gonna love this...

[An out-of-state firm called Voters Outreach of America, aka America Votes] has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats.

"We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assistant to get those from me," said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.

Employees "allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands" of registrations got trashed.

As Talking Points Memo has discovered, Voters Outreach of America is "Paid for by the Republican National Committee."

Why does it not surprise me that, when faced with a clear choice between Good and Evil, half of America chooses evil? Don't get me wrong, I think only about 5% of that group realizes what it's doing. But I'm pretty sure Darth Vader could get half the popular vote. And that's even if he was running for reelection after having just exploded a peaceful planet.

***UPDATE!***
That GOP-funded group that was shredding Dem. registrations in Nevada? Yeah, they did it in Oregon too. Oh, and stay tuned -- other states couldn't be far behind.

Back in late April, the Sinclair Broadcast Group ordered its seven ABC stations not to broadcast an episode of Nightline that honored America's then-under-600 killed troops in Iraq.

In a statement online, the Sinclair group said the "Nightline" program "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."

So, showing pictures and saying the names of dead soldiers is a political statement. Fair enough.

Fast forward to nowish. The Sinclair Broadcast Group is ordering its network affiliates -- including "all six of the major broadcast networks in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Pennsylvania" -- to pre-empt primetime broadcasting in favor of an anti-Kerry documentary, Stolen Honor. They will be running the documentary commercial-free and categorizing it as a news item (and not, for example, free political advertising).

Sounds like an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign. This one's going to be hard to defend -- or is it?

Sinclair Group's Vice President for Corporate Relations on CNN:

However, the accusations coming from Terry McAuliffe and others, is it because they are some elements of this that may reflect poorly on John Kerry? That it's somehow an in-kind contribution of George Bush?

If you use that logic and reasoning, that means every car bomb in Iraq would be an in-kind contribution to John Kerry[...]And that's just nonsense.

This is news. I can't change the fact that these people decided to come forward today.

So it seems that reporting on dead people in Iraq either is, or isn't, an in-kind contribution to the Kerry campaign, depending on what action the Sinclair Group is defending that month.

That was the best line in last night's debate. According to Kerry, Bush's claim that Kerry's tax plan would raise taxes on 900,000 small businesses was a distortion, because that claim loosely defines "small business owner" -- so loosely that, for claiming $84 income from a timber company he co-owns on his 2001 tax form, even Bush himself counts as a small business owner. Bush's response:

BUSH: I own a timber company?

(LAUGHTER)

That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)

Need some wood?

(LAUGHTER)

I gotta say, it was pretty funny. Unfortunately, the Dems won't be able to get much mileage out of this one. What Kerry said was fundamentally correct: by the standards of the Bush claim, Bush himself counts as a small business owner for claiming $84 from a business he co-owns.

Unfortunately, Kerry's likely (and ironic) source, factcheck.whatever, made a mistake when it described the company, Lone Star Trust, as a timber-growing enterprise. It is in fact an oil-and-gas concern. So, the Dems can't use the "Need some wood?" soundbite, alas.

Dear friend,

As I promised you, I will not reveal your name to people who would otherwise have your head on a pike, because I am the soul of charity. However, I didn't say anything about posting open letters on the internet. So that's just what I'm going to do.

I was shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that you are undecided. As you know, I'm a Florida voter too. In the interest of making my vote count twice, I shall endeavor to help you make up your mind in a way that totally agrees with me. Join me, won't you?

There's a new Internet cliche in town, taken from last night's debate. And it's...

"You forgot Poland."

There's already a website.

I've got a fever. And the only cure... is MORE POLAND!

Apparently you can add Alan Keyes -- who called homosexuals in general and Mary Cheney specifically selfish hedonists -- can now be added to the list of Republican officials whose daughters are lesbians. Young Maya Keyes evidently had her own website in which she was quite open about being, well...pro-Bush. (I hate that joke.) And yes, I am aware that I am the last person with internet access to find out about all this.

The list Alan Keyes joins includes Dick Cheney of course, but also probably George W. Bush, if you get a few drinks in the twins. Heck, you could probably get them to make out...

In his grand tradition of travelling to third world hellholes and helping them run a democracy, Jimmy Carter has travelled to Florida -- poor bastard -- and found that "basic international requirements" are not being met by the state's voting apparatus.

