The best election day advice

Check out this advice from professional blogger and true academic Josh Marshall. He's got some real tips on how to keep your head from spinning as the results begin to come in.

From Josh Marshall's blog Talking Points Memo:

(November 02, 2004 -- 11:05 AM EST // link // print)

Before we get started today, a quick election day survival guide.

First, the final polls are trending to Kerry. I'm not just speaking about the public polls, but the private ones -- specifically the Republican ones. Does that mean Kerry will win? No, not necessarily. It's too close for that. But the Bush campaign has a lot of incentives to try to get this one into overtime. And we'll see various bogus stories and funny-business throughout the course of the day.

To start with, for instance, don't rely on right-wing agit-prop sites for your news about alleged instances of 'voter fraud'. Wait till you hear real information from real news outlets.

The GOP is going to be pulling this stuff through the course of the day trying either to use it to ramp up their suppression activities or lay the groundwork for challenges to what some are starting to fear won't be good results. (For more on how that works, see Josh Green's always invaluable expose of the Rove election shenanigans playbook.

Second, exit polls.

Exits come out in a several batches over the course of the day. Democrats, on average, tend to vote later in the day than Republicans. Not always, but that's the pattern, for fairly straightforward demographic reasons. And for that reason their exit poll numbers tend to get better over the course of the day. That was strikingly so in 2000. So if you see less than perfect numbers plastered around in the early afternoon, don't let that rattle you.

As we've been saying, this is all about the ground game. So get out there and vote and do the GOTV work for whomever it is you're supporting, and don't get flustered by any through-the-course-of-the-day mind games.

-- Josh Marshall

And as he always says-Democracy starts at home.

Stewart goes off

On October 15, 2004 John Stewart, host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show appeared on CNN's Crossfire and really let his opinions loose on the quality of the program and it's failure to provide the public with the service it claims to.

Check out the transcript below, it's interesting. . .

And a quick note, from the bio page on Tucker Carlson, his educational background is described as follows: "Carlson attended Trinity College in Connecticut."

Paul Begala's reads: "A native of Texas, Begala earned his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Texas, where he taught before his work at the White House. After leaving the Clinton administration, Begala joined Georgetown University's staff as a research professor of government and public policy."

hmmm. read on.


BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

As both of our loyal viewers, of course, know, our show is about all left vs. white, black vs. white, paper vs. plastic, Red Sox against the Yankees. That's why every day, we have two guests with their own unique perspective on the news. But today, CROSSFIRE is very difficult. We have just one guest.

He's either the funniest smart guy on TV or the smartest funnyman. We'll find out which in a minute. But he's certainly an Emmy Award winner, the host of Comedy Central's "Daily Show" and the co-author of the new mega best-seller "America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction," at your bookstores everywhere.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the CROSSFIRE Jon Stewart.

STEWART: Thank you.

CARLSON: Thank you for joining us.

STEWART: Thank you very much. That was very kind of you to say.

Can I say something very quickly? Why do we have to fight?

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: The two of you? Can't we just -- say something nice about John Kerry right now.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I like John. I care about John Kerry.

STEWART: And something about President Bush.

BEGALA: He'll be unemployed soon?

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: I failed the test. I'm sorry.

CARLSON: See, I made the effort anyway.

BEGALA: No, actually, I knew Bush in Texas a little bit. And the truth is, he's actually a great guy. He's not a very good president. But he's actually a very good person. I don't think you should have to hate to oppose somebody, but it makes it easier.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: Why do you argue, the two of you?

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: I hate to see it.

CARLSON: We enjoy it.

STEWART: Let me ask you a question.

CARLSON: Well, let me ask you a question first.

STEWART: All right.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Is John Kerry -- is John Kerry really the best? I mean, John Kerry has...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: Is he the best? I thought Lincoln was good.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Is he the best the Democrats can do?

STEWART: Is he the best the Democrats can do?

CARLSON: Yes, this year of the whole field.

STEWART: I had always thought, in a democracy -- and, again, I don't know -- I've only lived in this country -- that there's a process. They call them primaries.

CARLSON: Right.

STEWART: And they don't always go with the best, but they go with whoever won. So is he the best? According to the process.

CARLSON: Right. But of the nine guys running, who do you think was best. Do you think he was the best, the most impressive?

