The Armey-Novak conservatives wanted the party to renew its commitment to the small-government principles of 1994 and 1980. Brooks and the moderates looked to 1904, to the strong government conservatism of Theodore Roosevelt. Both groups were wishing for a kind of soul transplant: If the party could just reclaim its essence, they hoped, the current drift might be resolved.
But both of these historical analogies are hopeful fantasies about what the GOP might someday become, not reasonable guesses at the near future. The truth is, for all its apparent strength, the modern Republican Party has worked itself into a position of profound and growing decay. Worried Republicans are right to look to the past to help sort out their future. But the right date isn't 1994 or 1904. It's the late 1970s--and the party to look at isn't the Republicans, but the Democrats. Like the Democrats of that period, the current version of the Republican Party is supremely powerful but ideologically incoherent, run largely by and for special interests and increasingly alienated from the broader voting public. Today's GOP is headed for a profound crackup. The only questions are when, exactly, the decline will start--and how long it will last.
I was considerably younger then and not paying such close attention, but it seems to me that it's a compelling argument.
How many Iraqi civilian deaths?
Those who conducted the study are overhyping it. One told a newspaper, "We're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate." Either that statement is wrong or the study is wrong.
Perhaps more importantly, where are the journalists with a grasp of statistics? There aren't enough, and that's sad.
Kaplan proceeds to explain why the study is effectively useless. He then cites another ongoing effort that comes up with a number around 15,000; he argues that it's plausible to double this estimate, resulting in an estimated 15,000-30,000 civilian casualties.
Now if only we could explain why this sacrifice was worth it. Other than maybe getting a President re-elected, of course.
Thoughts and predictions, five days out.
This is the most nerve-wracking leadup to a presidential election I've ever experienced. 2000 was similar, of course, but we didn't know how bad it could be. Now we know, and that makes the dread even worse.
Back and forth go the poll and the electoral predictions. This animation shows what I mean.
About a week ago it occurred to me that it would be deeply ironic if Bush won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Kerry. As the days have gone by, I'm thinking that may be the only way Kerry wins. I say that because Bush seems to maintain the lead when you look at national numbers. But as demonstrated four years ago, that's not what counts, and Kerry seems closer in electoral predictions than in overall polls.
I don't even want to think about the prospect of a tie.
But nothing depresses me more right now than the thought of another four years under Bush.
This one from British magazine The Economist, which is widely read by movers and shakers. It's a reluctant endorsement, but when such a conservative capitalist publication comes out for the Democratic challenger and against the Republican incumbent, that's saying something.
Iraq was on his mind.
I found the Math Against Tyranny article reposted at Discover magazine's website. While there, I noticed that some of the site's features didn't work, probably because I wasn't a registered user. Registrations are annoying, but I thought in this case that it might be worth it. So I registered.
The first sign of trouble was when it told me my password had been e-mailed to me. What, I can't just create my own password? Well, I figured I could probably change it once I logged in.
So I retrieve the e-mail with the password -- which is a "good" password, in the sense that it's a nonsense collection of numbers and upper- and lower-case letters -- log in to the site, and start looking for a way to change it to something easier to remember. But apparently there's no way to do that. For security, I guess.
Folks, I'm not talking about accessing nuclear launch codes or my personal financial or health information. I'm talking about being able to log in and read some free articles, fer cryin' out loud! But I guess they actually expect me to record this incredibly valuable password somewhere in case I ever need to access their site while on a different PC.
Of course, I did notice that they're owned by Disney, a company which historically has been rather clueless about the Web, so perhaps that explains it. But still.
Episodes like this are one reason why services like Bug Me Not exist ... because of clueless publishers.
For those who question or hate the idea of the Electoral College -- we have a neighbor who despises the idea -- I give you the November 1996 Discover article Math Against Tyranny.
I've been meaning to mention this for almost a week now. It seems that there are some popular recordings -- well, among some people anyway -- that don't convert well into the MP3 format. (I'll leave the technical explanation to the article.) I only know two of the seven recordings mentioned; somehow I'm not surprised that "Revolution 9" is one of them. But "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road"?
Two new John Kerry endorsements today.
The damage visited upon America, and upon America’s standing in the world, by the Bush Administration’s reckless mishandling of the public trust will not easily be undone. And for many voters the desire to see the damage arrested is reason enough to vote for John Kerry. But the challenger has more to offer than the fact that he is not George W. Bush. In every crucial area of concern to Americans (the economy, health care, the environment, Social Security, the judiciary, national security, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism), Kerry offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush’s curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery. Pollsters like to ask voters which candidate they’d most like to have a beer with, and on that metric Bush always wins. We prefer to ask which candidate is better suited to the governance of our nation.
