Here's a bit of a surprise: a German magazine endorsing Bush!

Davids Medienkritik: Another October Surprise: Germany's Largest Newspaper Endorses Bush

That would normally make the score 10-8 Bush, but since the same link points to another German magazine that endorses Kerry, we'll call it a wash and leave the score 9-8.

After reading this endorsement, though, you won't care what the score is. You'll have made up your mind.

The endorsement score is now, by my count, 9-8 for Bush.

Bush endorsements

Another endorsement for Bush, from the Hudson Star Observer:

"Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has not made the case that he should replace President George W. Bush. Rather, Kerry�s campaign has confirmed the charge that Kerry tends to be an opportunist who changes positions when it suits his political ambitions."

UPDATE: that's apparently the endorsement of the HSO's parent company - it's also printed in the River Falls Journal. I'm counting both as a single endorsement.

WisPolitics.com is also listing the Daily Jefferson County Union and the Janesville Gazette among their list of Bush endorsements. The former has no website that I can find, and I can't find the endorsement on the latter's website. Steve, do you get that paper?

Kerry endorsements

The Badger Herald, one of the UW Madison student papers, has published an endorsement for Kerry:

While both Bush and Kerry have placed significant emphasis on education, both viewing it as a long-term solution to job loss in this country, the measures described by Kerry better benefit America’s universities. Bush’s plans, with all their practicality, have emphasized the importance of increasing the capabilities and enrollment in our nation’s technical schools. Here at UW, Bush’s plans simply do not hold the significance of Kerry’s proposals.

I'm not sure whether I consider this honest and straightforward, or small-minded and selfish. At least they didn't say Bush wants to reinstate the draft.

I went up to Madison today and got a great picture of John Kerry for Lance.

How about a little Old Testament today?

For Mr. Pterodactyl, although I don't see his quote on his website anymore:

Ecclesiastes 9:11

Again I saw under the sun that the race is not won by the swift, nor the battle by the valiant, nor a livelihood by the wise, nor riches by the shrewd, nor favor by the experts; for a time of calamity comes to all alike.

And for Grandpa John:

Ecclesiastes 10:2

The wise man's understanding turns him to his right; the fool's understanding turns him to his left.

Hmmm...that last one doesn't really account for Steve, does it?

Steve Re: Movie Review

Several friends and I got together to watch Fahrenheit 911 followed by FahrenHype 911. This was the first time that I had seen Michael Moore’s movie and due to all the press, both positive and negative, I was quite interested in seeing the actual movie itself.

To purport that this movie is a documentary requires quite a stretch in the definition of ‘documentary’. It does, I expect, document Michael Moore’s ideology and opinion, but as far as documenting actualities outside of that sphere, it fails miserably.

In my 10 years of teaching and administrating, I somewhat enjoyed hearing the creative ways that students of all ages used to ‘slant the news’ and bend the facts to their own benefit. Even the youngest students were most excellent in this talent. Most of them, like Moore, lacked a quality of sophistication in this skill, however.

The movie was far too lengthy, poorly filmed, and its attempts at humor were of little cleverness. It was quite a burden to stay focused on it the entire time. One particular woman whose son was killed in Iraq was used extensively– so extensively that it seemed that her grief took second place to her landing a ‘starring role’. Manufactured wailing in a public place inhibits my empathy.

It’s somewhat scary to think that Fahrenheit 911 was apparently very popular, garnered rave reviews and awards. I hope that it is just the far, far lefties that are applauding this film. I could not see any liberal with integrity viewing these two movies back-to-back and not be embarrassed by Moore’s project.

Ron Silver’s comment in ‘Hype 911 becomes even more germane now. "Given enough video tape, I could make Michael Moore look like an anorexic right-winger." The magic of media. Lysergic Acid Diethylamide used to have that effect on me. (Only taken medicinally, of course.)

The Endorsement Race

President

Four new endorsements for John Kerry give him the current lead, 7 to 6.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Both presidential candidates are decent men, undeserving of the demonization they’ve endured during this campaign.

That said, there is a clear choice in this election, and that would be John Kerry for president.

Kerry’s record - Vietnam combat vet to anti-war activist to effective U.S. senator - speaks of courage, patriotism and a balanced and thoughtful view of this country, its needs and its role in the world.

The LaCrosse Tribune:

Kerry demonstrated during the three presidential debates, that he has the intellectual skills needed to lead. Kerry will be able to assemble an administration well-equipped to deal with a dangerous and complicated world.

The Capitol Times:

It is easy to forget, after so bitter and dispiriting a campaign, what made Kerry so very appealing to so many American voters in the first place.

John Kerry has, repeatedly through a public career that now spans 35 years, been courageous enough to sacrifice the comforts of his class, his educational experience and his prominence to stand with those seeking to correct our country's course. It would be absurd to suggest now, at so critical a stage in this career, that he would be unwilling to do so again.

Kerry has the experience and intelligence to begin to rebuild what we have lost: the respect of much of the rest of the world.

And the Green Bay News Chronicle:

The amazing thing about the reign of George W. Bush is that nearly half the populace wants him to return for another four years. With apologies to Abraham Lincoln, it seems you can fool half of the people all of the time.

Truly, the Bush II presidency has been nothing short of disastrous.

U.S. Senate

By my count, Feingold has a 10 to 1 lead over Michels in newspaper endorsements.

Here's the list:

Feingold: Wausau Daily Herald, Chippewa Herald, La Crosse Tribune, Oshkosh Northwestern, The Capital Times, Appleton Post-Crescent, Racine Journal Times, Wisconsin State Journal, Green Bay News Chronicle, Kenosha News,

Michels: Green Bay Press Gazette

WisPolitics.com's election page also lists the St. Paul Pioneer Press as endorsing Feingold - apparently, this foreign paper is trying to influence an election in our great state. I recommend immediate invasion, just as long as the U.N. agrees.

The Wausau Daily Herald endorses Kerry, although it's not much of an endorsement:

"Our conclusion has been that, on balance, Kerry shares more of our values than Bush does. He earns our endorsement.

In many cases we've been disappointed by Kerry's lack of specifics or his promises to cure all our ills by repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy. We've weighed those disappointments against our dismay over Bush's failings.

The next paragraph is about all you need to know about this paper's philosophy:

Certainly there are other issues upon which voters can base their decisions. We did not discuss the widening gap in wealth distribution in this country, and the government's role in closing that gap.

And then they get wishy-washy.

We offer our views only as a starting point for undecided voters - our attempt to cut through the competing exaggerated claims of the campaigns and reveal some truth.

By all means, if you're one of the undecided, do your own research. Seek out reliable sources of information and weigh the candidates' values against your own. Consult your conscience.

Then vote - for Bush, Kerry or the third-party or independent candidate of your choice. "

That's the Wausau Daily Herald (thanks to Lakeshore Laments for pointing it out), coming out for Kerry. WisPolitics also has the Lakeland Times endorsing Bush (no link available).

That puts us at 6-3 for Bush, still pending the Journal Sentinel and Capital Times.

Here's an article I suggesting a slightly new theory on what killed the dinosaurs. I was going to excerpt parts, but enjoyed it so much I'm posting the whole thing. Page about halfway down for a touch of commentary.

Science News Article | Reuters.com

Day from Hell May Have Killed Off Dinosaurs
Wed Oct 27, 2004 09:32 AM ET

By Alistair Bell
YAXCOPOIL, Mexico (Reuters) - One minute you're a big T-Rex, the next you're toast.

Challenging conventional theory, new scientific research suggests the dinosaurs may have been scorched into extinction by an asteroid collision 65 million years ago that unleashed 10 billion times more power than the Hiroshima nuclear bomb.

Earth's temperatures soared, the sky turned red and trees all over the planet burst into flames, said atmospheric physicist Brian Toon of the University of Colorado.