Carter touches on stuff we all knew about, like the effort to get Nader on the ballot; a "fumbling attempt" to disenfranchise 22,000 black voters; and the obvious biases of everyone who works for the President's brother. But it does sort of put things in perspective. I mean, don't we usually send him to other places where democracy doesn't work?

So I was reading this article from Slate -- oh, by the way, I'm sure you've figured this out from my last couple of entry titles, but I've had a few too many tonight. As you can see, drinking improves my grammar and spelling, as well as my dart scores oddly enough.

So anyway, the article is about statements Kerry has made leading up to the first debates...statements that suggest the president is -- gasp! -- functionally retarded. Yeah, that's not exactly going to make the front page.

This got me thinking about just how much the current presidential election -- like all things in life -- can be compared to that greatest of Rocky movies, Rocky III. Yes, I know I've written about Rocky more than once, but hear me out...this time it's relevant, I swear!

See, in one corner you have Bush -- who represents Rocky in this analogy, by the way. In the previous film, he pulled off an unlikely defeat against reigning champion Al Gore, and now Bush is the title defender. But Bush is starting to go soft. Suddenly this John Kerry guy -- played in the movie by Mr. T -- shows up and starts talking smack.

REPORTER
What do you think of the President's chances in the upcoming debate?

KERRY
Actually, I pity the fool.

REPORTER
What's your prediction?

KERRY
My prediction? Pain.

Seeing as how my analogy is perfect and flawless and absolutely insurmountably correct in all ways, I offer the following Election Prophecy.

1. In November, Kerry will defeat Bush.

2. Al Gore will approach Bush and offer to train him for the 2008 rematch -- in exchange for an unnamed favor. Bush will accept.

3. Gore will help Bush regain his Eye of the Tiger.

4. Bush, wearing Gore's underwear, will regain the presidency in 2008.

5. As payback for the training and the Tiger Eye stuff, Bush will be forced to sit down with Gore and perform a manual recount of Florida votes from the 2000 election.

GORE
Now, when you beat me, you beat me by five hundred thirty-seven... FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN... votes. Now do you know what something like that does to a man of my intelligence?

BUSH
I thought you said you got over it.

GORE
I lied.

This one's for Pup:

"So you've decided to move to Canada."

Today, Electoral Vote details a nightmare scenario in which Kerry wins the popular vote and the electoral vote and still manages to lose the election.

According to the Votemaster, if Colorado passes a popular referendum to split up its electoral college votes proportionally...

If Bush is 1% ahead in Colorado, he would get 5 votes in the electoral college and Kerry would get 4, changing the score to Kerry 269, Bush 269. If West Virginia Bush elector Richie Robb votes for a Republican other than Bush, as he has threatened, then the score becomes Kerry 269, Bush 268. [Because 270 votes are required to win the election, i]n both cases the election is decided by the new House with each state getting one vote. In all scenarios, the Republicans will control the majority of delegations in the new House, so the House will elect Bush.

D'oh!

Depending on who controls the Senate, Cheney or Edwards becomes vice president. Could go either way.

Hey, that sounds like a sitcom waiting to happen. In each episode, Bush whips up some cockamamie scheme to maim Edwards, but then at the last minute Bush is won over by Edwards's charm and decides not to spring his trap. But then he forgets about the trap and gets caught in it himself! And then he tries again next week. Laughs for the whole family. Oh, but wait...

If the Democrats hang onto the Louisiana Senate seat, as they have for over 100 years. there is a good chance the Senate will be split 50-50. In that case, Cheney gets to cast the deciding vote.

The system works!

I've yammered before about how political discourse is stone cold dead in this country. I'm starting to think it was slowly choked to death in the iron grip of Local Morning Talk Radio, through a steady process of misinformation and polarization.

This morning during my commute I was subjected to some Morning Zoo!!!!!, during which two political commentators -- one of whom was, of course, completely racist (he suggested, for example, that Muslim men sometimes castrate themselves to avoid having sex with their sisters) -- debated how America should treat people who donate funds to "terrorist organizations." The slightly-less-racist commentator argued that we don't treat the Body Shop -- smelly mall store of girl soaps -- any differently, even though it gives money to, and I quote, "Arab organizations." When Slightly-More-Racist guy asked if these Arab organizations were also "terrorist organizations," Slightly-Less-Racist guy kinda mumbled something in a high-pitched voice: "Well, you know, yeah."

