Rock On

Kelefa Sanneh's lead essay in the New York Times' Sunday arts coverage, "The Rap Against Rockism," is a phenomenon one sees too often: a critic spouts widely-accepted, conventional wisdom and tries to pass it off as a brave new vision.

Better watch it, Kelefa, for just as what's "classic" in rock regularly changes, so does what's fashionable in pop criticism. With the ground always shifting, yesterday's exciting new notions can become reactionary overnight.

Keeping my priorities straight

Yeah, I know there's an election coming up and all that. But did you catch that UM/MSU game yesterday? It was one of the most exciting I've ever seen.

For the first 50 minutes, the Wolverines played like zombies. They were getting walloped by the Spartans. Then, somehow, they turned it on and scored 17 points to tie it up. Three overtimes later, somehow, they won 45-37.

When games are like this, it makes you think college football is the best sport around. Especially if you're a Wolverine fan.

Chicago Guy adds: I missed the Michigan-MSU tilt but did catch the end of North Carolina's upset of Miami--last second field goal, fans rush the field, etc. Great stuff. LAGuy is right that college football, even featuring teams you don't particularly care about, can be the most exciting sport there is. But they've got to do something about the length of the games. Between the clock stoppages on every first down and every out-of-bounds, and the glacially-paced halftimes, minimum time is three and a half hours (I'll wager that Michigan game was far longer). If they could just (it pains me to say this) borrow one thing from the NFL, it would be to somehow limit the first down and out-of-bounds clock stoppages, maybe to the last few minutes of each half.

Nothing New

Unless the final days' polls show a surprising surge in either direction (due or not due to UBL), things seem to have gotten closer, if anything, in the Presidential race. Some impartial (yes, they do exist) experts told me last week Bush had the slightest edge and now Kerry has the slightest edge. With the welter of polls, often going in different directions, I don't know how anyone can say who's in the lead, especially in the Electoral College.

So, same as before, only moreso: battleground states, turnout.

(Some treat polls like a horserace, but in a real sporting event, being ahead is something real. Right now the score is--not counting early voters--0-0.)

Ah yes, early voters. Their unprecedented high number is getting a lot of coverage. But the interesting question is do they reflect higher voter participation overall, or just higher early voter participation.

Oh, and don't forget to turn your clocks back.

I can't bear the suspense

The stark cover of the Los Angeles Times Sunday Book Review demands "Is Either Of These Books Worth A Damn?" The books in question are Unfit For Command, an attack on John Kerry, and Unfit Commander, an attack on George Bush.

WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD! I'M NOW GOING TO REVEAL WHAT THE LOS ANGELES TIMES HAD TO SAY ABOUT THESE TWO BOOKS! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW, STOP READING! I'M NOT KIDDING!



(The anti-Bush book is great, the anti-Kerry book is garbage.)

Who knows

I think Pajama Guy has it right. Osama figures if Bush loses, which might happen, he can take credit. And his conciliatory (stop hitting me!) tone will then sound even better--he imagines.

What no one knows, though everyone speculates about, is how this pronouncement will play with the electorate. They already have such mixed feelings about almost everything--Iraq, the economy, Bush, Kerry--that anyone who claims to know how this'll play might as well be guessing.

Pajama Guy adds: The polls released Saturday show, if anything, a slight bump for Kerry, though NRO's Kerry spot suggests this is just because weekend sampling favors the Democrat. That said, unless there is a big move toward Bush Sunday morning, you will have to conclude the bin Laden tape didn't matter one whit. A bigger factor may turn out to be weather here in the Northeast. We're expecting scattered thunderstorms on Tuesday which I assume can only help Bush pick off a New Jersey, New Hampshire or Pennsylvania.

Let's Make A Deal

Bin Laden, inserting himself into our election, makes the following arguments:

Bush is misleading Americans. Even the 2000 election was
fixed.

Part of the problem is Americans and Israelis oppressing the
Palestinians.

The Patriot Act is a form of oppression.

Bush showed he was unfit as Commander in Chief because he didn't leave a bunch of schoolchildren while the towers were being attacked.

America's fight against Iraq, before and after the war, has been immoral, resulting in massive civilian death, especially of children, and only happened so we could steal their oil.

The events of 9/11 were the inevitable answer to American oppression of Muslims. There were plenty of warnings that were ignored.

I think we can work something out. If he voluntarily surrenders, we can get him a work-release job either as a columnist for The Nation or a tenured history professor.

But I know that he knows that I know that he knows....

So Bin Laden is threatening us. It's pretty clear, regardless of what he thinks of Kerry (I doubt he's a fan) that he hates Bush. Bin Laden's people have committed many acts of terrorism, and it's not hard--despicable as the acts are--to figure why. They want to force their way of life on others, and they want those who oppose them to give in or get out.

