Family Values, Christian Coalition-style

Your mom finds out you're gay, and you're "dead to her." I thought it was hate the sin, but love the sinner. WWJD? I don't speak for the son of God, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't act like these so-called Christians out there who reject gay family members. Disgusting.

Weird story of the night.

First off, let me say that, as of right now, I'm 2 for 3 (with the Auburn game pending) for my teams today. Georgia defeated Florida for the first time in forever (since 1997) and Miss. State beat the lowly Kentucky. 2 for 3 is good when one of your teams is Mississippi State.

Anyway, for the official Athens Halloween celebration tonight (Halloween is easily the biggest holiday in Athens every night. I would argue that it even rivals Greenwich Village's Halloween celebrations!), I'm going as my old standby, the Brawny Paper Towel Man. Well, I went to go buy some paper towels and a red flannel shirt at Target, and, much to my dismay, there is a new Brawny Paper Towel Man, some Captain Marvel-looking SOB with black, swept-back hair and no 'stache. The '70s-looking lumberjack stud of yore is now relegated to napkin marketing. I was dismayed, but I don't think that this new usurper has had a chance to catch on, so my costume is probably safe.

I bought two rolls of Target brand paper towels (much cheaper) and proceeded to the checkout lane. I was behind a lady who was talking about her Halloween costume (a witch), and I offered up that I was going to be the Brawny Paper Towel Man. They thought it was a great idea, but the guy behind me in a doorag derisively pointed at my paper towels (he smelled of liquor, by the way...at 1:00PM) and started jumping around yelling "That ain't no Brawny! That ain't no Brawny!" He was looking around at the perplexed customers in adjacent lines, as if he was a truth-bringer who had discovered that I was a baby-eating Martian in a human costume whose identity needed to be revealed. I tried to explain to him that I didn't have much cash on me, so I had to buy generic, but he wouldn't listen, as he grew angrier, yelling "That ain't no Brawny!" with a noticeable rasp from yelling too much. The cashier called Target security, and he was quickly wisked out of the line.

So much to write about...

...but I feel overloaded. So I want to share the most manic spam I've ever gotten:


From: Alfredo Born [mailto:georgineschwarz@georgiasmusic.net]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 12:02 AM
To: Bradly Marty
Subject: Is this helpful for you? martini


sapsminnsh psycho-sexual
qdevic probabily

seistrup saped rogack HZ01 pbne shale-limestone

ALL the EXTREMELY popular M@eds you're looking for:
interested? http://flabbergast.com.SimleRxInfo.com



A. Because it held up a pair of pants!
Q. What is the center of gravity?



Q. Why do blondes have bruised belly buttons?

Reno Melons!

There is a mysterious new blogger on the prowl: Reno Melons. That's a reference to something that even I don't get. I expect big things.

The final countdown!

This is great, a guy documenting his last 40 cigarettes. He hasn't smoked since 10/17, by the way.

Can't come up with a Peel Sessions pun.

Let's pour one out for John Peel, who passed away in Peru at the age of 65. The man was a monster, even if he didn't like the Boss or Tom Waits. Plus, he really, really liked the Fall. Which is a good thing.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda

Neal Boortz lays it out for you...is this man still claiming to be a libertarian? Warning: dangerous half-truths and misconceptions contained herein:

This country's salvation may lie in you having one quick pang of consciousness when you walk into that voting booth on November 2nd. When you stand there ready to cast your vote you'll have the spirit of international Islamic terrorism on one shoulder trying to guide your hand toward a vote for John Kerry. On the other shoulder will be the ghosts of the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and of 9/11 urging you to set your petty hatreds aside and vote for the only man who you truly know will take the fight to the Islamic terrorists ... regardless of whether or not Kofi Annan approves.

I'm listening to Yes right now

A few things:

1) I got attacked by two spiders today, one of them the biggest I've ever had crawling on my body. After dispatching that one, I shuddered my way to the car, where a small jumping spider pounced on my arm. I swept him out the window. Ick.

2) I'm growing a beard again for Halloween. I don't have a costume yet, so I need options. It's really itchy right now.

3) Just like Jeannie Reynolds said, the phones been jumping all day. No one ever calls me at work.

4) I forgot about jury duty and skipped it by mistake. Um, is that bad?

Hideous...but hilarious!