Among the few survivors would have been animals living in water or burrowed in the ground like turtles, small mammals and crocodiles.

"Essentially, if you were exposed you were broiled alive. That is probably what happened to the dinosaurs. They were big creatures that didn't have anywhere to hide," said Toon.

Scholarly debate over how the dinosaurs died is fierce and the theory put forward by Toon and others adds one more twist to the greatest forensic mystery of all time.

Despite opposition from some scientists, the idea that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid that slammed into Mexico's Yucatan peninsula has won general acceptance since it was first mooted in the early 1990s.

Under that argument, academics say the giant reptiles mostly froze or starved to death when a huge cloud of particles kicked up by the meteorite blocked the world's sunlight for months.

But Toon, the co-author of a study published in the Geological Society of America Bulletin in May, reckons the dinosaurs' end was even more dramatic.

Creatures living near ground zero would have been vaporized immediately while those in the Caribbean area and southern United States would have drowned in 330-feet-high (100-meter) tsunamis when the asteroid impacted near today's Gulf of Mexico shoreline at a speed of 33,750 mph (54,000 kph).

Then, a column of red-hot steam and dust soared thousands of miles into space and most of it fell back toward Earth within a few hours, turning the heavens into hell.

GIANT FIRE

"The entire sky would be radiating at you. It would be like standing next to a giant fire; you'd be burned very severely," Toon said, whose research is based on mathematical and computer models.

Land dinosaurs all around the world perished from the intense heat of several hundred degrees Fahrenheit, said Toon.

He agrees with other scientists that the dust cloud later cooled and blocked out the sun, but says the land dinosaurs were already history by that time.

The darkness finished off many of the remaining marine reptiles and fish by killing plankton and disrupting the food chain, said Toon.

But those views are being challenged by some researchers who say the Yucatan meteorite was not as great a catastrophe as first thought.

Here comes the best part:

A theory gaining ground is that global warming combined with another asteroid collision in an unknown location other than the Yucatan was what cut short the dinosaurs' reign.

Got that? Global warming killed the dinosaurs! If only they had listened to the French!

Here's the rest of the article, including a few fun quotes.

The academics are unlikely to agree soon on what caused the demise of the Triceratops, Sauropods and their kin but in the jungly Yucatan peninsula, locals are in no doubt.

"Everyone knows that the asteroid here killed the dinosaurs. They teach it in the schools," said Isabel Lopez, a shop owner in the village of Yaxcopoil.

"It's a shame what happened," said schoolboy Daniel Tzeu, 11, lamenting the dinosaurs' end. He was standing near a bore hole in the village dug by University of Arizona scientists probing for rock samples in a crater caused by the asteroid.

The crater, around 100 miles in radius is now buried 1/2 mile underground, partly beneath the sea.

The University of Arizona has found "shocked" rocks it says could only have been damaged by an asteroid collision.

David Kring, one of the University of Arizona scientists who proved the Yucatan crater was the asteroid crash site, agrees the catastrophe killed off the land dinosaurs but doubts they all burned to death.

Many starved when plants were destroyed by fires, a subsequent period of global darkness and acid rain.

"If you knock out the vegetation you really have undermined the food chain," he said.

WRONG ASTEROID?

But Princeton University geologist Gerta Keller disagrees that the asteroid put paid to the dinosaurs. She says asteroid debris, known as ejecta, found embedded in ancient rocks shows the Yucatan meteorite hit Earth many millennial before the dinosaurs vanished.

"The ejecta everywhere is in sediment layers that pre-date the mass extinction by about 300,000 years," she said.

Global warming caused by 400,000 years of repeated volcanic eruptions in western India weakened the dinosaurs and then another asteroid struck earth, although scientists have yet to find its crater, Keller said.

"It's a double whammy at that point," she said.

A combination of the two disasters deprived the Earth of oxygen and the dinosaurs probably suffocated to death, she said.

An email received by Kathryn Lopez at The Corner::

"Dear Ms. Lopez:

Has anyone else noticed that the weather forecasts for Nov. 2 appear to show rain in almost all of the places where the race is tight? Ohio, Pennsylvania, NH, Wisconsin, Minnesota -- all have rain in the farecast, some of it possibly severe.

Considering how unenthused Kerry-ites are for their candidate and how revved up Bush supporters are for theirs, I wonder how much the weather is going to play a factor next week.

Of course, if Kerry loses, the Dems will probably just claim that Bush stole the election via his environmental polices - yet another thing to blame on global warming!

Keep up the good work! "

It's so obvious! This is why Bush opposed the Kyoto Treaty: he wants global warming to produce more bad weather, which keeps turnout low, which in turn makes it easier to steal the election!

New column is up, and it's about some of the third- fourth- and fifth-party candidates on this year's Presidential ballot.

One interesting thing about Green Party nominee David Cobb that didn't quite make the cut:

Cobb was a leading advocate of the Greens pursuing a "Safe States" strategy in 2004 -- which means that, unlike with Nader in 2000, the Cobb will focus their attempts to win votes only in the states that are not close contests and would not endanger a Democratic national victory over Bush.

I wonder when they decided on that policy? Perhaps at a time when they expected Kerry to win handily?

According to this site, Cobb is on the ballot in 36 states, including Nevada, New Mexico, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin - all battleground states. He's also on the ballot in Michigan, Oregon, New Jersey, and Maryland, which aren't exactly battlegrounds, but are turning out a lot closer than they did four years ago.

I also think it's interesting that there are two "conservative" parties - the Republicans and Libertarians - on the ballot, but five "liberal" parties: the Democrats, Greens, Naders, Socialist Workers and Wisconsin (U.S.) Socialists.

If Bush wins Wisconsin by a razor-thin margin, it will be interesting to see what combinations of liberal voters could have put Kerry over the top, if those voters had only chosen the Democrats.

The Wheeler Report has begun to post endorsements in various political races around the state. Here's a roundup.

Bush Endorsements

The Oshkosh Northwestern:

We believe that the leadership of George W. Bush during the past four years shows a man who resolutely stays on the issues that affect Americans. He is in the best position to lead America in the next four years.

Kerry, by contrast, has decades in politics and little major legislation to show for it. He demonstrates a naivete that reflects a lack of thinking on the facts.

Beloit Daily News:

George W. Bush has shown the essence of true leadership, putting a frightened and hurting nation on his back and carrying it forward. He has earned a second term.

Wisconsin State Journal:

It comes down to this: President Bush tells people what he will do. Sen. John Kerry tells people what they want to hear. Bush is confident in action even when mistaken. Kerry is comfortable in passivity even at high cost.

Appleton Post Crescent, in a half-hearted endorsement:

Bush has at least demonstrated he can be a strong leader, particularly in the days following Sept. 11. Kerry, in the Senate or in this campaign, hasn’t sufficiently made the case that he’s better in that regard.

Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter

Bush’s tax breaks will prove beneficial to the economy in the long run. The tax breaks let families keep more of their hard-earned money, and they give small businesses a needed boost. That’s particularly important in Manitowoc County, where small businesses will be counted on to replace many of the jobs lost in the manufacturing downturn.

Bush is right when he says that his positions on moral issues, particularly abortion, are more in line with mainstream America than are Kerry’s.

Kerry endorsements

Two so far: the Kenosha News (no link, thus no quote), and the Racine Journal Times:

The most impressive qualities that Kerry would bring to the job are his studied thoughtfulness and pragmatism. His history in Congress has shown an ability to compromise on issues and to consider other points of view. That has been sorely lacking in the Bush administration and is the root cause of some of its biggest failings.

That's 5 to 2 in favor of Bush so far, although I think we can pretty safely say that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Capitol Times will go for Kerry.

In the other statewide race, I count 5 endorsements for Feingold so far, to only one for Michels. Oddly, that's from the Green Bay Press Gazette, which is a relatively left-leaning newspaper:

The measuring sticks in an election point in different directions for the incumbent than they do for a challenger. The incumbent must be accountable for the legislative record in office while the challenger must prove only that he has the qualities to do a better job.