I'm guessing Bin Laden is a lot more desperate than he used to be. This latest seems to be begging America, no matter who wins the election, to leave him alone. That's the sound of someone who's tired of being pounded.

Anyway, with their MO so clear, it's interesting how some are trying to spin this latest message. Remember Spain--huge terrorist attacks helped force those who supported the Iraq war out of office. It doesn't take a New York Times columnist to figure enemy number one is George Bush, the guy who started the war and guarantees its continuance.

Yet some bloggers (I won't hurt their rep by naming or linking them) actually think Bin Laden is threatening us because he knows that we hate him and won't do what he says, so when he tries to scare us away from Bush, we'll secretly turn toward Bush, which is just what evil genius Bin Laden wants, since constant worldwide pounding guarantees he'll get more volunteers (compared to those awful years when he could openly plot and plan to do anything anywhere across the world with all the henchmen he needed).

That's right, Bin Laden, master reverse psychologist! Next time he'll be saying we should support the state of Israel against Palestinian terrorism.

Wait, I just had a new idea. Bush actually could have captured Bin Laden, but let him go, because he knew that Bin Laden would mistakenly attack him just days before the election, driving voters toward Bush. Yeah, that's it. It all makes sense now.

Pull that lever, push that chad

Many doubt a sudden "rush" to Kerry in the last few days of the election. This makes some sense, especially since most polls, with a little pushing, don't show too many undecideds. But even if the polls are immovable, there's still that "moment of truth" when you've closed the curtain and it's just you and your conscience. That's when you stop pretending.

Four years ago, probably due to that "moment," there was an amazing rush to Gore. Five million voters were undecided and four million went to the Veep. Why? Well, he was tested, whereas this new guy only had his breath tested. (Does that make the "moment" a "moment of clarity.")

Which reminds me (this should be a separate post, but there are no rules here), it was four years ago when George W. Bush folded up his tent and decided to coast to victory. Even now I'm dumbfounded. Exactly what did he have to do that was more important?! I know he likes vacations, but couldn't he wait a few more days? He almost got a big vacation.

One more thing. I've already got expert analysis as to why Bush or Kerry won. Now all I need to do is await the results.

The waiting is the hardest part

The election is tense enough without the threat of terrorism hanging over our heads. I take this threat seriously and would never be flippant about it, but those who'd wish to harm America on our soil have had over three years to make a move and so far, nothing.

I'm not impressed with a masked guy in a video warning our streets will run with blood, but if it's going to happen, the terrorists' MO suggests it'll be in the next few days. Like most, I'm not too worried (then again, who was worried on 9/10?), but I know what would be nice. If Bush and Kerry could stop their campaigning, appear arm in arm on TV, and explain that no matter what other differences they may have, they are as one when it comes to fighting terrorism, and the terrorists will greatly regret any move they make against us.

Interesting stat

For the first time in a while (that I've noticed, anyway), Bush is ahead or tied in all the polls. Which polls do I mean? Rassmussen, Zogby, TIPP, ABC/Washington Post, ICR, LA Times (the one tie), Gallup, Battleground, Newsweek, Time.

Still, I wouldn't read too much into it. First, almost all the polls are "statistical" ties. Second, let's assume it means Bush has a 2% or 3% lead: 1) There certainly could be a last-second undecided rush to the challenger. 2) A close lead means turnout counts, and no one knows yet who that favors. 3) If the lead narrows, it'll come down to the battleground states, and the data there is, presently, not that promising for Bush. (In the key state of Ohio, the Democrat lawyers so far seem to be beating the Republican lawyers.)

Pajama Guy adds: Surely if these polls mean anything, the fact they're all lining up in the same direction means something.

Chicago Guy Responds: I don't see a last-second rush to Kerry. As a Republican operative I know told me (believe it or not, I know one and he will actually speak to me), "If you don't hate Bush by now, it's not going to happen in the next few days."

Never happy

Recently, the staff of Slate revealed who they'll vote for. It was Kerry over Bush, 46-5. The Kerry voters dragged out the most inane, hoary and overstated arguments against Bush (harder to make arguments for Kerry) and today Slate published reader comments about the piece. And what's got their panties in a bunch? Why, one of the pro-Bush arguments, of course.

Pajama Guy adds: If most Democratic voters have the same level of enthusiasm as the Slate staffers, no way there's a big turnout for Kerry.

Stay Home, It's Over

According to an ABC news poll, 9% of all likely voters have cast early ballots and Bush is ahead 51% to 47%. It's true early voters are traditionally more Republican than Democrat, but the much-vaunted Democrat rush to vote which was supposed to beat Bush this election has not yet materialized.

More good news for Bush. Even though the ABC tracking poll (which will keep changing, of course) at present shows Kerry with a 49%-48% lead over Bush, in the most contentious region, the Midwest, Bush leads Kerry 50%-46%.