I just saw these GOP mailers for the first time. Now that's comedy!

I like how the flier visually lays out the debate: The Bible vs. Gay Marriage! You decide!

One more thing from Mr. Sullivan before I forget it, on the whole Mary Cheney thing that kind of ties to this:

We've been inundated these past few days by Republicans bemoaning John Kerry's alleged gay-baiting in this campaign. Bob Novak, Bill Kristol, Bill Safire (whose appalling column today I've just done fisking), the entire NRO crew, and on and on. They've referred to Kerry's comments in clear and bold terms: "indecent," "shameless," "outrageous." I have a simple question. Does anyone have a single leading Republican voice objecting to Republican Senate candidate Jim DeMint's statement that gays should be barred from teaching in public schools? Has any leading conservative criticized the RNC flier claiming that a vote for Kerry would mean banning the Bible and forcing gay marriage on the entire country? Has any leading conservative columnist criticized some of the anti-marriage state amendments because of their vast scope and banning of any protections for gay couples? I noticed that Jay Nordlinger did object to Alan Keyes' description of Mary Cheney as a selfish hedonist. But did Kristol? Or anyone else? The Cheneys ignored it. I'm just trying to be fair here. I'm relieved that Bill Kristol cares so deeply about not demonizing gays. I'd just like to hear of a single instance in which he has said such a thing before. That would get to the core of his sincerity, would it not? Or his sickeningly shameless opportunism. I promise to publish in full any such previous Republican comments, bemoaning other Republicans' gay-baiting in this campaign. So send 'em in.

So far, he's gotten no reponse beyond a limp-wristed Michelle Malkin article denouncing these fliers...for the banning the bible part of it. Glad to see that those conservatives really love gays!

Abu Ghraib

Did I spell that right?

Andrew Sullivan (who I still won't forgive for his poisonous rhetoric during the run-up to the Iraq War) makes some good points about Abu Ghraib and asks something that I've wondered about myself...what happened to Abu Ghraib in the debates? Why didn't John Kerry bring up Cheney's callous reaction to the scandal and the fact that nobody remotely higher up was held responsible. Sullivan also points to the fact that the problems at Abu Ghraib are endemic of the entire conduct of the war, and I tend to agree. The troops got some of those pesky "mixed messages" about torture and intelligence gathering, not to mention the fact that there weren't enough troops to begin with. Why didn't Kerry adress any of this?

Maybe he didn't because he wimped out? Or maybe he didn't because he has so much ammunition against Bush that it's hard to decide what to use. I think it's a glaring ommission.

But what do I know? I'm not running for president, running a campaign where all of the most important issues of our time should be discussed. Issues like one of the worst proven human rights abuses by American troops since Vietnam! Yep, what do I know?

I can't figure Kerry or his campaign out.

Man, dog poop stinks.

Otis, officially the cutest puppy in the world and official office mascot, just relieved himself of solid waste in our boss' office. Can't say I've never wanted to do that! Haha. Ha.

Anyway, the whole office stinks to high heaven, and I'm having trouble controlling my gag reflex. I can handle a lot of gross stuff, but this is killing me. I think if I have kids, I will end up barfing my way through the diaper stage.

William Safire et al.

Does anyone even give two craps about what William Safire says anymore? He may be one of them fancy writers and all, but the drivel coming out of his mouth of late makes no sense. Okay, so John Kerry used Mary Cheney's name and he's right and it is public knowledge but it still stinks anyway? I don't get it.

The Bush administration keeps backing hithertofore intellectual, semi-reasonable conservatives into corners because of their misguided need to defend them. The same thing went down with liberals during the Clinton administration, where liberal pundits defended a president who was, at best, a cad and a disappointment (Defense of Marriage Act, anyone?), and, at worst, a liar, a sleazebag, and a sell out (NAFTA, anyone?). Side note: don't get me wrong--I think Clinton has an absolutely brilliant knack for politics and is an A+ wonk, but c'mon, he could have done much better.

Anyway, George F. Will, Bill Kristol, William Safire, and the like are constantly forced to defend an administration that seems destined to destroy classical conservatism as we know it. Remember when conservatives were environmentalists? Remember when conservatives were frugal? Remember when it was Democrats who started wars? Remember when the government was supposed to stay out of your lives? Well, you won't after Bush 43. And the NRO crew, William Safire, and their ilk have been slow to criticize and are really selling themselves out intellectually with each passing column. This president has made a mockery of their principles, and now they're are paying the price in credibility. Serves 'em right.