Now, anyone listening to that program would come away with the distinct impression that the Body Shop has been donating funds to organizations that hope to explode our buildings. Anyone listening to that program and still possessing half a brain would realize how completely ludicrous that is. But only an information addict like myself could tell you that "donations" means "a humanitarian award in 2002" and "Arab organization" means "Palestinian right-of-return group."

The Body Shop does not have a position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The four winners of the 2002 Human Rights Award, including the National Committee for the Defence of the Rights of the Internally Displaced, were chosen by an independent jury, including international human rights experts, for being the best examples of peaceful grassroots activism on the issue of housing within a human rights framework, regardless of their religion, ethnicity or nationality.

Sounds like terrorists to me!

Rassa-frassum. Okay, I just had to get that off my chest. Go about your daily business.

From Zell Miller's speech last night at the RNC:

[1940 Republican presidential candidate you've never heard of Wendell Wilkie] made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom", he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

How dare the Democrats nominate a candidate for president! This election is weakening Democracy, I tell you!!!

Also, lack of bipartisanship? Totally the Democrats fault. They started it. Or...something?

Hey, kids! Help the President find the Republican National Convention schedule in a Google search! But watch out -- only one of the ten results is the real schedule! The others are spoofs, and if you give George the wrong one, it could be a distaster to his campaign!

Can you guess the correct link in just two clicks? (For the correct link, flip your computer monitor over.)

For weeks I've been stewing over the fact that political discourse, like rock 'n' roll, is entirely dead. (Don't argue with me about rock 'n' roll, either. Every new rock song sounds exactly like every rock song from fifteen years ago, and if they all sounded like the same good song it wouldn't be so bad. Rock fans just aren't willing to admit that their genre was replaced by disco, then pop, and now rap. It's over.)

Wow, that was some tangent. Anyway, it seems to me that nobody is capable of having an intelligent conversation about politics, because it's turned into a kind of sporting event. Just as you can't successfully argue the benefits of the Red Sox over the Yankees, you can no longer sway anyone in a poltical debate.

I'm not just talking about conservatives, either. From what I've seen, both sides of the fence are completely pig-headed and ignorant. Kerry-worshippers are unwilling to even hear that he has no political agenda or plan to speak of; Bush-worshippers refuse to admit that he is, well, completely awful in every way. And it's no use trying to get through to anyone.

The other day I overheard a guy boasting about his new t-shirt that says "Kerry Sucks." 'Great,' sarcastically thought I, 'that'll start constructive political conversations with strangers.' I imagine him in front of his television on Election Night, big foam-rubber #1 hand at the ready, keg chilled, just waiting for those numbers to come in. Go team!

When Kerry spoke at the Democratic National Convention, I was disappointed by his speech, which mostly consisted of criticizing Bush. "I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a vice president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws." Well, duh. I'd kind of hope that goes without saying. Here I was waiting for him to say what he would do as president, and all I'm getting is "I won't screw up in the wide variety of ways that the last guy did" -- certainly an important message, but one that I had already assumed.

But when I brought up these complaints with my (liberal, obviously) friends, they seemed almost offended. "Did you even listen to the speech?" Well, yeah. He didn't say much of anything. I think he doesn't want jobs shipped overseas or something, but that's really not a concern of mine. I'd like to know what he plans to do in Iraq, and with the economy and such. (My friends exasperatingly shake their heads and ignore me.)

So that's what it's all come to. I am left returning to my original postulate: "No matter who we elect president, we're all completely and unredeemingly doomed." America: Land of the Ignorant. We the People are no longer intelligent enough to elect our own leaders.

From the Instapundit "Indeed" Counter Challenge, that is. I'm afraid that, yesterday, while patting the Internet on the back for dragging John Kerry through the mud, Mr. Insta uttered his 360th "Indeed" on his blog, thus elimidating talking stuffed bear Pup from the competition for the luxurious grand prize.

But we do have a lovely parting gift... a trip to Las Vegas!

What's that? He's going already, this weekend?

Huh. Gift of the magi. Never mind, then.

As someone who actively demonstrated against a pre-emptive Iraq invasion, and also as someone who publicly questioned the veracity of Colin Powell's United Nations presentation on weapons of mass destruction, I am in the unique position of being able to say "I told you so!" to almost anyone and everyone I know. It's a good feeling.