On these criteria, the Press-Gazette endorses the election of Tim Michels to the U.S. Senate.

I'll continue to keep score, as long as I only have to check the Wheeler Report to do it.

Gregg Easterbrook of Tuesday Morning Quarterback notes the Curse of the Redskins - that statistical coincidence in which the incumbent party always wins the Presidency if the Redskins win their final home game before Election Day, and the challenging party always wins if the Redskins lose.

How fitting the Packers should draw this assignment -- they're from a swing state, Wisconsin! TMQ has learned, on an exclusive basis, that the Democratic National Committee has been funneling donations to the Green Bay salary cap, while the Pentagon has secretly equipped Redskins quarterbacks with GPS-guided footballs. Remember, this is a Tuesday Morning Quarterback exclusive."

Steve Re: Kerry and Clinton in Church

I’m glad to see that presidential hopeful John Kerry has, most assuredly, got religion and will use his spirituality effectively if he is elected to our highest political office. I am a little curious that there is not more of an outcry from George Soros, The Washington Post, and The New York and Los Angeles Timeses. I would expect them, as well as many others on the left, to be screaming and pulling out their hair while spitting something in the likeness of ‘sprashun o’ church un’ stait’. But, there has been no gnashing of teeth, nor will I expect any. Why? Oh, yeah, they were speaking in a black church. Neither they nor most others on the left could conceive of blacks as having the level of sophistication as themselves and are backwards and superstitious so have to be approached at the prescientific level. And they are voters. ‘Yo, yo, Bro, I have been up on the mountain with Moses and Martin and I have a plan, too.’

‘Kin I git me a huntin’ license here?’

I found a couple of good jokes from Pat in NC.

1. The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse!
You cannot post
"Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shalt Not Lie"
in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile work environment.

2. A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person. The Democrat was very much impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and took $20. He kept $15 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5. Now perhaps you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

George Will is copying me, too:

Stretching the franchise - PittsburghLIVE.com

Even though the 1992 election saw the largest percentage increase in voter turnout since 1952, Bill Clinton quickly sought to address the supposed "crisis" of nonparticipation with the National Voter Registration Act -- a.k.a. "Motor Voter." It, Fund says, imposed "fraud-friendly" rules on the states, requiring them, for example, to register to vote anyone receiving a driver's license, and to offer mail-in registration with no identification required.

Mark Steyn is copying me again.

Mark Steyn: No time for Kerry's Europhile delusions

"...if there's four words I never want to hear again, it's 'prescription drugs from Canada.' I'm Canadian, so I know a thing or two about prescription drugs from Canada. Specifically speaking, I know they're American; the only thing Canadian about them is the label in French and English. How can politicians from both parties think that Americans can get cheaper drugs simply by outsourcing (as John Kerry would say) their distribution through a Canadian mailing address? U.S. pharmaceutical companies put up with Ottawa's price controls because it's a peripheral market. But, if you attempt to extend the price controls from the peripheral market of 30 million people to the primary market of 300 million people, all that's going to happen is that after approximately a week and a half there aren't going to be any drugs in Canada, cheap or otherwise."

Many of you may think that Grandpa John got that name by having grandchildren. Actually, he had that name long before. Here in this picture you can find the six year old Grandpa John on the lower left wearing the Swabby hat.

Steve Re: This was just funny to me.

While looking through Ron’s older posts on Starsplash (as directed) for June, 2004, I noticed an apparent coincidence that I had to research further. My research confirmed my suspicions.

At this same time I found this in OldWhig’s archives: "Mr. Pterodactyl's brother Lance Burri, shows us how it's done.This would seem to cast doubt on whether Pterodactyl is Todd's real last name."

Oddly, what I had just found out seemed to cast doubt on whether OldWhig is Al’s real last name! Oh, brother!

Steve Re: Inspired by Lance... again.

There is a book in my library called The Plug-in Drug. It parallels the action of television programming (and by extension, movies) with that of other drug usage. I often notice in myself that the mind turns off (no comments, guys!) as I go with the emotional flow dictated by the program. While looking about, I can see others have gone slack-jawed and glassy-eyed as well. Children seem especially prone to this action. Information bypasses centers of critical thought and acts directly on powerful areas of emotion and sentiment. One may seldom stop to think that the program is produced and directed in its entirety to elicit certain feelings. Even the music is used for this manipulative intention. It brings to mind the old SNL skits with Jon Lovitz as ‘Master Thespian’ as he dramatically cries, ‘Acting!’.

Rhetorical language is used in this same way. It is often the case that a single word is used to evoke an emotion by its sentimental connotation and bypass critical thinking without specific definition. Usually they flagrantly set the speaker onto the ‘moral high ground’ and his critics on defense. It is more subtle, but of the same genre as ‘political correctness’.

Lance recently posted on his own blog an article about the over-ease of voting that exhibited a great illustration of this use of language. Governor Doyle, in his veto of a bill that would have required identification to vote, used as his entire argument the emotional word ‘disenfranchisement’. The use of this word assumes many things freely without requiring logical definition. He took the ‘moral high ground’ from his political opposition without the substantive work of thought, proof, or logic. To be disenfranchised is a passive verb form that connotes evil being done to the helpless weak by the rich, powerful, or otherwise guilty society. To the extent that this may be true, no proof is offered, but the rhetorically indicted culture must bend over and grab its ankles while performing all acts of self-flagellation in hopes of atoning for its sin.

The actual cause of disenfranchisement is standards. In culture, standards often are exhibited in law. One who breaks the law is an outlaw. He then is disenfranchised in some manner; from money, freedom, or life. A convicted murderer or rapist should be disenfranchised. Although there are some that would claim that society is still responsible, most would say that this disenfranchisement is just. Is Doyle equating ID requirement disenfranchisement to the same action toward a rapist? By connotation he is saying that we are treating them in the same way.

Some standards could be overtly set to exclude persons according to race or sex. Is Doyle using this word to equate it to this? By his connotation, I would say that he was.

No matter what standards are set there will be those that cannot or will not meet them and thereby become ‘disenfranchised’. Doyle’s use of the word sneaks those that will not conform in with those who cannot by use of statistics trying to include them as being passively abused and thereby increasing society’s evil.

Perhaps it could better be said of Governor Doyle’s rhetorical use of this word that he would rather disenfranchise the whole Wisconsin electorate– black, white, hispanic, male, female, conservative, liberal, Christian, atheist, homosexual, and straight– in order to enfranchise the criminal frauds among us. He does this from his groundless ‘high moral ground’ in the supposed name of a very few.

This use of connotative rhetoric will continue to increasing in effectiveness as the culture continues to slip away from its Christian underpinnings and assume an atheistic, post-modern, amoral stance. When one has no anchor in absolute standards, he is easily swayed by emotionally weighted language even though undefined and, in actuality, meaningless. Ironically... ‘like sheep being led to slaughter’.

Hey! A few days ago I posted about the Ohio voter-registration problems. Apparently, among other irregularities, Brett Favre was registered there. Blogger ate my post.

Lance: Re: Steve's last post

Another shot in the origin of morality debate here. This post isn't meant to persuade, just to explore. Been working on it for a couple of days and I'm still not sure it says what I want it to, but here goes.

Let's assume there are two possibilities: God exists and has laid down rules for us; or there is no God and we, humans, are the highest power in existence.

Under the second possibility, there is no absolute basis for morality: there is only what we decide.

In a comment to a previous post, Grandpa John wrote: "As a social species, morality is part of our 'natural instincts' just as with the other social species. Our problem is our 'higher intellegence' allows us to override our natural instincts."

I don't see it quite that way: our natural instincts aren't moral, and it's our higher intelligence that allows us to override those instincts and to act in a moral way.