Top Secret!

The PSP will come out in March.

Haha!

Funny stuff.

Things I want to say, movie-related...

As I've just started a new job at a video store, I get to listen to all manner of idiotic film conversations--"Man, I hope The Whole Ten Yards is as good as the first one!"--and some of them drive me crazy. The one's that really get to me, though, are not the average person making a stupid filmic rental decision. By the way, do not, I repeat, do NOT! rent Garfield: The Movie unless you think that the comic strip version of Garfield has been getting funnier over the years (it hasn't). I'm no Garfield purist, but they get everything wrong--Nermal, Odie, Jon--everything!

What I really hate are the snobs who don't really like movies but keep on renting them. And they give out advice to all of those within earshot about how the movies in their hands really stink and they should rent the French or Japanese or whatever version because it is so much better.

The American The Ring is ten times better than the Japanese version because it actually has something of a plot. 12 Monkeys is better than Le Jetee (I know, I know, it's a short film. Snob.). And Three Fugitives! Kidding. Conversely, there are plenty of versions of foreign movies which were better left in their home country. And then there is that poop-pile Luc Besson. But these overly critical jerks that only seem to enjoy movies inasmuch as they are a vehicle to trash other people's tastes just need to get out of the business of watching movies.

Anyway, I really hate this question: "What's the scariest movie you've ever seen?" That's a pretty loaded question, and it can mean a lot of things, depending on tastes. I always recommend Poltergeist, Halloween, and The Thing, but no one ever listens to me. I recommended The Devil's Backbone to a sorority girl-type and she really liked it, but she was the first in a line of 10 people I recommended it to that actually took a chance. One girl told me that Jeepers Creepers 2 was the scariest movie she ever saw. Because I'm not a snob, I didn't tell her that she was a Philistine whose horrible taste was tacitly supporting pedophilia and the degradation of Francis Ford Coppola's once lustrous career.

Aw, shucks!

Emerson Dameron, an old pal who now lives in Chi-town, wrote this flattering article on Bunny McIntosh, Oceanchum, YMSP82, and myself. I guess I should start posting more to appease my drove of new fans!

Emerson has done made the move hisself and created a blog, so go check it out.

You scratch my back, etc.

The Cheneys love their daughter...

...even though Lynne Cheney did her damnedest four years ago to keep her daughter's sexuality out of the limelight. And aren't you so glad that the Republicans finally care about gay people? How could mean old John Kerry say something about Mary Cheney? I mean, that Alan Keyes fellow, well, sure he called Dick Cheney's daughter a "selfish hedonist" and all that. And of course Dick Cheney is VP, so technically he presided over the Senate debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment which featured some rancorous talk about how gays and lesbians were not-so-good people and harming the sanctity of marriage and all that, Britney Spears be damned. And let's not forget that said amendment would probably keep Mary Cheney from visiting her partner in the hospital, and even Dick Cheney doesn't agree with it.

None of that stuff makes the Cheneys and the new gay-loving GOP mad.

Big Bad John Kerry accused the Cheneys of loving their daughter and accused their daughter of not having a choice in whether she was gay or not. The nerve!

I'm so glad the Republicans are here to defend the rights of all those little lost "out" homosexuals out there, encouraging them to stay in the closet where they belong because, gosh darn it, it's a mean world out there and you wouldn't want anyone, you know, talking...saying things, would you? Yep. Mary Cheney, an open lesbian, should be seen but not heard from. Or about. Or better yet let's not see her. Yep, that's the best strategy.

Because, in the end, though those sweet, protective Republicans who are so outraged about John Kerry's namedropping still consider being gay a bad thing. Otherwise, why would it be a problem, right? You want to identify the homophobes out there? They just stood up and said hello.

Don't you wish that your parents and political party loved you soooo much that they wanted you to suppress who you are? They're just protecting you, you know. Just looking out for your "best interests." Like I said, you don't want people talking...

Truer words have never been said.

Today at work a coworker declared that "the only thing America has going for it is black people." True.

Us white people need to stand up and face the facts: black people are way cooler than we are.

Liberal?