(Of course, it would have been nicer if all that work could have actually done anything to prevent the war, but I'll take what I can get.)

Now, thanks to the crystal clear vision that is hindsight, lots of people all over the world can join me in my "I Told You So" chorus. Today we examine...the French. Read on for a stroll down Recent History Lane.

Andrew got his wish from one Mr. Kaus! Predictably, his take on the Swift Boat Veterans for Taking Down Kerry is... that it's disasterous for Kerry. BIG SHOCK.

After bringing up pertinent issues such as whether Kerry was actually across the physical Cambodia-Vietnam border, or just very near the border, 35 years ago, Kaus swiftly un-dismisses the Swifties using his trademark, the totally un-annoying P.P.P.P.P.S. postscript.

P.P.P.S.: Respectable big-time journalist friends who met with the anti-Kerry vets recently found them a lot more credible than expected. Sorry, Note! 3:21 A.M.

I love it when political blogs do this. You should believe something told to Mickey Kaus by his unnamed, big-time respectable journalist friends. But not, you know, actual, researched news articles contradicting their credibility, which he hasn't bothered mentioning.

I think the proverbial shark has been jumped.

I can't help but notice that Kausfiles has been uncharacteristically silent on the subject of Swift Boat Veterans for Smearing Kerry. Very interesting.

P.S. What I mean is that Kaus should probably post something about the ads. Like he should either defend them in some slimy way, or admit the wrongness of the whole thing. But conservative bloggers seem to prefer ignoring the problem.

P.P.S. Kausfiles is dumb.

I just wanted to make sure all you guys know about the best... Bushism... ever:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."?Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Your president, ladies and gentlemen.

Dateline, where else: Florida.

A computer crash erased detailed records from Miami-Dade County's first widespread use of touchscreen voting machines, raising again the specter of election troubles in Florida, where the new technology was supposed to put an end to such problems.

Just preparing you for the inevitable shitstorm that will be the November presidential election.

There are several widely known methods for redundantly protecting against data loss. Is Florida using any of those methods? Nobody knows, since the computer systems used to store election results, and the source code of the software that runs those systems, are not open to the public, as they should be.

USA Today hired celebrity nutjob Ann Coulter to write a daily opinion column from the Democratic National Convention. Sadly, it was so incomprehensible and unfunny that they decided not to run it.

Brian Gallagher, editor of USA TODAY's editorial page...said the column had "basic weaknesses in clarity and readability that we found unacceptable."

HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAA!!!!! Ahem. Coulter, in a statement yesterday, countered:

"USA Today doesn't like my 'tone,' humor, sarcasm, etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them."

Did she just make an argument, and then shoot it down? Anyway, in USA Today's defense, Coulter's article really does make absolutely no sense. She talks a lot about the "free speech zone," aka "razor-wire lined protest pen," but doesn't seem to understand who it's for, nor the fact that nobody intends to use it.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall.

Ummm, no, Ann, they're putting the people who protest the DNC in the cage -- and even that wasn't mandatory. More confusing is Coulter's narcissistic insistence that Republican women are more attractive than Democrats.

Say what?

Listen, Ann -- and yes, I know you're reading this -- you're way off base. I mean, it's not like I was protesting the war because I don't want to see people die or something. You describe she-Democrats as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons." I don't know what "pie wagon" means, but it sounds great, and I love every single other thing you mentioned. I even looked up "hirsute" just to make sure I like that too. And if "pie wagon" means she's going to bake me a delicious pie, then sign me up! No Republican has ever baked me a pie!!! How do you explain that, Ann Coulter? HMM??

Welcome to the Furdell.com countdown to the election! We'll be counting down the vast number of ways the administration intends to disenfranchise voters. And so it begins!

And where else should we start, but James & Andrew's begrudging hometown of Jacksonville, FL? Ooh, the swing state of swing states! What are those rascally Republicans up to this time?

Apparently, after a ceremony in which about 200 immigrants became naturalized citizens of Our Great and Free Country, the new citizens were asked to fill out voter registration cards. Oh, how nice! They're new citizens, so now they get to vote! All is right in the world!

Oh, wait two seconds: the party affiliation is already filled in. That's right, immigrants -- whose best interests are of course represented by the Bush administration -- were tricked into registering Republican. Brilliant.