We've evolved a society that is based on morality, because it's in all of our self-interests to have certain standards.

But, if morality is only what we, humans, say it is, then the only limit on what I can do is whatever I can get away with. The only penalties for lying, cheating, and stealing are earthly ones - therefore, if I can get away with it, or if the potential penalties are worth the rewards, I might as well do it. I might as well go ahead and sleep with the woman I meet at a conference in Seattle. Without God, there is no incentive for me to avoid temptation.

The other possibility, that God exists and wants us to follow certain rules, gives me an incentive to be a good boy that doesn't exist otherwise. The standard is no longer "whatever I can get away with."

There's already an awful lot of corruption in our society. It would be interesting to compare reality to a completely atheist society, and to a completely Christian society. How's that alternate universe transporter coming?

I just had to post this:

Re: PARENTS SAY THE DARNEDEST THINGS

Warning: do not take a sip of your beverage before reading this.

Re: PARENTS SAY THE DARNEDEST THINGS [Mark Krikorian]
Boy, I seem to have struck a nerve in asking for phrases that can only be uttered by people with kids. Some of the submissions: "Stop licking the remote control"
"Don' t lick the toilet!"
"No licking each other!"
"Wipe your OWN bottom"
"Why is there a pair of underwear on the ceiling fan?"
"No, Ella, that's not my brain, that's a bald spot."

Then there's the sub-genre of nose-related comments:
"Sweetie, we don't drink through the nose."
"Come here so I can clean out your nose!"
"Why did you stick that up your nose?"
"Give me that booger"
"Don't put noodles in your brother's nose"
"Take the rock out of your nose!"

And another about pets: "Don't throw the cat"
"Where are the rest of the cat's whiskers?"
"Get out of the catbox!"
"We don't put cheese on the cat."
"No licking the dog."
"Okay, who spray-painted the dog?"
"Get the frog out of the toilet."

And last but not least: "That is why we don't staple packets of hot sauce."

Went and voted yesterday. Wanted to vote early, because I'll be doing voter turnout on Election Day. Don't want to be too busy to vote myself!

I was surprised to see seven candidates for President and Vice President on Wisconsin's ballot: the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, and Naders (officially the "Better Life" party) are all there.

Then there are candidates for the Socialist Workers Party, and a separate ticket for the Socialist Party of Wisconsin.

This is a huge mistake. Somebody ought to go tell those Socialists they're really hurting their chances, splitting the Socialist vote like that.

Steve

Following is a somewhat long excerpt from Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, Book Four, Chapter Six. Although written nearly 170 years ago, it seems to be a relevant warning written for our time.

I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest - his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not - he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances - what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people. Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.

I do not however deny that a constitution of this kind appears to me to be infinitely preferable to one, which, after having concentrated all the powers of government, should vest them in the hands of an irresponsible person or body of persons. Of all the forms which democratic despotism could assume, the latter would assuredly be the worst. When the sovereign is elective, or narrowly watched by a legislature which is really elective and independent, the oppression which he exercises over individuals is sometimes greater, but it is always less degrading; because every man, when he is oppressed and disarmed, may still imagine, that whilst he yields obedience it is to himself he yields it, and that it is to one of his own inclinations that all the rest give way. In like manner I can understand that when the sovereign represents the nation, and is dependent upon the people, the rights and the power of which every citizen is deprived, not only serve the head of the State, but the State itself; and that private persons derive some return from the sacrifice of their independence which they have made to the public. To create a representation of the people in every centralized country is, therefore, to diminish the evil which extreme centralization may produce, but not to get rid of it. I admit that by this means room is left for the intervention of individuals in the more important affairs; but it is not the less suppressed in the smaller and more private ones. It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones, if it were possible to be secure of the one without possessing the other. Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day, and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated; whereas that obedience, which is exacted on a few important but rare occasions, only exhibits servitude at certain intervals, and throws the burden of it upon a small number of men. It is in vain to summon a people, which has been rendered so dependent on the central power, to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice, however important it may be, will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity. ^2 I add that they will soon become incapable of exercising the great and only privilege which remains to them. The democratic nations which have introduced freedom into their political constitution, at the very time when they were augmenting the despotism of their administrative constitution, have been led into strange paradoxes. To manage those minor affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted - the people are held to be unequal to the task, but when the government of the country is at stake, the people are invested with immense powers; they are alternately made the playthings of their ruler, and his masters - more than kings, and less than men. After having exhausted all the different modes of election, without finding one to suit their purpose, they are still amazed, and still bent on seeking further; as if the evil they remark did not originate in the constitution of the country far more than in that of the electoral body. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self-government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be governed; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people. A constitution, which should be republican in its head and ultra-monarchical in all its other parts, has ever appeared to me to be a short-lived monster. The vices of rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions, or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master.

Couple pictures. This one I found on a Yahoo News story, I think:



This one I got in an email:



Ha.

I just love alternate history. Here's an example, written by SunnyBlog (found it on insty): a world in which the U.S. didn't invade Iraq.

If Bush had not invaded Iraq

Democrat Presidential nominee John Kerry delivered a speech today condemning President Bush for failing to invade Iraq in the follow-up of military action against the Talaban and Al Qaeda in Afghanastan. "Leaving this tyrant in power in contravention of numerous United Nations resolutions is unconscionable," Kerry told the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "He has left available a base of operations and a source of supply and money."

Kerry went on to criticize the war against terror as "stalled" while the real threat to America, "Saddam Hussein’s Iraq goes untouched." Kerry said, "People are murdered daily in Baghdad and throughout the country. Rape rooms are a tragic reality. Torture chambers are full as Saddam’s sons carry out their sadistic impulses on the helpless and hapless victims of this regime. President Bush has done nothing as this brutal dictator takes the money from the Oil for Food to build palaces while his people go without food...

"There can be no doubt of Saddam’s ties to our terrorist enemies. We know that in 1998, after bin Laden issued his public fatwa against the United States, two al Queda members went to Iraq where they met with Iraqi intelligence. Within weeks, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden and extend to him safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden remained with the Talaban, but the invitation from Saddam was always there. Al-Zarqawi has long received refuge in Iraq. The terrorist Forouk Hijazi is known to train his forces there. Abu Nidal has safe haven in Baghdad as he plots murders. Abu Abbas, who planned the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, lives in safety in Iraq. And at Salman Pack, just south of Baghdad, terrorists train using the fuselage of a commercial jet airline. The trail of evidence revealing Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists is self-evident to all but those in the White House.

"Our own intelligence organizations and those of Great Britain, France and Germany, agree that Saddam is aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction. For all that, he has been left free to further develop his weapons of mass destruction which he can deliver into the hands of those who make war against us at any moment. Saddam Hussein has trained, financed and armed terrorist who attack and murder us, yet our President stands stalled on the border of Iraq, preoccupied with wiping up the last remnants of the Talaban in Afghanistan. To leave this cancer in the midst of the Middle East is to have assured defeat in this so-called war against terror. We need fresh leadership, a President with the vision to remove those who support our enemies from power. To have not invaded Iraq, when the whole world acknowledged the necessity, is to leave a job undone and is the height of arrogance and criminal stupidity."

The funny thing is, Kerry would have been in perfect position to make those very arguments. Go to KerryOnIraq.com, you can watch the video or read the transcript. I have little doubt he would have taken this tack, sans actual invasion.

Mari Jo has been in Boston since last week, visiting her sister, so I've been staying home with the kids. Thought I would do a lot more posting while I've been home, but obviously I haven't. It's not that I'm too busy. I'm just not spending the time looking through the news that I do at work (as a legitimate part of my job, I might add), so I'm not finding much to post about.

Be that as it may, I have managed to let the kids watch Blazing Saddles, and I've managed to find a way to make me look like an awesome parent for doing it. How, you ask? How? How?

Click here.