Myths

The next seven days are Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas tied up in one for bloggers. And yet, since I expect to be very busy, my blogging may be light. Oh well, I never wanted to unduly influence this election.

Every election, certain analytical myths get trotted out. Occasionally, a new one arises. The latest, for instance, is that since a growing number of people use only cell phones, and pollsters call land lines, that polls are biased against Democrats. Or something like that. Now it's true pollsters will have to eventually adapt, but this argument is, at best, overstated.

My favorite myth, and it's been around at least a few election cycles, deals with "weekend polling." For some reason, many believe that polls done on the weekend are considerably different from those on the weekdays, and less reliable to boot. As far as I have been able to determine, there is simply nothing to this.

If anyone has any evidence I'm wrong, please send it in. By evidence, I don't mean "everyone I know believes it" or "here's the reasons weekends are different." The former is an argument from (questionable) authority and the latter is giving a reason for a non-existent phenomenon. What I would regard as proof is statistical research, with a large sampling, that shows weekends and weekdays provide predictably and significantly different results

Office Special

I just watched the two-hour special episode of The Office on BBC America. Very enjoyable--if you can call the cringe-inducing comedy of The Office enjoyable--but, ultimately, superfluous.

The Office had two seasons of six episodes each where we saw the rise and fall of David Brent, the unbearable regional manager of a paper company who just wants to be everyone's buddy (but only looks out for himself). We also got to know his employees, such as the indecisive sales rep Tim, the tightly-wound assistant to the manager (but not assistant manager) Gareth and the cute receptionist Dawn.

The conceit of the special is the series was a documentary seen on the BBC (the original series was filmed in documentary style) and now it's three years later and we're catching up with everyone. While the ensemble is still in fine form, the last time we left these characters, they were not in good shape. Now, perhaps as a sop to the fans, happy endings abound, with Tim and Dawn finally together and David meeting a gal he's crazy about.

I like happy endings, even when they're not deserved. Nevertheless, the drab life of The Office ending correctly the first time--with these sad sacks not getting what they want, but continuing on nevertheless.

Thriller

Thomas Vinciguerra begins his New York Times article on a Michael Jackson academic conference with this:

"I'm not like other guys," Michael Jackson sang in "Thriller," the 1982 hit song,video and album. That's for sure.

Actually, he didn't sing it. He said it. And only in the video. Also, while the album Thriller came out in 1982, the "Thriller" video was first shown in late 1983 and the song didn't hit the top 40 charts until 1984. Minor mistakes, to be sure, but not the best way to start an article.

Go home, it's over

Early voting results are in. Essentially, Democrats have succeeded in getting out the vote at much higher levels than 2000, not to mention at higher levels than Republicans.

This strongly suggests, in an tight election determined by turnout, that Kerry will win.

True Believers

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Stuart Benjamin has a post that I think misses the point. He quotes at length from a PIPA (Program on International Policy Attitudes) press release from the University of Maryland.

The report is about the many misperceptions Bush supporters have regarding Iraq. It's the same list we've seen before--WMDs, Iraq and Al Qaeda, world perception, etc. According to PIPA, Bush voters are way off while Kerry voters are much better at getting their facts straight.

First, you don't need to be Clintonian to see ambiguity in the questions. Even after checking out the Duelfer report, for instance, it really does depend on what you mean as to whether or not Saddam had WMD programs. I'm afraid I'd still get a lot of the answers "wrong."

But this is minor. Let's assume Bush supporters do get all these things wrong. This is to be expected. People who support the war in Iraq are more likely to accept things that favor their beliefs, even if false, than those who oppose the war. Why do you think they support the war? In the same way, those who oppose the war are more likely to believe myths that go along with their beliefs.

However, the "non-partisan" PIPA report comes to a different conclusion:

"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters."

So, in other words, PIPA asks questions designed to show that only Bush supporters are wrong, and then comes up with one-sided reasons as to why Bush supporters are wrong. The more prosaic explanation--that people tend to believe things that support their side--is apparently not even considered, much less tested, by PIPA.

This psychological rule doesn't just apply to Iraq. Read The National Review. They're conservatives and--guess what?--they look at any issue and conclude conservative thinking is right. Read The Nation. They're liberals and--guess what?--they look at any issue and conclude liberal thinking is right. Now I'm not saying no one can be right. I'm not even saying either side can't be completely right. I'm just saying there's a tendency to fool yourself which is hard to get around.

Stuart Benjamin concludes his piece asking "Isn't it disappointing for so many supporters of any presidential candidate to have such misperceptions on issues as central as these?" Well, no. I'm pretty confident there has never been any considerable group of supporters for any important Presidential candidate at any time in our history who didn't have at least some significantly wrong perceptions.