Remember, there's still two or three months until general elections, and about 400 different ways the Bush administration can disenfranchise the nation! Join us on a journey that can only end in postponing the vote indefinitely for security reasons! America, the beautiful, with ample waves of grain! Or something! I'm feeling so patriotic right now that I'm going to beat up a foreigner.

"Today, because America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we're helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer."
--Your Doofus President, Yesterday morning

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy. There are reasons why it's a good thing that he no longer leads his own country. But why in the world is Bush trying to convince us we're safer, of all things?

Let's see: we dismantled a government that, as it turns out, had no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever, nor the means to produce same; and that, as it turns out, had no connection to our actual enemies. So in other words, they posed no threat to us. And in the process, we've lost any international credibility we may have once had; we've stretched our armed forces to the limit; and best of all, we've further pissed off the already-problematic terrorist contingent. In fact, our government is now telling us that terrorists plan to kill us for voting. Great. I feel so safe now. Good thing Saddam isn't in power anymore, because that was really keeping me up at night.

Is it even remotely possible for Bush to be re-elected at this point? And if so, does that mean everybody has lost their minds?

Guesses for the Instapundit "Indeed." Challenge are in!

I'm not eligible for the prize, but for the sake of competing, I'm going with 441.

I"I"C Tote Board
TARGET DATE: Nov. 2, 2004, 11:59 PM EST

---------> current count: 321
Pup: 352
Rebel Dad: 366
Andrew: 375
Pinz: 397
LiAps: 424
James: 441
Lee Katz: 450
Kimberly: 481
Isabel: 536
Ko: 601

Who will win the fabulous mystery prize? Stay tuned.

From "Slate reads My Life so you don't have to:"

Page 742: Strom Thurmond, 94, tells Chelsea [Clinton], "If I were 70 years younger, I'd court you!"

EWWWW.

If you've ever surfed around looking at political blogs, you've probably come across Instapundit at some point. Its creator, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, has been unfailingly pro-Iraq war since the beginning, and in fact is probably the foremost of the "hawk" bloggers.

Which is why it's so much fun trying to watch him squeeze around the increasingly bad news surrounding the war. No mention, for example, of the Ashcroft "torture is OK" memo, or newfound revelations regarding favorable treatment of Halliburton. While other on-line conservative pundits who actually are capable of introspection have discussed their dissatisfaction with the Bush administration lately, Insta has been chronically unable to admit that the war on terror maybe isn't in the best of hands.

But most hilarious are Insta's little tics. Sometimes, he'll post a link and say, "read the whole thing". More often, and this is my favorite, he'll post an excerpt, and give his trademark, one-word response:

"Indeed."

That's it. Indeed, period. That's often the limit to the good professor's commentary: nothing else needs to be said on the topic. Here's an example post of his on the Plame scandal:

Who were the Adminstration leakers but, more importantly, who in the CIA authorized Wilson's strange, off-budget, journey to Niger and why? Why is this more important? Because it could show people in our own intelligence agencies working against the wishes of our government, not just standard-issue partisan battling that goes on every day inside the Beltway.

Indeed.

Yeah, indeed. Indeed, indeed. Whatever.

Anyway, I thought it would be fun to count up the number of times Instapundit has used the word "Indeed." just like that. What I didn't realize is that it would require a Herculean effort on my part. Instapundit.com alone has been around since 2001, and a search earlier today on his site reveals that the word "Indeed." was used in an incredible 309 posts.

So, I thought I would set up a fun graphical counter here at the Department of Homeland Furdellity. The rules are:

- Each time Instapundit posts or updates a post with the infamous one-word sentence, the Instapundit "Indeed." Counter (IIC) is incremented by one.

- Posts that contain or eventually contain the sentence more than once still only count as one.

- "indeed" and "Indeed," and other variations don't count. It has to be a standalone, one-word sentence.

- In the comments section for this post, give us the number you think the counter will show at midnight Eastern time on the night of the 2004 presidential elections (November 2). One entry per person (leave your e-mail address or URL with the comment), and once a number has been guessed, that person has dibs and it can't be guessed again. The winner is whoever's closest; he or she gets a prize to be determined, at my whim. In case of a tie, it's whoever's closest without going over, in the spirit of The Price is Right. Entries close on June 30th.