Steve

I was originally going to publish this as a comment on Lance’s 10/17 noon-ish post, but I expect it will be much too long for that. (Anyone surprised?)

It seems that both Lance and Al are posting along the similar themes lately; Liberalism vs. Libertarianism (via Objectivism in Al’s case) vs. Neoconservatism vs. the Christian Right; self-interest vs. cooperation. Excellent!

I have two quick comments on Lance’s posting. First, if there is no judge over man’s acts throughout history, then there is no standard by which to judge that even murder is the worst thing you can do to someone. Recycling of molecules can’t be a bad thing. (‘Ain’t we gonna bury ‘em, Josey?’ ‘Nah, boy, a buzzard’s gotta eat– same as a worm.’) Second, the cited commentor who averred that our ‘damn good’ morality today should be thankfully credited to 6,000 years of human thought and experience is obviously an American or of Western European ilk. He writes history and develops a moral philosophy from the ‘winner’s’ protected perspective. He could not write this from a concentration camp, or from the Sudan, or from the womb in an abortion clinic. I daresay that Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot would judge themselves of ‘damn good’ morals in a telephone poll. But we, being the winners, can judge them otherwise in self-righteousness, even without supra-historical standards of judgment.

We are at a point in history that freedom is at an apex. We may be falsely lulled into thinking that this is the inevitable outcome of historical teleology and that it will necessarily continue. The present condition is a rarity in history. Despotism is the rule. Freedom is the exception with no assurance that it will continue or increase.

Six thousand years of human history have demonstrated to me that as man increasingly denies God, and the going gets tough, even free men will raise the crescendo cry for a savior-king or savior-government onto the fast track back to loss of those freedoms. Libertarians, et al., may deny that this is a necessity, but this is just a statement of their faith. Denial of God’s sovereignty leads natural man in one of two destructive directions; rebellion or slavery; anarchy or subjection; self-interest or forced cooperation. These situations may transpire overnight or slowly, almost imperceptibly. But occur they will.

I hear and read a lot about people not wanting Christianity ‘crammed down their throats’. I agree. Christianity enforced by law is just as oppressive as any other despotism could be. An individual doesn’t become a Christian by performing certain actions like going to church or reading the Bible. It is indeed a personal transaction performed by God on his inner being. Nevertheless, it is considered illegal that the Christian worldview be allowed in the public political forum. Any law enacted by the usual, legal legislative processes would be immediately struck down simply by labeling it Christian. If the wannabe-god Supreme Court and its federal and state subsidiaries deny God over them as their standard, why would they ever be bothered by a simple piece of paper called the Constitution? They now are judges over the Constitution and its meaning. The logical consequence is to judge over all of American life regardless of majority choices. Their only standards are the same as anyone not recognizing God– their own feelings or sentiments rationalized and stated in some form of ‘logical’ justification. (Oh, yeah, but the court-gods have a nearly inexhaustible supply of lawyers, guns and money.)

It’s seems odd that people will heartily reject God, who created everything ex nihilo, and his standards, but so easily will accept standards made by themselves or other men that were created ex nihilo. Anarchy or slavery, anyone?

This reads like something Todd might have written.

Found it through Instapundit.

In his latest column, Jonah Goldberg takes Kerry to task for his invoking of religion during the third debate.

The column prompted several responses on the role of morality in society, and the origin of that morality. I only bring it up because it really follows my own latest column well.

Here's Goldberg's column, and here's all the comments that were posted on NRO, in order: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Hope I got all those right. The first couple of comments agree with the premise that, without God, there is no basis for morality.

If this world is an accident and life the same then there is NO morality. It's all just choices.

Steve has made this argument in the past. On one hand, I agree: if there's no God, then there's no basis for our morality other than what we, humans, the highest power in existence, decide.

On the other hand, if there's no God, then murder is the absolute worst thing you can do to somebody, because that's the absolute end. No afterlife. What happens here on Earth is all there is, so we have to do what's required to make sure our lives are good ones. There's no reward after life for doing good during life.

The next guy makes that point:

...forming social covenants (i.e. government) that cause us to pledge to respect, in a variety of ways, the self-interest of others, is in all of our self-interests. Because, given the uncertainty of the future, even if we're strong today, we could be weak tomorrow -- or given our biological urge to procreate and pass on our genetic code, our offspring generations from now could be opporessed by those who are stronger in the future, if we do not form a society to protect their freedoms.

And

The world is as we know it today largely based on the actions of billions of people, over the course of history, all working according to their own self-interest as best they've understood it.

We have a standard of morality in the world, and while not perfect, it's a damn good one. But we have six thousand years of human thought to thank for it -- not a supernatural deity.

Another commenter dissents:

Self-interest does not account for any of the most important things in life. Why do soldiers die for their country? Why would anyone die for anything, if self-interest reigned? A parent for a child? A husband for a wife? Sane people will acknowledge that these actions are "good".

As your first correspondent correctly pointed out, morality cannot be explained without reference to an Absolute -- i.e., God. You cannot say, `this is good' and `that is bad' without implicitly relying on a standard of perfect goodness.

Suppose you just bought a $100 pair of Gucci shoes. You're walking along and see a child drowning in a lake. You don't have time to take off your shoes, and they'll be ruined if you jump in.

The child, or the shoes?

Self-interest seems to suggest the latter. Conscience, on the other hand, demands the former.

I would argue that my self-interest isn't always rewarded monetarily: there are other rewards I also value, such as the internal reward I receive from helping somebody else.

However, if there's no God and therefore no actual basis for morality other than mutual self-interest, then that internal reward is just an illusion. Nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the tissues of my brain.

I think the relationship between self-interest and societal/individual good is a lot more complicated (dare I say nuanced?) than a simple either/or statement: self-interest is inherently selfish, but that selfishness paradoxically requires us to establish societal mores and cooperation.

However, individual self-interest and God's instructions on morality are not mutually exclusive. After all, isn't it in my own self-interest to follow God's word?

Who watched the Badgers last night? Who else was driven to near-insanity by the TV commentators?

Wow.

Yahoo! News - Paratrooper Who Lost Leg in War Re-Enlists

(George) Perez is one of at least four amputees from the 82nd Airborne Division to re-enlist. With a new carbon-fiber prosthetic leg, Perez intends to show a medical board he can run an eight-minute mile, jump out of airplanes and pass all the other paratrooper tests that will allow him to go with his regiment to Afghanistan next year.

And...

Staff Sgt. Daniel Metzdorf, lost his right leg above the knee in a Jan. 27 blast. He appealed three times before the fitness board allowed him to stay on.

I read one of Stephen Ambrose's books about WWII a couple of years ago. He went into great detail at times about the deprivation of troops in the field, compared to the relative wealth of rear echelon troops, especially those in supply. For example, when the War Department began issuing newer, better insulated and waterproof boots, supply troops in Paris were the first to get them - not the infantrymen who really could have used them.

I wondered then whether this would be a good place to stick troops who are too wounded to continue in the field, but who could still serve. I bet they would be a lot more likely to keep the field troops in mind.

Al said something in a comment here recently, that caught my attention:

Farsighted altruism and farsighted selfishness converge the farther out you go.

An odd thing to say, perhaps, but it got me thinking about something I was thinking about some time ago. Wrote about it today.

Biological weapons! The bastards are developing WMD! Invade! Invade!

Yahoo! News - Scientist Teaching Bacteria to Eat Coffee Plant's Caffeine

NEW YORK (Reuters) - In what could be a page taken from a science fiction novel, a scientist in his laboratory is trying to teach bacteria how to devour and destroy the caffeine contained in a coffee plant.

If successful, which the scientist says is probably years away, the experiment may yield a naturally decaffeinated brew that could have a richer and deeper taste than the decaf fare currently available.

Steve--- Re: movie review

I just finished watching a copy of FAHRENHYPE 9/11. Was it ever powerful. Some of the well-known players involved were Dick Morris, Ed Koch, Zell Miller, Peter King, Ann Coulter, and Ron Silver.