Broadway the Hard Way

Earlier I tried to post something on PBS's six-hour special Broadway: The American Musical. For some reason, it didn't take. Does this blog have some sort of filter keeping out stuff that's too gay?

Which leads me to the question: Why is it that liking old Broadway musicals, which used to generate countless hit songs beloved by all, is now a sign of homosexuality?

Pajama Guy responds: Don't blame Marv Albert.

Who needs the suspense?

The latest AP Poll, with a three point lead for Kerry and a 47% approval rating for Bush, doesn't bode well for the President. Did I say "bode"? That suggests something that'll happen in the future. Too late.

The most interesting thing about the poll is 24% said they'd already voted or would vote before the election. Could that be true? This would mean that polls taken just before the election would be about hard votes--they'd practically be exit polls. Will the AP, happy to get a scoop, tell us who won the weekend before Election Day?

Come on in, the water's fine.

Andrew Sullivan is now a little worried that Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit doesn't link to enough negative stories on Iraq. At least Sullivan recognizes Glenn Reynolds can do what he wants with his own blog, but he still goes too far.

First, he claims "if you read [Reynolds], you wouldn't be able to understand why there is even a debate about the management of the war in Iraq." This is nonsense. Instapundit might link mostly to pro-Iraq stuff, but usually within the context of the huge debate going on. If you read everything Glenn Reynolds links to (though I don't know how anyone could, even Reynolds), you would get a very clear idea what critics of the war are saying, even if you didn't agree.

Second, Sullivan complains his arguments against the war have lost him thousands of readers. Am I supposed to be impressed? Sell some more ads if you need the money. Take another month off while your readers send in contributions. I don't care. I'm more interested in the quality of your arguments, not the supposed bravery you show in making them.

Third, Sullivan claims "I cannot see I have much of a choice. Bush's failures are so glaring you have to put blinders on to ignore them."

Mr. Sullivan, there are a lot of different views of the war. Many are dead-set against everything about it. Others (like you) think it's a good idea that's gone horribly awry. Then there are those (like me and perhaps Glenn Reynolds) who favored it and think things are still moving in the right direction, even if there are significant problems to deal with. Just because you've gone off the deep end, Andrew, is no reason for everyone else to jump off the cliff.

The Last Time I Saw Harris

The latest Harris Poll gives us two choices for potential likely voters, with greatly varying leads (2% and 8%) for Bush. Apparently, they're not sure if they should measure likely voters in a new or traditional mode.

This won't do. Any pollster (heck, any person) can give you a bunch of different results based on different methods saying one of them is probably correct. The Harris Poll is a venerable institution, but if they can't tell us what they actually think is the best data, then who needs 'em?

With Friends Like These...

In an interview with Paula Zahn, Pat Robertson claims President Bush told him there'd be no casualties in Iraq. Roberston also believes the President hasn't admitted to any mistakes. Not to worry, however, since Bush will be reelected as he has "the blessing of heaven."

Could Robertson have been more damaging to Bush if he were trying?

No mentum

Congratulations to the Red Sox for making a series of it. Forcing a seventh game after being down 0-3 is unprecedented. If they beat the Yankees, it'll be a classic comeback, and if they lose, it'll be yet more proof of the Curse of the Bambino.

But please let's not talk about "momentum." Winning yesterday's game has no more effect on today's game than winning tomorrow's game does.

Politics is similar. Not that long ago, Kerry was ahead in the polls and some stated the election was his to lose. Following the RNC, Bush regained the lead--pundits said he now had momentum. Then, like the Red Sox, Bush went 0-3 in the debates, and Kerry caught up--some predicted he would soon surge ahead since he'd recaptured the Big Mo. Now he seems to have lost steam, for whatever reason. But hey, we've got a few weeks left...

Let's have a moratorium on the word "momentum." Unless referring to mass times velocity.

Pajamaguy responds: But isn't there something to the momentum in politics? Isn't that the same as jumping the "bandwagon" by what Mickey Kaus is calling the "landside faction"?

LAGuy responds: If there were a bandwagon, the voters sure must get tired jumping on and off it. I don't deny there are certain psychological effects in politics, since people vote based on what they're thinking (I know plenty of people who vote for sure losers so the winner doesn't get any ideas); but by the count listed above, in about two months the lead has shifted back and forth four times, and "momentum" is not a very impressive explanation. It's like sportscasters at a football game saying one team has momentum until the other team scores and then they have momentum--it's just a meaningless term to describe something that's happened after the fact.

Poor Richard

I've long admired Richard Dawkins. I think he's the finest popular writer on evolution in our day.

As an atheist, he's claimed religion has no "special expertise to offer us on moral questions." And certainly, he goes on, religious leaders have no special insight into science.

Fair enough.