There are those, particularly in Europe, who would like to turn back the clock to before 9/11. They pine for the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years. Mr Bush recognised the world had changed. But he has taken the US in the wrong direction. As a candidate Mr Kerry often fails to inspire. He owes his rise more to opposition to Mr Bush than loyalty to his own cause. But on balance, he is the better, safer choice.
So what are we looking for in a president?
Someone who will be a good steward of the people's money; someone who trusts citizens to use their own resources to solve their own problems, and those of their communities.
Someone who is willing to set priorities and stick to them; someone who places the needs of the nation above political agendas.
Someone who understands that business, commerce and profits are not dirty words - they're where the jobs come from. Someone who sees America still as a land of economic opportunity and encourages citizens to pursue their dreams, rather than constantly reminding them of the obstacles in their path.
Someone who respects the Constitution and recognizes that the document should not be twisted by each generation to answer passing threats.
We want a president whose character and temperament match the demands of the office. We want a president who appreciates that the responsibility of being the world's military superpower requires a deft touch to maintain harmonious relationships.
That person is not on the ballot this time. We are unwilling to settle for less.
My reaction, then and now: this is a copout. Our next president will be Bush or Kerry, period -- pick one. "None of the above" is not an acceptable choice. A local pollster interviewed on the radio even argued that it was hypocritical for a newspaper to encourage people to vote, but withhold an endorsement, and there's something to be said for that.
Incidentally, Editor and Publisher is keeping a running tally of newspaper endorsements.
10/27 Update: So far, 36 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 have endorsed Kerry.
The smoking gun of mismanagement in Iraq.
Remember how, before we invaded Iraq, sensible people were arguing that an invasion would only make it more difficult to keep track of the very materials we were worried about?
It turns out that 350 tons of powerful high explosives were looted from an ammo dump during the early days of the war. Before the war, they were overseen by the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA).
U.S. forces kept this news from being reported to the IAEA, because it would then become known to the American people. The interim Iraqi government finally reported it on October 10.
And this is the likely source of all the bombs that are going off in Iraq.
One administration official told [journalist Chris] Nelson, "This is the stuff the bad guys have been using to kill our troops, so you can’t ignore the political implications of this, and you would be correct to suspect that politics, or the fear of politics, played a major role in delaying the release of this information."
Josh Marshall has more details here and here.
But George Bush would still do it all over again. Amazing.
Update: NYT also has the story.
The proper use of copyright.
The suit was filed in United States District Court in Washington, and a lawyer for Mr. Glass said that if the music was heard in the movie, which is being released today in 40 cities nationwide, he would consider seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the film from being shown.
David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United, the conservative organization that produced "Celsius 41.11," said the music in the two advertisements was not by Mr. Glass but by Walter Heinisch, and had been properly licensed.
Mr. Glass's lawyer denied that assertion. "There is no question this is Philip Glass music," the lawyer, Timothy O'Donnell, said. "This is a signature piece by Philip Glass, this is a valuable piece of property."
The complaint says that the music is a 1987 composition by Mr. Glass, that it was the score for the film "Powaqqatsi," and that it has been licensed for use in trailers for eight films, including, Mr. O'Donnell said, "The Truman Show" and "The Hours." It was released on a 1988 Elektra Asylum/Nonesuch recording.
Martin Luther's lavatory thrills experts.
Archaeologists in Germany say they may have found a lavatory where Martin Luther launched the Reformation of the Christian church in the 16th Century.
The stone room is in a newly-unearthed annex to Luther's house in Wittenberg.
The scholar suffered from constipation and spent many hours in contemplation on the toilet seat.
A handy, concise list of facts.
What voters believe about foreign affairs.
Here's some eye-opening insight into the pro-Bush crowd (I mean that seriously).
The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters (PDF) details the results of a poll that identifies the facts about foreign affairs as understood by those respective groups. Here's a short HTML summary for those with limited time and/or attention spans, or who simply loathe PDF files. I encourage you to at least read the summary.
The one-sentence version is that Bush supporters have inaccurate perceptions about Iraq, Al Queda, and other international matters ... which they get from the current administration.
And now for a bit of fun.
Murphy's Law is alive and well at NASA.
"We're not going to have any casualties."
He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."
Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
The White House has made no reaction to Robertson's comments.
Robertson, the televangelist who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, said he wishes Bush would admit to mistakes made.
"I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. "I warned him about casualties."
Naturally, Robertson still supports Bush. But if it's true, don't you find this story spooky? Who ever heard of an invasion without casualties?
And not to be too cynical ... but how is it that Robertson can get this message from the Lord, but our ever-so-religious President can't?
"Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America."
Crossfire's other hosts, James Carville and Robert Novak, were predictably not amused.
As a lifelong Republican, I have had mounting concern watching this year's presidential campaign.