Without further ado, here's the counter. Oh wait... grrrr, it's gone up by two since I started writing this. This is going to be hard work.

Voila. Enjoy!

UPDATE: Ha ha, nothing to update. Just playin'.

Looks like Prez is consulting an attourney about the Plame investigation. Hopefully we'll eventually know who outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, but more importantly, how will we ever find out exactly what kinds of awesome missions she was sent on?

Perhaps our only hope is to read this week's installment of VALERIE PLAME ADVENTURES!!!

Gadzooks! Can our heroine disarm the dictator and save her husband -- all without revealing her secret identity? What will happen next?!?! Be here next week for an exciting new installment of -- VALERIE PLAME ADVENTURES!

So I'm told that the Bush Administration wants you to remember John Kerry's infamous quote that "I
actually did vote for the $87 billion...before I voted against it."

Now, we already know that the Bush administration reads Furdell.com and incorporates our ideas as policy. That being the case, I have a message for George: do you really want this election to be decided based on quotes taken out of context? Or even in context, for that matter?

And another thing, while I have your ear, Mr President: a war for oil was all well and good, but how about a war for gasoline? Cause oh man, that stuff is expensive.

I'm going on vacation this week, which means not a single Furdell will be in the country. (Or at least none of the important ones.) If everyone gets anthrax while we're gone, I swear it's a coincidence.

Speaking of terror, I'll take this opportunity to rebuke some more comments from commenter Chris.

They may have showed them at the time, but I haven't seen a World Trade Center video, based on why we are fighting this war on terrorism, in about 2 years. Bush used one image in a commercial and all the liberal activists went crazy. Why? Because it reminds Americans why we are fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Did you know that every time you remember something, the memory gets rewritten in your brain with a whole new set of perceptions and links? Often the new memory barely resembles reality. An interesting, totally unrelated fact.

Back on the subject at hand, it'll interest you to know that those liberal activists were in fact firefighters and victims' families; and that they were upset because they believed Bush was exploiting the tragedy for political gain.

If I had seen the video, I probably would have responded by putting my hand through the TV screen. It enrages me that human beings would do this to someone else. It further pushes me to believe what we are doing is the right thing and the ultimate defeat of the Islam-o-fascists is something all countries should strive for.

You don't seem nearly so upset by what white human beings were doing to Arab human beings at Abu Ghraib. Innocent people died there too -- do we American fascists therefore deserve to be ultimately defeated as well? (Correct answer: "No, but now I understand why those guys are so pissed at us. Hmm.")

In conclusion, your jingoism disturbs me. It disturbs me so much that I'm going to leave the country! Goodbye, you obese bunch of losers!

I had assumed that the conservative response to the Iraq prison torture mess was going to boil down to something like: "Torture isn't so bad! In fact it's expected, nay, required in a war of this magnitude!"

I was totally wrong; the token response is instead to blame the press for releasing the photos of the abuse. HAH! Forget about the abuse, it's revealing the abuse that's really causing problems!

But wait a second -- isn't it the responsibility of the press to publicize exactly this kind of thing -- namely, governmental abuses? If the press had failed to publish those photos, it would have been just that -- a failure. Sure, non-photo coverage is powerful too, but the term "photojournalism" exists for a reason, and those pictures were news.

So if you're thinking the press is to blame for people getting their heads cut off, consider this: our government does what it does knowing that, if the press finds out, so will we. It is not the responsibility of our newspapers to censor themselves in the hopes of saving lives; it is the responsibility of our leaders to do the right thing or be held accountable.

Mike Luckovich is the bomb, as usual.

You can't look away from... The Photo That Lost The War.

Never mind all the other photos of abuse from the Abu Ghurayb prison in Baghdad. This is the one that sums up the war for me: a female U.S. soldier with a goofy grin on her face and a cigarette dangling out of the side of her mouth, pointing at a prisoner's crotch and giving a big thumbs up.

Exactly what kind of chain of events could lead anyone into thinking this was a good idea?

"That's all right, I'm sure those men of Islam don't mind being tied up, stripped naked, and made into the submissive sex slaves of an American woman. And, of course, once you've done all that, be sure to take photos for everyone to see. They'll love it, trust me."

http://johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

Q: You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

BUSH: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.

It sounds even worse with the 10-second pauses between sentences. Like a third-grader giving a book report without having read the book.