Dawkins has been opposed to the Iraq war from its inception, regularly speaking out on the subject. His latest piece is part of a campaign in The Guardian of letters from prominent Britons to Clark County, Ohio, hoping to dissuade them from voting for Bush.

I'm not going to discuss his claims. They're the same arguments--baseless assumptions, flat-out incorrect facts and condescending Bush-bashing--we've been hearing for quite a while, reheated. Please read his letter if you don't believe me.

Here's my question, Professor Dawkins. You properly take religious leader to task for making arguments beyond their expertise. And here you are, a British scientist who's spent half his life in labs and the other half among a social set with rather limited politics. So why should anyone take your simplistic arguments regarding the complex questions of the war on Iraq seriously?

Vote Early (And Often?)

I always thought there was only one day to vote for President, but a bunch of states have decided it's just too strenuous an activity and we should have weeks instead.

Sure, I can understand where someone simply won't be available on election day that a pre-vote could be allowed, but weeks and weeks of votes rolling in? I like everyone being forced to come to a conclusion on the same day. Short of a hanging, nothing so concentrates the mind as an election.

Also (with both parties signing up tons of new voters) this is a new opportunity for chicanery. This country has an ugly history of making registration difficult for certain groups, but I fear the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction; registration nowadays is already quite easy, and attempts to make it easier also make voter fraud easier.

Did you ever have the feeling that you wanted to go...

My place is being tented and I must evacuate for the rest of the week. I know, I know, no sooner do I return than I have to leave. But with yet another debate coming up, I have no doubt that ChicagoGuy and Pajama Guy will be blogging up a storm in my absence.

Novel interpretations

Interesting piece in Slate polling novelists on who they'll vote for. The results: 25-4 for Kerry, with one abstention and one surprise vote for Nixon.

Reading their comments, American novelists tend to live in a world that narrows their political options. It's hard for them to think beyond the received notions of their social set. As Joyce Carol Oates puts it, "[l]ike virtually everyone I know, I'm voting for Kerry."

What makes it sad is not that they're so predictable--many subgroups are. Nor is it that they support Kerry--it would be just as sad if they overwhelmingly supported Bush.

What is sad is they're novelists. If there's one group that needs to see the whole picture, you'd think it's them. To have them shown up as so limited in vision is disillusioning.

The comments range from rational to hysterical, with too many favoring the latter. I recognize these are short statements, but must they replace reasoned argument with petulance?

Dan Chaon, for example, rants about how Bush is almost pure evil. I assume Chaon could write an essay explaining Iago's motivations, but cutting Bush some slack is beyond him.

Amy Tan is equally clueless. Among other thing, she complains Bush doesn't spend enough--if only.

Rick Moody, with the sense of history of a child (I don't care about anything except what's happening now!) thinks the administration is the "most corrupt in modern history."

Judith Guest demonstrates a Moorean lack of understanding (either that or an unbearable coldness) when she manages to feel sorry for the children of Iraq only after we started fighting to kick out Saddam.

Edwidge Danticat fears that attacking Afghanistan has created more terrorists--a country where terrorists (in particular, those who planned 9/11) formerly had free rein.

Jane Smiley's paranoid rant is so amusing I'll quote it in full:

"I am voting for John Kerry. Would George Bush steal the election if he thought he could get away with it? The evidence is that he has (disenfranchising black voters in Florida in 2000) and wants to again (attempting the same trick already this year). That such a man, an amoral prevaricator and ruthless opportunist, actually has supporters in his bid to wreck American democracy appalls me. I think that the coming election will result in a constitutional crisis of unprecedented danger. I consider a vote for Bush a vote for tyranny."

Russell Banks reminds us, whoever wins, that we live in a "fascist plutocracy."

At least Gary Shteyngart, living in Italy, admits he gets his information filtered by the International Herald Tribune. (He also takes a second to stick a shiv in our ally Berlusconi.)

Thomas Beller feels Bush-Cheney are too angry, and resort to slander.

When Hollywood stars speak out on politics, it's like kids performing at a family get-together--no one takes them seriously, but it sure is cute. After reading this Slate article, I don't see why we should take novelists one whit more seriously.

Notes from the Counter-Coulter

In the latest Los Angeles City Beat, Ron Garmon reviews David Brock's The Republican Noise Machine. Midway through, I ran across this sentence:

"The entire conservative movement is a neo-fascist iron dream funded by a few very deep pockets and kept in power by systematic lying to voters dumb enough to believe in it."

Charming.

0-2, and still undefeated

I haven't seen a single poll (I admit I only saw four) that showed swing voters or voters in general felt Bush won the second presidential debate. In fact, most showed Kerry won, though by a small amount. I must repeat my belief, that the best way to win a debate is to win it.