I have always been proud to be a Republican. My Republican Party is a broad-based party, that seeks to bring a wide spectrum of people under its umbrella and that seeks to protect and provide opportunity for the most vulnerable among us.
Sadly, that is not the Republican Party that I see at the national level today.
This isn't going to make the Bush campaign quake in their boots or anything, but hopefully it will give Michigan voters who are traditionally Republican something to think about before Election Day. And the AP has picked up the story.
Decision-making in the Bush White House.
Sunday's NYT Magazine contained what may be the most frightening article yet by a respected journalist (former WSJ reporter Ron Suskind) about the Bush Administration's decision-making process. It relies on faith (both religious and "gut instinct") and is controlled by an increasingly smaller group of people.
Rolling Stone reports on how Wal-Mart cracks the whip on the record business (like all its suppliers), demanding lower prices. And since they account for about 20% of all US sales, they pretty much get their way.
As someone on Slashdot put it: Monopoly 1, meet Monopoly 2.
When we last checked in, organizations representing various immigrant groups were protesting to City Council about the planned government-funded economic development that would exclude them (and anyone who isn't African).
In what I'm sure is a total concidence, the plan's chief proponent, City Council member JoAnn Watson, withheld her approval on the very next day for $330,000 worth of contracts to two Hispanic groups.
Watson is mum as to why she held the contracts. She did not return calls from the Free Press seeking comment.
The nine-member council approves city contracts and it takes only one member to place a hold.
Usually, a council member provides questions he or she wants addressed by the administration before the contract is released. In this case, Watson did not do that.
It must be concidental. After all, one of her Web pages says "Accountability, Equity, and Respect for all Citizens will be reflected in my office as a servant of the people."
Yes, this whole story just gets better and better.
"Dr Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" (1964) is widely regarded as one of the best films ever made. For example, it ranked 26th in the American Film Institute's 1998 list [PDF]; 5th in a 2002 poll of directors by the British Film Institute's Sight and Sound magazine; and is currently ranked 16th by users of the Internet Movie Database.
Yet it can be hard to explain to someone who has never seen "Strangelove" why it's so good, or even to describe it. As perhaps the blackest comedy ever made, do you emphasize the humor or the drama?
I've settled on describing it this way: "It's a comedy about nuclear war."
What few people knew, at the time and since, was just how accurate this film was. Its premise, plotline, some of the dialogue, even its wildest characters eerily resembled the policies, debates and military leaders of the day. The audience had almost no way of detecting these similiarities: Nearly everything about the bomb was shrouded in secrecy back then. There was no Freedom of Information Act and little investigative reporting on the subject. It was easy to laugh off "Dr. Strangelove" as a comic book.
Anheuser-Busch is bringing out caffinated beer.
I'm from Microsoft, and I'm here to help you.
So Microsoft's Steve Ballmer declares that iPod users are music thieves -- but Digital Rights Management from Microsoft will save the day from those dastardly pirates, of course.
b) He can pry my DRM-free music device from my cold, dead hands.
Update: A lot of other people feel the same way.
Today's Washington Post has a first-person account by a health reporter who, after years of considering it, decided to get custom Lasik (aka Wavefront) surgery on her eyes. As someone who has worn glasses since age 7 or 8 (if I remember correctly), I find the idea interesting ... but find the potential downside to unnerving. I'll live with the devil I know, so to speak. Still, it's an interesting article.
I never competed in quiz bowl at the college level, but I did some my senior year of high school. And based on that experience plus what I've heard elsewhere, this article about former quiz bowl contestants succeeding at game shows is pretty accurate.
Prior to the war, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, said publicly that he thought the invasion plan lacked sufficient manpower, and he was slapped down by the Pentagon's civilian leadership for saying so. During the war, concerns about troop strength expressed by retired generals also provoked angry denunciations by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In April 2003, for example, Rumsfeld commented, "People were saying that the plan was terrible and there weren't enough people and . . . there were going to be, you know, tens of thousands of casualties, and it was going to take forever." After Baghdad fell, Rumsfeld dismissed reports of widespread looting and chaos as "untidy" signs of newfound freedom that were exaggerated by the media. Rumsfeld and Bush resisted calls for more troops, saying that what was going on in Iraq was not a war but simply the desperate actions of Baathist loyalists.
I'll take 'Intimidation' for $200, Alex.
I wouldn’t bet a day’s “Jeopardy!” winnings on it, but I’m pretty certain we’ll start seeing fewer people wussing out on KenJen, tighter contests and even a nail-biter or two, starting today.
Tune in tonight to see if he's right.
As you would imagine, I watched the Bush-Kerry debate last Thursday, and was heartened at how things went -- not a knockout by any means, but Kerry clearly came out the winner.
In 2000, Bush's campaign was able to successfully spin that he had won the first debate with Gore. This time, the spin went entirely against him.