Is anyone outside of the hardcore Bush followers affected with Bush's charges of liberalism when he's been such a runaway spender? And how can people in their right minds (at least listening to it on radio) think that Bush won? Sure, Kerry didn't do noticeably better or worse, but come on! The president stumbled all over the place!

So what else is new...

And yet, that overrated sack of poopoo Instapundit thinks Bush won hands down. Is this guy any more qualified to call a debate than I am? Okay, okay, he's a law professor. Well, I was in Youth Legislature! Heh. Seriously, why do people care about Glenn Reynolds? Because he's smart? Because he's popular? Man, explain that guy to me. If anything, the blogosphere has had something of a levelling effect (for better and for worse) on discourse, where my opinions have as much meaning as someone else's in certain (very small) circles. Sure, the guy is a law professor, but I have a Masters and a BA in Political Science...why I am not the hot blog? I'm not saying I deserve to be...not at all. I'm just questioning why people consider his opinion so important and influential when I find nearly every one of his arguments completely counter-intuitive and fallacious, regardless of politics. It's weird how certain blogs have become huge (Wonkette anyone? What is that all about? I can insert politicans' names into dick jokes if you'd like!) while others, like the superlative YMSP82, go unnoticed. It's really no different than what I see in the music industry every day. Bands like Death Cab for Cutie sell more than Built to Spill. Neutral Milk Hotel, though wildly influential, now lies in the shadow of the "literary" (read: annoying and pretentious) band The Decemberists. Irksome.

Oof.

I've been out with some women who have made some...poor choices in men before, but my friend A. sends this:

[T]he last date I went on was even worse than the last one! Ex. Suicide Girl, too. I was excited (now I sound like a pig). Too bad she had a boyfriend... who... spent 15 years in prison for... murder... murdering a guy that was sleeping with his girlfriend when he was 15.
When I heard that, the date really, quickly ended.

Yeah. Sometimes the thrill of dating a Suicide Girl is overshadowing by her murderous boyfriend.

Hobbes

My family cat died last week. He was a gray tabby cat, cute, but unremarkable in appearance, except for the fast that could stretch out really long. He just looked like your basic all-American cat, you know? He was a classic sink-sleeper and was always underfoot in the kitchen, flopping down on the floor constantly in the hopes of a good petting. He also used to jump in the shower with me, which may be how I got to Hobbes when he was named--Calvin's Hobbes being a tiger...tigers like water...and so on. He was one of the sweetest and most stolid companions a family could have, and it's going to take a while for that void to be filled for my mom and my stepfather, much less the Agent and myself. At least he died in one of his "spots" outside, presumably in his sleep. Not a bad way to go, really.

I mean, the Dred Scott Decision?!

Thank God we have a president who's really looking out for the slaves out there, making sure he wouldn't appoint a judge that supported the Dred Scott Decision.

There may be some confusion

Anyone can comment on my blog...you just have to register an ID and a password with Blogger. Someone told me that they don't comment anymore because they don't have a blog, and that's just not the way it works. I welcome comments. Bring 'em on!

Missed the debates

We were at a high school football game which started out close and then wasn't. During the home team's Homecoming ceremony, one of the dad's escorted his daughter wearing a shiny burgundy suit with a matching velvet hat. Coolest dad ever.

So, I just read the transcript of the debates, and it looks like Kerry walked away with it to me, but you have to understand that I find everything that George W. Bush says fairly idiotic and mendacious, so it's really hard for me to be objective. I'm actually glad to have read it and not had to listen to him stammering, though the news reports say he did a better job and are calling it a draw. I guess Kerry didn't "put him away." On paper, it looks like he did. That stuff about Bush's tax returns was gold, and Bush has no way of defending his environmental record 'cause he doesn't have one. But are those things people care about? I don't know.

It's scary to think that Bush's tired "he's a liberal" argument actually means something to anyone, but I know it does. But who's the real "liberal"? Bush's spending has been out of control, and he has the gall to accuse Kerry of being a "liberal," i.e. a "spender." I think it was Bill Maher who said recently, I'd rather have a tax-and-spender instead of a don't-tax-and-spender. It's true. Bush is basically using lingual heuristics here, knowing that the word "liberal" triggers some kind of Pavlovian snarling in conservatives, regardless of the fact that Bush has all but killed fiscal conservatism during his term. It's a lot easier than having to actually talk about his opponent's record and positions--that would be "hard work." Unbelievable.

