Now This

This blog is now read by more machines than humans: RSS robots, spam-laying insectopoids, echoes of blog-gathering .edu projects. This essentially is the state of affairs that all human activities w

Cleaning Up the Nation

Austin Bay:

If Air America were a conservative radio network its corrupt funding trail and cynical abuse of a poverty program would be front page news at the NY Times and full-time mega-scandal at

Rank Materialism

Freedom. I am now the proud new owner of a Gateway 6020GZ laptop, perfect for students and others with limited means. I can now go into a Starbucks or a Barnes & Noble and look like I'm doing some

Fallujah Fonda

Uh-oh. From the Telegraph comes this exciting news:

Jane Fonda is returning to anti-war activism and embarking on a cross-country tour to call for an end to US military operations in Iraq.


John Pilger: Partner in Terrorism

In an outrageous piece of terrorist propaganda appearing on the cover of today's New Statesman, John Pilger puts the blame for the 7/7 London attacks not on the terrorists, but rather on Tony Blair:

The Candidates' Debate

I'd give the edge to Kerry as far as debating goes. If this were a debating team competition, he's the winner. He seemed more confident than Bush did, and backed up his assertions with more facts (some of which were questionable) and he delivered them with authority. Kerry did a good job of seeming presidential. He probably allayed a lot of concerns that many Americans had about him- he has had a bad couple of months in the campaign.

But Bush was by no means slaughtered. He defended himself well for the most part when Kerry attacked, often with facts. I think he was too repetitive; he should have varied his central points more. It was a little too much with the "mixed messages". He should have talked about the spread of freedom more, which was so effective at the Republican convention.

I think the race will now come down to which of these two men's viewpoints regarding the war on terrorism more people agree with. If you think Bush's vision of a broader war, employing a more vigorous offensive, with a particularly American vision is the right way to go, you'll support Bush. If you think that the war should be more narrowly focused on Al Qaeda, that we should rely more on defensive measures than offensive ones, and that we should act within a global consensus, you'll support Kerry.

Kerry will get a bounce out of the night, possibly tying up the race, or coming pretty damn close. The Bush campaign will have to work hard to roll those numbers back.

My support for Bush hasn't changed, unsurprisingly. Kerry made a strong show of supporting the war in Iraq now, but the fact that he would have had no second act after Afghanistan if he were the president is a concern for me. I think his complete rejection of Bush's decision to topple Saddam is more important than his promise to be a strong wartime leader. There's nothing in his past that suggests that he would be, and quite a lot that suggests that he would not be. I'm not moved.



Check for new comments.

Add Your Comment

Name (required)

Email (not required, not displayed)

Web (optional - will be linked)

Comment (max 4000 characters)

Reload Image

Enter Code

Top Tags