I was really surprised that Ed Koch and actor Ron Silver played such large parts. Koch, in that I had never pictured him as a Democrat of this ilk-- Silver, a Clinton/Gore supporter. Of course, Dick Morris was intimately involved with the Clinton administration. Zell Miller, Peter King, and Ann Coulter were no surprises.

Best line: Silver. "Given enough film I could make Michael Moore look like an anorexic right-winger."

Most poignant: 1) Soldier with both arms blown off in Iraq complaining how excerpts of him at Walter Reed were exploited in Moore’s film. As he spoke, he waved his right stump and left prosthesis. 2) Family members of dead soldiers complaining of Moore’s use of videos of one’s funeral and the other’s life.

I did not see Moore’s film. After seeing this one, I almost want to, only without putting any money into Moore’s pocket, of course.

I got this DVD at Wal Mart for under $10.

Something interesting from Warren Bluhm's column in the Green Bay News Chronicle today:

The Green Bay News-Chronicle Online - local news

Did you know two presidential candidates were arrested Friday night protesting their exclusion from the debate?

Yep, Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik were arrested after crossing a police line in St. Louis, arguing that their status as the recognized choices of legitimate political parties should give them a space at the podium for an allegedly “nonpartisan” event.

He also mentioned this:

Did you know the FBI shut down 20 independent media centers by seizing their British-based Web servers last week?

According to the Guardian of London:

“On Thursday a court order was issued to Rackspace, an American-owned Web-hosting company in Uxbridge, Middlesex, forcing it to hand over two servers used by Indymedia, an international media network which covers social justice issues and provides a ‘news-wire’ to which its users contribute.

“The Web sites affected by the seizure span 17 countries.

Why they did so isn't explained, except to say it was at the behest of two other governments.

I'm also curious about the FBI's role: the Web-hosting company is American-owned, but located in England. The FBI can't just go raiding places in England.

Bluhm comments:

The silence of the mainstream media regarding this action is amazing. If the FBI had closed down CBS in London “at the request of Italian and Swiss authorities,” the howling would be deafening.

This is the electronic equivalent of raiding a newspaper and seizing its presses, a violation of press freedom so basic that even a child could understand – assuming they’re still teaching the First Amendment at his or her school.

The story does say that the company moved to another server, so most of the sites (but not all) were back up as of this morning.

The moral of these stories seems to be that if you’re the little guy, you don’t matter.

You can raise a ruckus – you can even commit civil disobedience and be arrested – to assert your right to speak at a “nonpartisan” debate, but not only will the Big Government parties ignore you, so will the Big Corporate media outlets.

You can try to operate an independent media outlet, but if Big Government shuts you down, you’ll not only get no sympathy from your Big Corporate brethren; you will get no news coverage.

I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as Bluhm does, but I think his point is well taken.

Steve

No matter how often it is proven, I cannot help but be appalled at how foolish, dense, and ignorant I can be. (Shaddup, guys!)

In reviewing all the issues that face us as a nation and as individuals, I cannot help but to throw in my support for Senator John Kerry. I have volumes of infallible reasons for this, but will only name a few. (Since y’all whine about long blogs.)

Senator Kerry will get the whole world on our side so that we can become part of a ‘Whole Earth Cooperative’ to rid the world of evil by negotiating and causing mean people to repent of the error of their ways. I see no reason why he will not be able to appease the terrorists and cause them to live at peace with their earthly neighbors and contribute to the betterment of mankind. He has a plan and it includes as a theme song, 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony'.

John Kerry’s environmental policies will rid the earth of pollution. He will lead us into the development of alternative forms of energy usage to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. Gaea, the Mother Earth Goddess, will be pleased and help all things to go well. It is no coincidence that Bush, Cheney, and the other mean Republicans are so anally retentive. After all, the presently irritated Gaea is both the mother and wife of Uranus. An assuaged Gaea will no longer hit Florida with hurricanes.

Senator Kerry will cut my taxes. I pay an awful lot now and Mr. Kerry has promised to lay the burden on those who are more able to bear it. (Yes, Lance, you tall people should pay more. Yes, I know that Mari Jo is short, but we aren’t using family averages.) Everyone knows that the rich have gained their wealth by cheating and taking advantage of the poor. They deserve to be punished. He has a plan.

John Kerry has a plan to cut the federal deficit, maybe to zero, in a very short time. We cannot afford to leave this unbearable load to our children.

He has a plan that will control the Russian’s loose nukes almost immediately.

Senator Kerry will perform miraculous changes in our health care system. All people’s needs will be taken care of. Those confined to wheelchairs will walk, the blind will see, and perhaps the dead will even be raised back to life. Maybe Grandpa John will no longer be an orphan. He has a glorious plan.

How could I possibly not support John Kerry?

Bumper sticker: Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.

Okay, so I disagree with the message, but that's the kind of pithiness I like in a bumper sticker.

I also saw a cartoon on the wall of a bakery in Baraboo Saturday:

1st frame: China, healthy on rice.
2nd frame: Italy, healthy on pasta.
3rd frame: France, healthy on bread.
4th frame: U.S., "I'm too fat! Must be all the carbs!"

I force myself to read things like this:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Babies found in Iraqi mass grave

The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.

Here's the really difficult part: we know this sort of thing is going on in other parts of the world - Sudan is the most prominent current example, I think.

I hope that, through our determination in the War on Terror, we will have greater influence over events in places like Sudan in the future, but who can really say? And even if it does, that doesn't help atrocities like this that are going on right now.

But what do we do? Send in the military every time? Depend on the U.N.?

Or do we simply have to accept that there is evil in the world, and we can't stop every instance of it every time? That's difficult for me to accept, especially after I check on our 4-year-old and he's sleeping with one of his spaceships tucked under his arm.

On a related note, the story also contains this paragraph:

Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, where about 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam Hussein's regime, was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part.

The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death.

A few other blogs have fastened onto that paragraph, to criticize the Europeans for their enthusiasm for protecting a mass murderer from execution.

I tend to oppose the death penalty, although I waffle on the issue. Still, I have to agree that there's something sickly ironic about a society that won't help us find mass graves because it could lead to the execution of the guy who filled them, after actively working to prevent us from removing that same murderer from power.

I noticed that paragraph for another reason: it says "about 300,000 people." A couple days ago I linked to this article, which contains this passage:

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis.

Could be that the documentation used in either case was sloppy - Saddam's regime wasn't known for being open to outside investigation. Or, it could be that the estimate of 300,000 refers to a specific area, rather than the entire country. Don't know. Just thought I'd point the discrepancy out.

Mindless Blather

Crap.

CBS.SportsLine.com - NFL Power Rankings: Favre from good in Green Bay

There is good news for 31 of league's 32 teams. And that is?

They aren't the Green Bay Packers.

Crap.

This is interesting:

Yahoo! News - Norwegians Place Anti-Bush Ad in Washington Post

Norwegians including artists and politicians made a rare foray into U.S. politics Tuesday with an advertisement in a U.S. newspaper saying that President Bush's war on terror was backfiring.

Here's my favorite part:

It urged a shift in U.S. foreign policy to allow greater U.N. involvement in Iraq, an apology to the Iraqi people for the war and compensation for victims.

Yes, we're so sorry to have removed the evil dictator who averaged 25,000 executions a year and imprisoned children whose parents didn't toe the Baath party line. Forgive us.

I don't know what the hell happened here - I hope there's a good explanation, and that this isn't a case of incompetence on our part.

CNN.com - Nuclear materials 'vanish' in Iraq - Oct 12, 2004

Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons have disappeared from Iraq, the chief of the U.N.'s atomic watchdog agency has warned.

Satellite imagery shows entire buildings that once housed high-precision equipment that could be used to make nuclear bombs have been dismantled, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter to the Security Council.