And this part of the debate is hilarious:

Question 16: President Bush, who would be your next choice for the Supreme Court?

GIBSON: Mr. President, the next question is for you, and it comes from Jonathan Michaelson, over here.

QUESTIONER: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

BUSH: I'm not telling.

(LAUGHTER)

I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.

(LAUGHTER)

HAHAHA...this almost sounds like a Bush v. Gore joke.

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Um, so being a constructionist isn't having a "personal opinion" about the law? I hate this whole "opinion" argument. Don't the justices write "opinions?" Isn't the whole rationale behind the Supreme Court post-Marbury (hell, forever) that Justices will have different opinions, so we need more than just one of them to get a majority opinion? Hell, I'm not explaining this well, but this whole exchange seemed really 12th grade Civics class. Don't opinions count for something? There can be right and wrong opinions, you know. I don't know, W. just makes-a me so mad...moving on.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

Thank you.

What in the hell is he talking about? Sure, the Dred Scott decision was based on the judges' personal opinions...about the nature of property rights and if human beings should be considered private property. The way he says opinion makes it sound like it's anathema to all judicial decision-making. Listen, the Dred Scott decision is a ridiculous relic of its time and an abhorrent blight on our judicial system. And of course it was based on personal opinion! Those justices probably didn't like black people too much...but there were still legal reasons for them coming to their decision, as insanely awful as it was. Scalia's whole "constructionist" thing is ultimately his personal opinion. I'm not really sure that Bush understands how the court works at all. It is made up of fallable, opinionated people, who sometimes make boneheaded, mean-spirited, weak-willed moves (like Bush v. Gore!).

And the Constitution doesn't speak for equality? Was he foaming at the mouth when he said this? Of course, it used to talk about slaves and stuff, and at the time of the Dred Scott decision, slaves didn't have much in the way of constitutional rights, but what about the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, Mr. President? What about the 14th amendment, specifically? Was he misspeaking here? Am I missing something? Let's take a look at Section 1 of the 14th Amendment...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hmm...all persons...blah blah blah...no state shall make or enforce any law...blah blah blah...oh, here it is! "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person withing it jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Emphasis mine, of course (as if you couldn't tell...I hate that the blogging world is so ticky that I feel obligated to note this). I believe that's called "the equal protection clause" (law folks, help me out here), and I believe that a root of the word equality is equal. And it appears that the US Constitution clearly talks about equality. It may not mention that "all men are created equal" like the President started to say--that would be from the Declaration of Independence, penned by Mr. Thomas Jefferson, who was not at the Constitutional Convention, and most certainly was not alive for the 14th amendment's ratification--but I think that the 14th amendment is even stronger than that.

What does this all mean besides the fact that after rambling forever I haven't made a single cogent point? Well, let's just say our president is weird. And he uses the ol' "constructionist" trope as a mask for appointing more conservative judges...he makes it sound like he wants some sort of non-thinking judicial robot, spitting out bland decisions not influenced by "personal opinion," but that's not the case. He wants opinionated judges like anyone else. This personal opinion nonsense breaks if you think about it. He wants judges whose opinions match his. That's what he means. Constructionists? Ha! I think Scalia proved that's a load of hype years ago.

Okay, I'll stop now.

The debates

I want to watch 'em, but listening to George W. Bush speak is hard work. I know...I see it on the TV screens.

Around The Sun

I know I promised you a review of it a long while back after I heard it up in the REM offices, but unfortunately, my job keeps me from talking about it. Let me just say that the Stylus Magazine review is dead on. And that's not good.

Holy Cow!

38-10. They look unstoppable. I'm about to pee myself. If Auburn can beat Tennessee today, and MSU can actually beat Vandy (for once they might not), this will be an amazing day.

Holy Jamoley

Georgia is putting a hurting on LSU right now. 24-0 in the 2nd quarter. None of my teams (AU, UGA, Miss. St.) ever beat LSU...until this year! Why don't I have beer right now to sling around the room in glee? Oh, yeah. I'm broke.

That darned liberal media

I have yet to see one assertative story out there that says conclusively that Kerry won the debate, even though most people with half a brain, most experts, and all of the polls seems to suggest that Kerry killed Bush. An article in the front of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution today made it sound like opinion was evenly split between the two camps. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even most Republicans admit, at the very least, that Kerry didn't lose the debate. There goes that liberal media again...spinning for the Republicans!