If you're behind 28-0 at the end of the first quarter, and you're only outscored 7-6 in the second quarter, you may feel relieved, but you're still further behind.

I admit the analogy is weakened in that post-debate spinning can change perceptions. Nevertheless, I'm highly dubious that the second debate was a win for Bush.

Move along, nothing to see here

When the Gallup Poll showed a huge lead for George Bush a few weeks ago, MoveOn.Org attacked the messenger. In a full page ad, they claimed Gallup wasn't just wrong, but biased.

Now that the same poll gives Kerry a slight lead, is it still biased? (I don't think even MoveOn.Org has the audacity to claim their ad scared the venerable Gallup Organization into cleaning up its act.)

Baring my soul in public

Hi, LAGuy here. My computer looks like it'll be out over the weekend. I'm only able to post right now by using the computer in a public library.

I know our many readers will miss my left coast take, but I'm sure you'll get by with Pajama Guy and ChicagoGuy to keep you informed over the weekend.

If not now, when?

Before I go on, let me welcome ChicagoGuy to our merry band. Pajama Guy and I met in Chicago before we went our separate ways, so it's good to see the Hog Butcher For The World represented.

I have a friend with a five-year old. The boy will misbehave and my friend gives him a "last chance." The boy keeps misbehaving and the father keeps giving him last chances. Sooner or later, however, there has to be a last "last chance" or the concept is meaningless.

I sometimes feel the same way about our invasion of Iraq. Iraq had defied us for years. We had gone the extra mile, gotten a unanimous UN resolution threatening consequences if Saddam didn't comply. He didn't and we invaded.

My friends reply couldn't we have waited just another six months? Sure, we could have waited six months. And then another six months. We could have given last chance after last chance, and Saddam would laugh at us while our credibility crumbled along with the sanctions. I told them you have to be pretty naive to think we'd have gotten more support if we'd just waited.

It seems to me the Duelfer Report supports my view. If it wasn't clear before, it sure is now that France, Russia and China were playing us--they were stringing us along, making meaningless statements against Iraq while secretly (and not so secretly) opposing any intervention. Ultimately, they wanted the sanctions to be lifted.

Much of the opposition was funded by Saddam, who spent billions siphoned from the UN Oil-for-Food Program to bribe politicians and others to see things his way. And now we know, falsely assured the US would not invade, Saddam was planning to quickly reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as he had the chance.

Imagine if we had waited. The pressure to drop sanctions would have increased, making any invasion impossible. (If you think it was hard after Saddam defied a U.N. resolution, imagine how hard it would be when relations with Iraq were being normalized.) Saddam would still be a powerful, loose cannon in the center of the Middle East, perhaps hoping to go out in a blaze of glory.

Exhibition game

I agree with the general consensus--Cheney won the debate, but not by much. And since it's only the Veeps, it probably won't matter.

Things got fairly nasty, which I found annoying, because I often didn't agree with the point being made, and hearing it expressed nastily just made it more grating. What annoyed me most was when Edwards told Cheney what America demanded of him and Bush. Speak for yourself, pretty boy.

Meanwhile, Bush is out giving real barn burners. He should save some of that fire for Friday, when people will be paying attention.

Rodney

I just heard Rodney Dangerfield died. He was 82 and in a coma, so it wasn't a complete shock. Still, it's the end of an era. I'm not sure if Rodney was the last of the old-fashioned comics, or the first of the new. No question he was one of the funniest.

He operated in the "old style" of no-nonsense jokes. Not long stories, not political ruminations, not the world as I see it, but rat-a-tat gags. Once Henny Youngman left us, Rodney was the undisputed king of the one-liners. He's the kind of comedian whose jokes are irresistibly quotable. (But I'm going to resist. To read some, go here.)

But he was more than old school. Rodney had attitude. Whereas Youngman, or Myron Cohen or Milton Berle were telling jokes, he himself was the central joke. His "I don't get no respect" character was one of the greatest hooks ever in stand-up. It was the persona that launched a thousand laughs.

He had an odd career. A professional comedian as a teenager, he quit, discouraged, before he was 30. After a decade as a civilian, he relaunched his career at 40, a gutsy move. In a few years, he worked his way to the top of his field. His Tonight Show appearances were classics--he'd tell a barrage of jokes, sit down for the panel, and launch into a second routine.

He also opened his New York Club, Dangerfield's, and discovered many new comics (Roseanne, Sam Kinison, Bob Saget and others) on his HBO specials. Remembering how tough he'd had it, he was one of comedy's top mentors.

Then, at an age when many retire, he became a movie star. (He became hip when others were breaking theirs.) He was memorable in Caddyshack (1980) and became a full-fledged idol in the blockbuster Back To School (1986). Unfortunately, he waited too long and chose poor scripts, and never reached these Hollywood heights again.