My big question is: why hasn't the known presence of material that can be used to make nuclear weapons been considered evidence of WMD?

I think it's appropriate to mention this old Fox News story here, too:

In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.

The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis, the department said in a statement.

Is this the same material they're now saying is missing?

Are you going to argue with this guy? He's a Nobel laureate!

Yahoo! News - Nobel laureate calls for steeper tax cuts in US

Milwaukee public schools could save a million dollars a year, just by buying bread instead of hiring people to bake it themselves.

JS Online: School-made rolls may cost too much bread

Here's my favorite part:

But even those who accept that homemade bread might be on its way out say that as school districts cut costs and trim services out of necessity, what is lost cannot always be captured by the concrete terms of dollars and cents.

That would be as tricky as putting a price tag on a feeling. Or the smell of homemade bread.

Oh, the humanity.

All right!

Star Parker: The fight for black voters

"I recently came across an article reporting a correlation between income and height. It is a fact of life that tall people earn more, on average, than short people. Researchers have even got the disparity down to inches. On average, income increases by $1,500 per year for every additional inch in height."

On a lighter note, Lord Ben recently brought up the old "curse of the zeroes," over on Boots and Sabers. You know, the thing where every person elected President in a year ending with a zero has died while in office.

I say Reagan broke the streak. Lord Ben says him getting shot was enough to keep it going. If he's right, the streak better either hurry up, or Bush is a cinch for re-election.

This naturally brings me to another odd coincidence involving the Presidency: in every Presidential election year since (at least) 1936, the incumbent party wins the election if the Washington Redskins win their final home game before Election Day.

If the 'Skins lose that game, the challenging party wins the election.

It's true. I checked. Had some time on my hands. Don't tell Mari Jo.

I think we're all aware that that the Packers will be in Washington on October 31 - the final game before Election Day.

It can only mean one thing: the Packers are going to post a historical first.

UPDATE - after watching the Packers on MNF, I think maybe Bush really has this thing in the bag.

Re: if a man says he has a gun...

I'm tempted to quote Zell Miller: "Do you know what a metaphor is?" But in the interest of cordial debate, I won't.

Oops.

I'm sure you have other reasons for opposing the war, but I'll just stick to the one you mentioned in your post - the deaths of 10,000 other civilians and who knows how many Iraqi soldiers.

Actually, IraqBodyCount.net puts it at between 13,000 and 15,000 civilian deaths since the beginning of the invasion. I can't vouch for their methods, but that's what they say.

Here's my question for you: what if that rate of death actually represents a decline in the non-natural/accidental death rate? What if more people were dying under Saddam's regime than have died during and following the invasion?

Here is an article that discusses (rather imperfectly, I think) casualty statistics in Iraq both before and after the invasion:

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq.

Saddam was in power for 24 years: that's 25,000 executions per year.

By yours and Iraqbodycount.net's estimates, more people are alive in Iraq today because we invaded and deposed Saddam.

Steve Re: Debate #2

While watching the style and tenor of this latest debate, I was reminded of the modern cultural foundation upon which both candidates had to build their respective arguments. In practical terms, the nation is philosophically oriented so as to look to these two, not simply as leaders, but also as saviors. As substantive Christian faith wanes, replaced by Secular Humanism with its balkanizing armament, ressentiment, the providence of God is usurped by Government-Jireh– He who sees and provides. Much of the country must have been looking at these two men thinking, ‘What will you give me?’

Under these auspices it is incredible that the more conservative Bush was able to hold his own so well against the more liberal Kerry. In general, a conservative must imply that he will work to establish an environment to assist people to provide for themselves. The liberal has more leeway to proclaim that he will provide it for the people. One doctrine of the Federal Government’s establishment of the religion of Secular Humanism is that Sugar Daddies are more attractive than co-laborers. ‘Hi, my name is Rockefeller, and I can buy your vote!’

Senator Kerry did not seek passage of ‘The Global Test’ before unleashing his primary rhetorical weapon, ressentiment. Ressentiment surpasses simple resentment in that it seeks harm or debasement of the target. His primary detonator is the abhorrent ‘rich’. Because of their success in ‘life’s lottery’, they should be taken down a notch or two. (Playing the race card is another commonly used example, as is anything that belittles beauty, talent, high character, or anything else that can be used to stir up envy, distrust, or hate.)

Modern liberals desire to promote ‘leveling’ by bringing down the successful laity. (They, themselves are not affected since they are clergy.) In much of our cultural character it is a marketable skill to demean and humiliate the accomplished, the achievers. Conservatism is more prone to assisting people to strive for their own success. Liberalism strives to give you (somebody else’s) fish; Conservatism, to teach you to fish.

For much of our culture it is far more preferable to be given something than to have to struggle and work to achieve it. So, for this fact alone, it is very surprising that Bush did so well.

Even I'm not quite sure what my point is over at Lance Burri today.

Geez, I didn't know they were doing this, either.

JS Online: House passes huge corporate tax overhaul

Here's the best part:

The major new tax break would provide $76.5 billion in relief over 10 years to manufacturers and other U.S. producers, broadly defined to include construction companies, architectural firms, film and music producers and the oil and gas industry.

Kris at Dummocrats.com is making some predictions about what will happen if Kerry wins the election. I found the first one the most interesting:

Hillary Clinton starts to sound increasingly hawkish. Rumors circulate that she's considering a run for the Presidency in 2008 as a Republican

I'm going to link to a few columns concerning the war here. First up, Jonah Goldberg, in a somewhat uncharacteristic fit of raging sarcasm.

It just seems everything old is new again. Bush "lied" because he believed the same intelligence John Kerry believed. Bush "lied" even though John Edwards called the threat from Iraq "imminent" — something Bush never did. No one bothers to ask how it could be possible that Bush lied. How could he have known there were no WMDs? No one bothers to wonder why Tony Blair isn't a liar. Indeed, no one bothers to ask whether the Great Diplomat and Alliance Builder believes our oldest and truest allies Great Britain and Australia are lead by equally contemptible liars. Of course, they can't be liars — they are merely part of the coalition of the bribed. In John Kerry's world, it's a defense to say your oldest friends aren't dishonest, they're merely whores.

Second, Paul Bremer, former head of U.S. efforts in Iraq, responding to the media furor over his recent comments (the NYT requires free registration).

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

Mickey Kaus

If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that? Why doesn't Bush make that argument--talking about Saddam's actions in the years before the U.S. invasion instead of Saddam's "intent" to have WMDs at some point in the future?

Neal Boortz:

More news in the War on Terror...this time regarding some information found in Iraq. A computer disc was found containing information about schools in California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey and Oregon. What was the information about? Information like photos, floor plans, as well as an Education Department report on how to prepare and respond to a crisis. And why would this information be there?

...if Iraq is not a terrorist threat, then why was this material found in Iraq? Because it is a terrorist threat, that's why.

Do any of you read Andrew Sullivan? I've found it harder and harder to read his blog lately. This post is a good indication why:

"The fundamental rationale for the war - the threat from Saddam's existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - was wrong. Period. In the conduct of the war, it is equally indisputable that the administration simply didn't anticipate the insurgency we now face, and because of that, is struggling to rescue the effort from becoming a dangerous mess. Period. So the question becomes: how can an administration be re-elected after so patently misjudging the two most important aspects of the central issue in front of us? It may end up as simple as that. Maybe, in fact, it should end up as simple as that."

I remember when Sullivan used to criticize those who screamed "No WMD!" He did so because, even if it turned out that those people were right, the entire world believed Saddam did have WMD before the war. To criticize the Bush administration for believing the same evidence everyone else believed is, at best, disingenuous.

He also used to admit that there's no way to comprehensively plan a war or its aftermath - there are simply too many variables to take into account. Yes, there have been, are now, and will continue to be setbacks. This is simply the way of things: we are not all-knowing.