At a pro-Kerry rally my company helped organize yesterday, you could see the anger and newfound fear in the Bush supporters' eyes. Some choice comments:

"You Democrats are a bunch of weak-ass faggots!"
"You fucking liberal motherf---ers f---ing suck!"
"Patchouli! Patchouli!" (This one actually made me quite angry for some reason as we were the least hippie-ish group of people you've ever seen)
"Kerry sucks! Bush (garbled beyond recognition)"

We got a lot of the last one. Someone through a cup of water on my boss.

I don't think that Democrats should worry about the African-American vote based on my observations yesterday (admittedly a small sample); the black folks were fervent honkers and screamers. It felt good. A lot of SUV drivers and LSU fans gave us "props" as well. A pretty big surprise, but welcome all the same.

A hastily assembled marching band showed up (one drum, a marching glockenspiel, a trumpet, a trombone, and a saxophone) and played a fun repertoire of songs including "This Land Is Our Land." Better than the stinky drum circle that thankfully departed early on (way before the Patchouli Chant).

My sign said "Real patriots don't need an act." One high school kid had a sign that said "Vote Kerry or die trying!" Over the top, yes, but pretty awesome.

On a completely different note, as I type this sweatily after making it only halfway through my new DVD, "Cardio Pilates," I must sternly declare that Joseph Pilates was a sadistic bastard.

Now I must watch the Georgia-LSU game.

My one semi-original thought for the day

Something I've never seen Kerry or anybody address in regards to our needing the UN in Iraq:

We have "war fighters" doing "nation building." Our troops aren't trained for this stuff. A great number of them are teenagers still. Do you think a 19 year old reservist from here in Georgia knows the first thing about re-establishing bureaucracy? I'm not talking about the physical reconstruction of the country as much as I'm talking about the political and social reconstruction. Let's see...who trains nation builders and practices nation building around the world? Why, the UN! Let's face it...our soldiers aren't trained for this sort of thing. It's not necessarily about using the right number of troops...it's about using the right kind of troops. It's not our troops' fault. They're doing the best they can in a miserable situation without adequate training in setting up elections and getting governmental ministries going again. Private contractors aren't going to do this either. Only the UN has experience with this sort of thing, and, yeah, they have some failures, but they're really the only people out there that know how to do this stuff. Unfortunately, it may be too late.

Why does no one ever address this issue and use it as an argument for UN involvement in Iraq?

Talk about your backhanded compliments...

Got this choice quote from Fox News (emphasis is mine):

"Both of them, I thought they did well," [Sen. John] McCain told FOX News. "The reason this president is popular is not because he's a complex individual. He's popular because you see a man who is committed to leading this country in the War on Terror."

Kerry Wins

Even Fox News, save Sean Hannity agreed. Kerry came out nervous, but he came out swinging, and he completely befuddled Bush, who remained on the defensive and ran out of juice about 3/5 of the way through the debate. Talk about repetitive! Bush didn't have much beyond flip-flopping while Kerry demonstrated a breadth of knowledge on the issues. I feel so good right now.

Missed opportunities

Did Kerry miss some? Absolutely. One thing that no one talks about is the fact that we have "war fighters" doing the job of "nation builders." Regardless of how you feel about issues of sovereignty, we must recognize that our troops are mostly equipped to fight conventional wars and not to fight insurgencies and/or rebuild nations. It's not their fault; it's just not how our military is built. This is why we need the UN. They are experienced at this. For all of the rhetoric of our surrendering sovereignty to the UN, let's admit that the UN has quite a bit more experience in this, save our experiences during the Marshall Plan and Occupied Japan (which produced marvelously kitschy salt and pepper shakers and porcelain....and not much else).

If you can't tell, I'm pretty drunk right now. I'm also high on Kerry's performance. We can talk about missed opportunities all day long, but the fact of the matter is that Kerry has too much ammo against Bush. In an hour and a half, there is no way to mount a reasonable prosecution of the Bush administration because there are so many foul-ups there. I think Kerry rocked it, whether or not he looked at the camera. His closing statements were awesome. Bush looked really tired and more than a little pissed. Good.