Nevertheless, he remained until the end of his days a major headliner. I saw him in Vegas when he was in his mid-70s, and he gave his all. The audience wasn't there to catch a glimpse of a legend, they were there to be entertained, and Rodney always delivered.

Plug

Over the weekend, I saw a very funny film entitled Fellowship 9/11. Since it's a short, I don't want to give away too much, but I can tell you the premise is Michael Moore fearlessly sets out to investigate a questionable war taking place in Middle Earth.

The movie can be enjoyed by anyone, but the more you know about the Lord Of The Rings trilogy and Fahrenheit 9/11, the more you'll enjoy it.

To find out more about the short, and even contact the filmmakers, go here.

Once More, With Feeling

We'll soon have new debates to discuss, but I'm gonna take one more crack at the first.

Those who think Kerry lost keep harping on what he actually said. It's true, in trying to please an anti-war base while reaching out to pro-war voters, he had a tough time threading the needle. But the reason he won the debate isn't about substance, it's about Rush Limbaugh's favorite word, character.

Before the debate, the anti-Kerry people had done a great job painting him as irresolute and even devious. Meanwhile, Bush, at his convention, had reminded people of the focused, fearless leader he could be at his best.

So what did the public see at the debate? On one side, a man in full command, who speaks his mind and knows what he believes. On the other, canned lines, grimaces and awkward pauses. Which one looks like a President to you?

The debate gave an ailing Kerry a chance to reposition himself, and in the first face-to-face comparison with his opponent he did what a whole convention couldn't. Pajama Guy responds: Or did it? The new Fox poll is out -- I believe the first one that does not including weekend samples. Looks like if Kerry got a bump from the debate, it's a very small one.

0-1 and undefeated

I've been having technical difficulties on my end, so I'll keep this short.

I'm still having trouble understanding how Bush won the debate by losing it. His lead in most polls has narrowed or evaporated. The response apparently goes that Kerry's mistakes will hurt him in the long run. I got news for you--the run ain't much longer, we got four weeks left. If Bush "wins" two more debates like this....

Pajama Guy reponds: Well.... The idea was this: Kerry was smoother and more articulate -- but he also positioned himself more emphatically than ever as the anti-war guy. Like David Frum, I thought "Kerry [had] locked himself in a strategic box," and that would cost him votes.

Remember, Mondale wiped the floor with Reagan in the first 1984 debate -- by arguing for a big tax hike.

Bush, the flip side of my argument goes, was clumsy and repetitve, but left no doubt that he was in the war to win it. According to yesterday's New York Times (hat tip: Taranto) even former Clinton lawyer Greg Craig -- who played Bush in Kerry's preps -- saw virtue in Bush's style:

"I've learned to admire, more than I would have, his compulsion for simplicity," Mr. Craig said. "I understand there's some content to it, and I understand the power of the simple phrase. Prior to this, I would have just shrugged it off as an empty slogan."

That said, it is getting harder argue Bush won the debate. Frum now says that at the very least Kerry has won the post-debate debate, and this morning John Podhoretz belatedly concedes that "Bush stunk up the place."

But I'm standing pat -- for now -- until I see some polls that don't include weekend repondents.

No bull

I haven't had a chance yet to pick up Philip Roth's latest, The Plot Against America, but good or bad, isn't it time for the Nobel Foundation to stop screwing around and give him the Literature Prize already?

The Phantom Menace

Both sides were so burned by the 2000 election aftermath that they're now worried about things not worth worrying about. Stuart Taylor in the National Journal argues that with all the partisan lawyers spoiling for a fight, judges may yet again decide the Presidency. I doubt it.

First, you'd have to have a very close electoral college result. The electoral college tends to amplify the difference in the popular vote. Bush lost the popular vote by .5% and only won in the electoral college by 5 votes. (If Florida had gone to Gore, he'd have only won the electoral college by 20 votes). Compare this to Carter in 1976, who won the popular vote by 2% and the electoral college by 57 votes, or Nixon in 1968 who won the popular vote by a mere .7% and won the electoral college by 101 votes.

Second, you'd need an extremely close state election for a recount to overturn things. If the difference is not within 1000 votes, it's, statistically speaking, highly doubtful any proper recounting will change the result (unless there was a massive technical error or serious corruption). Even a 100-vote difference is unlikely to be overturned.

These two factors combined make a seriously contested election rare.

If the courts learned anything in 2000 (and I doubt they did), it's that while a quick technical recount to check for obvious mistakes is a good thing, anything after that is as likely to introduce error into the system--intentional or otherwise--as fix it. Once the voting is over and everyone knows the results, the last thing we need is some partisan (and they're all partisans) at a bridge table holding up a punch card to the light to decide whether to award his guy another vote.