For several weeks now, he's gone entirely around another bend - now, not only should Bush and company known, against all available evidence, that there were no WMD, they should also have foreseen every possible setback, and taken steps to counter them.

With today's Iraq Survey Group report, the conventional wisdom becomes that: sometime between 1992 (or 1998, the last time inspectors were in Iraq) and the invasion, Iraq somehow disposed of its stockpile of WMD, but also continued to defy the UN.

I will continue to look askance at any statement that Iraq had no WMD, simply because Saddam's past and other UNSCOM reports provide too much evidence to the contrary. We have not found his weapons - that much is true, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know he had them at one time.

I hope another point in the report will also remain widely known: that Saddam's regime remained committed to keeping their WMD potential alive. From GlennReynolds.com:

The ISG, who confirmed last autumn that they had found no WMD, last night presented detailed findings from interviews with Iraqi officials and documents laying out his plans to bribe foreign businessmen and politicians.

Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible.

Here is the link to the ISG report's key findings. Read it yourself. I see a great deal more here than today's headlines are revealing, and I see a great deal more than Sullivan is letting on.

ADDENDUM: I should mention that it's not that I disagree with Sullivan that makes it hard for me to read his blog these days - it's that I see him contradicting his past comments. He always had questions and criticisms of the war, but in the past he's also acknowledged the limits of his own understanding. That seems to have changed. If I want to read pure anti-Bush opinion, there are plenty of places to get it. I came to Sullivan because I found him more open and thoughtful.

Today's Interesting Tidbit:

The first recorded usage of the word "nerd" was in Dr. Seuss' 1950 book "If I ran the Zoo."

And then, just to show them, I'll sail to Ka-Troo And Bring Back an It-Kutch a Preep and a Proo A Nerkle a Nerd and a Seersucker, too! (The nerd is a small humanoid creature looking comically angry, like a thin, cross Chester A. Arthur.)

The Online Etymology Dictionary theorizes that the word is "probably an alteration of 1940s slang nert 'stupid or crazy person,' itself an alteration of nut."

Dictionary.com's entry contains this passage:

Some experts claim there is no semantic connection and the identity of the words is fortuitous. Others maintain that Dr. Seuss is the true originator of nerd and that the word nerd (“comically unpleasant creature”) was picked up by the five- and six-year-olds of 1950 and passed on to their older siblings, who by 1957, as teenagers, had restricted and specified the meaning to the most comically obnoxious creature of their own class, a “square.”

This being relevant to most, if not all of us here at Grandpa John, I thought you would be interested.

And, no kidding, this is a link to a 157-page document entitled "Who's Who and What's What in Dr. Seuss Books," compiled by researchers at Dartmouth College.

Ah, those ivy league educations. Not quite what they used to be.

Steve

I heard an interesting interview on 'Up Front with Vicki McKenna' this afternoon. As you may know Vicki is a flaming conservative. Today she interviewed Debra Burlingame, a liberal whose brother was the pilot of the hijacked airliner that was missiled into the Pentagon.

Burlingame averred that all the usual liberal vs. conservative issues must take a back seat to the war on terror. If we cannot live in relative safety, these other issues are of little-to-no importance. Therefore, she has thrown her support to George Bush in this election because of the excellence of his response to the 9/11 attack.

Debra Burlingame and almost 200 other relatives of those who were murdered on 9/11 have written a statement/letter on a website at 911familiesforamerica.org.

Another band of mediapariahs like the Swiftboat Vets.

Steve Re: Global Test

I have formed a preemptive coalition that I hope will pass John Kerry’s global testing procedures in case my little ‘homeland’ is invaded by anyone bent on terrorizing my family. Although my responding force would be led by Ruger and Smith & Wesson, both American, I also would be joined by the Brazilian Taurus. After the first sortie was completed the Americans would still have expended slightly over 76% toward the effort. That’s quite an improvement over our present 90%– if this is not yet suitable to Senator Kerry, I will open and continue negotiations with the German Glock.

I have a couple of posts on highly interesting, relevant, important topics that I'll put up a little later. For now, I just wanted to note that this is the 200th post here on Grandpa John's.

Steve (Headnote: H.S. = Cited from Herbert Schlossberg)

Obviously, from my previous blogging and commenting everyone should know that I generally support conservative Republicans. This support, however, remains contingent and seldom fully whole-hearted. I support a lot of what President Bush has done and is trying to do. I fully support his efforts in Iraq, although I am not sure they will be successful. Kerry/Edwards, on the other hand, along with neoliberal Democratic philosophy stray further and further off the radar.

David Davidson, an old friend and an unsuccessful candidate for Texas Lieutenant Governor in 1986 stated well the situation in which we now stand. He said to me that if the Democrats increase in power the culture and country will go downhill quickly; if the Republicans– downhill, but more slowly.

Following is a series of quotes that should illustrate my thoughts:

J.B. Bury– "The process must be the necessary outcome of the psychical and social nature of man; it must not be at the mercy of any external will, otherwise there would be no guarantee of its continuance and its issue, and the idea of Progress would lapse into the idea of Providence."

H.S.– "To reject the idea of (God’s) judgment is to accept a moral void in the universe and to make unintelligible any notion of justice, except in a purely instrumental sense based on convention."

H.S.– "Relativization has its own special hazards, and an important distinction must be preserved. Historicism’s rejection of transcendence subjects it followers to the same dizzying loss of stability that Einsteinian physics created for categories of time and space. The time-space dimensions in modern physics become vertiginous to the observer because nothing has the stability needed to measure the position of other entities. Everything is in flux, and such categories as up and down lose all objective reference. Everything is relativized because there is nothing transcending the flux that could provide the stability needed to position everything else. Historicism analogously relativizes everything in the moral universe and sends history careening over the same rootless, wandering course on which Einstein sent the cosmos. It relativizes everything, that is, except for the idol that the historicist miraculously extracts from the flux with the forceps of mystification– the state, the proletariat, the national honor, the liberal society, the fact or sentiment. Without that mystifying process, historicism has no way to speak of truth beyond the flux and would offer no common ground for discourse. Similarly, it would have no unifying principle to stand against the complete atomization of society; therefore it cannot provide for community except by coercion."

H. S.– "But in the late twentieth century, bereft of the biblical limitations by a generation that has turned away from Christian faith, history pursues it mad career, running amuck with saviors making rules that they crown with divine status. History thus dechristianized has no moral limitations. ‘Right’ is a moving target, propelled by the march of facts and sentiments. Theft, homosexuality, pornography, genocide, and torture were wrong yesterday, but tomorrow who can say? Perhaps we shall find compelling national, social, or economic interests that require us to do things that would not have been contemplated without horror a short time ago, and perhaps we shall find that they are ‘right’. A society that cannot tolerate a judge beyond history will find that it can learn to tolerate anything else."

Bertrand de Jouvenel– ‘...is a bad habit of modernity that uses the term ‘just’ to describe whatever is thought to be emotionally desirable.’

H.S.– "... no complaint when the grossest brutalities are committed in the name of serving the poor, the nation, the purity of the race, the supremacy of a religion, or other values that are deemed to be ‘high’".

H.S.– "Unable to withstand dispassionate analysis, which would reveal its lack of foundation, it stresses feeling rather that thought. That is what makes sentimentality so vicious. People can get good feeling from almost anything; ‘sadism’ refers to a philosophy that elevates feeling into a moral principle."

J. Allen Smith– "The real trouble with us reformers, is that we made reform a crusade against standards. Well, we smashed them all and now neither we nor anybody else have anything left."

H.S.– "Nobody who rejects the first four commandments’ call to reject idols and worship the true and living God can be expected to recognize any ultimate significance in the last six commandments’ ethical requirements."

Hosea 8:4– "They set up kings without my consent; they chose princes without my approval. With silver and gold they make idols for themselves to their own destruction."