in a sudden, blinding flash of pessimism...
52-48. Hell, 53-47.
No upsets go the GOP's way -- not Minnesota, not New Jersey, not Missouri.
Kirk comes from behind in Texas.
Someone else unexpectedly loses -- not Gordon Smith but someone like him. Maybe Liddy Dole.

Note that I really hope I'm wrong.

All Wellstone, all the time
I don't know what to make of this story (see also here).

The demand for equal time seems silly but the call for a series of debates is probably the best way to make everyone happy. Get out two podia, invite both Coleman and Mondale, and give the time to whoever shows up. (Coleman definitely would, maybe Mondale too if he knew the thing would be televised with or without him.)

I'm vaguely appalled at what the memorial service turned into but complaining about it just seems too convenient. Instead I'll bitch about this post, which is so asinine that one of the blog's collaborators immediately follows up with a rebuttal. Two points:

1. Why should Bush go to an event that Cheney has already been asked to stay away from? Republican need not apply, is the strong impression I get.

2. Thanks in part to Bush's predecessor, people seem to have gotten this idea that the president needs to butt in anywhere that news happens, just to hang around and be all presidential. This is (to me) the most appalling thing of all, that people have gotten this Pavlovian response where they're paralyzed without a Fearless Leader to come along and tell them that Everything Will Be Okay. Of the 250 million people in this country, I think most of us are over 18; you'd think more of us could act like adults.

More on the "assassination" column
Here's a much better parody than my feeble attempt below.

You know who really killed the Kennedys? Captain Fancy, that's who!
J'accuse. Of course, that's a very far-fetched story and other explanations are far more likely, but the fact that we're even having this discussion at all is just a sign of what a cold-blooded killer Captain Fancy really is.

Or something like that.

In the past I've made a point of ignoring this guy, the only columnist or cartoonist I can think of who's so beneath contempt that I don't bother mentioning him by name, but this piece is so vile you can't just not mention it.

I came for the sniper conspiracy theory but stayed for the celebrity gossip
...to this weblog, that is.

Scroll down for the comparison between Winona Ryder and Lizzie Grubman. I hadn't followed the former case nearly as much as others have, though I think I knew more about the latter than a typical person (some combination of Mickey Kaus and other sources). I'm shocked at (if this guy's facts are right) how much more harshly Ryder is being treated than Grubman. Who's railroading her and why?

Or is this guy just off his rocker? (On that note, I don't vouch for anything he writes about al Qaeda et al.)

Good question here
About the Democratic Party and over-the-hill white males.

I know Minnesota is a very pasty state anyway but are there really no good up-and-coming female or minority candidates in New Jersey?

A surprisingly insightful headline
Women's lobby sees primetime sexism

Well of course that's what they'll see if that's what they're looking for. They're not going to just say, "hmm... nope. No sexism here. I guess our work is done." That would mean no publicity, probably also no money.

Lobbyists have mouths to feed, after all.

Mangled Headline of the Day
From ABC News via Opinion Journal:

Nations Urge N. Korea to Drop Nukes (emphasis added)

Reminds me of an old You Can't Do That On Television sketch where the dad is explaining to his kid how nuclear holocaust came about. Paraphrasing:

"It was a translation error. We told the Russians we'd get rid of our nuclear bombs if they dropped theirs. We did... and they did."

"for the children"
Eloquent open letter to Susan Sarandon.

Link Fix
The manifesto mentioned below is here somewhere.

The Guns of Hollywood
Some priceless analysis here, especially the final movie mentioned.

"Fighting the Nazis" versus "fighting the Germans"
Does it seem to anyone else as though people who are so dead-set against ousting Saddam, defeating Islamofascism, etc. (see the comments made to this post) completely fail to see distinctions like the one in this post's title?

The worst part is that many of them seem to be accusing us pro-war folk of blurring that distinction.

You'll see this a lot in many seemingly evenhanded human interest news stories about what Iraqi immigrants think about our stance on Saddam. Obviously they don't want their old country to be destroyed but they despite the man who holds power there, and for good reason.

Also on that comments widget is a fair amount of anti-Israeli propaganda that's really too vile to be worth addressing, other than that I think it would be deeply poetic justice if one day Arafat himself were killed by a suicide bomber.