Critical Time

In her short review of Shark Tale, the LA Weekly's Ella Taylor calls the film a "blatant effort to cash in on the fruits of the delightful Finding Nemo." Taylor's been at this game a long time, so I'm surprised she seems to think someone at DreamWorks noticed the grosses last summer for Finding Nemo and decided to "cash in." It takes years to plan and produce an animated feature--Shark Tale was well on its way long before anyone had any idea how well Finding Nemo would do. Pajama Guy asks: Then why do we so often see so many movies coming out at about the same time that are so similar?

LAGuy responds: I'm not sure this is the case. Generally, the studios avoid two similar films being released at the same time. It is true that sometimes certain ideas are in the air--volcanoes, first daughters, body-switching, Robin Hood, Alexander the Great, etc.--and there can be several similar films planned simultaneously. In these cases, often certain projects fall by the wayside because they come in second, and at other times the studios make sure one film gets fully played out before the next one gets released. Moreover, those who pitch ideas too similar to films already in development generally get the thumbs down.

This is not to deny there are trends. When you have a hit film like Animal House or Star Wars or Clueless or The Matrix, you get copies. And since at any given time there are thousands of ideas being pitched, if the studio wants to change direction, it has a lot to choose from right away. But all this is irrelevant. Ella Taylor claims Shark Tale is cashing in on a huge hit, Finding Nemo. This is ridiculous. Finding Nemo was released in May 2003. You can't "cash in" on a hit until you know it's a hit, and I can guarantee you that by May 2002 Shark Tale had a script, voice work, and plenty of animators aboard.

Strong Medicine

It's not fair to mock film critics for small mistakes. No one's perfect. But when they're published in the Los Angeles Times, shouldn't someone catch these things?

In I [Heart Symbol] Huckabees, two characters take turns hitting each other in the face with a light, inflatable ball as a distraction therapy. However, Carina Chocano, in her Times' review, states "...Tommy and Albert bash each other in the head with medicine balls to stop thinking."

Medicine balls are best known as those massive things guys in a gymnasium throw around for unexplained and non-aerobic reasons in movies set about a century ago. The Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary defines a medicine ball as "a heavy stuffed leather-covered ball used for conditioning exercises." Getting hit by one would stop you from thinking, alright.

Attack Of The Auteurs

It's been a pretty dismal year so far, cinematically. But things are looking up. Three of our younger, more talented writer-directors have films coming out.

Today sees the relase of David O. Russell's I [heart symbol] Huckabees. I liked Russell's Spanking The Monkey (1994) and thought Flirting With Disaster (1996) was superb. He stumbled, though, with Three Kings (1999), even though that film has been insanely overpraised in some quarters. (I've also heard the best stuff came from the original John Ridley script, but can't confirm that.)

So far, the reviews of Huckabees have not been great, but that doesn't bother me. Strong vision often creates divided critical reaction.

And sometimes it doesn't: the early word on Alexander Payne's latest, Sideways, is it's a near masterpiece. To be honest, the plot--two old pals go on a wine-drinking trip and explore their failed relationships--doesn't sound compelling. But it's what you do with the story that counts.

Payne has done fine work such as Citizen Ruth (1996) and Election (1999). I was less impressed with his becalmed About Schmidt (2002), but even that showed clear talent. Sideways should be out in a few weeks.

A bit later, we'll get Wes Anderson's The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou. Anderson knocked me out with his feature debut, Bottle Rocket (1996). Since then, his films (Rushmore (1998) and The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)) have been a bit cutesy, but undeniably filled with great imagination. He also has pretty cool taste in music.

The Life Aquatic appears to be a weird comedy starring Bill Murray as some sort of Jacques Cousteau character. Whether it's a classic or a classic miscalculation, I'll be there opening night.

Personal Reaction

Unlike Pajamaguy, I believe the best way to win a debate is to win it. But who knows, maybe he's right--maybe when the dust clears the first debate will not go to Kerry. Anyway, I don't enjoy political prognostication, it's tougher than predicting the path of a hurricane.

But I just read the debate transcript and will give my personal reaction. A poor thing, perhaps, but at least my own.

Bush did not do well. To me, the central issue of this campaign is Iraq. As astute readers of this blog already know, I support the war. However, Bush still has trouble articulating why we're there and what we'll be doing. (He has trouble articulating a lot of things.) He keeps repeating catch phrases and avoids significant content. But...since I already know why I support the war, I don't care--Bush doesn't have to explain it to me.

Kerry was more interesting. He was definitely smooth, but vague, and even contradictory. There was nothing new here, but it was concentrated Kerry--he gave a dazzling display of all the things he might do without ever really saying what he will do. All along, my vote has depended on his plan for Iraq and after a whole debate on the issue, it's still impossible to figure out his stance. He has a split constituency and was trying to be all things to all people. It'll be fascinating to see how well it works.