STEWART: The most impressive?

CARLSON: Yes.

STEWART: I thought Al Sharpton was very impressive.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: I enjoyed his way of speaking.

I think, oftentimes, the person that knows they can't win is allowed to speak the most freely, because, otherwise, shows with titles, such as CROSSFIRE.

BEGALA: CROSSFIRE.

STEWART: Or "HARDBALL" or "I'm Going to Kick Your Ass" or...

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: Will jump on it.

In many ways, it's funny. And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: We have noticed.

STEWART: And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: But in its defense...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: So I wanted to come here today and say...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys.

CARLSON: Yes.

STEWART: Stop.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.

BEGALA: OK. Now

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...

CARLSON: How do you pay?

STEWART: The people -- not well.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure.

STEWART: But you can sleep at night.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.

BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.

STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Wait, Jon, let me tell you something valuable that I think we do that I'd like to see you...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: Something valuable?

CARLSON: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: I would like to hear it.

CARLSON: And I'll tell you.

When politicians come on...

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: It's nice to get them to try and answer the question. And in order to do that, we try and ask them pointed questions. I want to contrast our questions with some questions you asked John Kerry recently.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: ... up on the screen.

STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: No, no, no, here's the point.

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: If that's your goal.

CARLSON: It's not.

STEWART: I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.

CARLSON: Kerry won't come on this show. He will come on your show.

STEWART: Right.

CARLSON: Let me suggest why he wants to come on your show.

STEWART: Well, we have civilized discourse.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Well, here's an example of the civilized discourse.

Here are three of the questions you asked John Kerry.

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: You have a chance to interview the Democratic nominee. You asked him questions such as -- quote -- "How are you holding up? Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?"

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: "Have you ever flip-flopped?" et cetera, et cetera.

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: Didn't you feel like -- you got the chance to interview the guy. Why not ask him a real question, instead of just suck up to him?

STEWART: Yes. "How are you holding up?" is a real suck-up. And I actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: It sounded that way. It did.

STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility.

CARLSON: I felt the sparks between you.

STEWART: I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit.

CARLSON: No, the opportunity to...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: So what I would suggest is, when you talk about you're holding politicians' feet to fire, I think that's disingenuous. I think you're...

CARLSON: "How are you holding up?" I mean, come on.

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: No, no, no. But my role isn't, I don't think...

CARLSON: But you can ask him a real question, don't you think, instead of saying...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: I don't think I have to. By the way, I also asked him, "Were you in Cambodia?" But I didn't really care.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: Because I don't care, because I think it's stupid.

CARLSON: I can tell.

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: But my point is this. If your idea of confronting me is that I don't ask hard-hitting enough news questions, we're in bad shape, fellows. (LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: We're here to love you, not confront you.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: We're here to be nice.

STEWART: No, no, no, but what I'm saying is this. I'm not. I'm here to confront you, because we need help from the media and they're hurting us. And it's -- the idea is...

(APPLAUSE)

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is -- if the indictment is -- and I have seen you say this -- that...

STEWART: Yes.

BEGALA: And that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white.

STEWART: Yes.

BEGALA: Well, it's because, see, we're a debate show.

STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great.

BEGALA: It's like saying The Weather Channel reduces everything to a storm front.

STEWART: I would love to see a debate show.

BEGALA: We're 30 minutes in a 24-hour day where we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out.

STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Jon, Jon, Jon, I'm sorry. I think you're a good comedian. I think your lectures are boring.

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: Let me ask you a question on the news.

STEWART: Now, this is theater. It's obvious. How old are you?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Thirty-five. STEWART: And you wear a bow tie.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Yes, I do. I do.

STEWART: So this is...

CARLSON: I know. I know. I know. You're a...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: So this is theater.

CARLSON: Now, let me just...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Now, come on.

STEWART: Now, listen, I'm not suggesting that you're not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.

CARLSON: They're difficult.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: But the thing is that this -- you're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great.

BEGALA: We do, do...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?

STEWART: Absolutely.

CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: What is wrong with you?

(APPLAUSE) CARLSON: Well, I'm just saying, there's no reason for you -- when you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing.

STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far -- you would not believe what he ate two weeks ago.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.

STEWART: You need to go to one.

The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk...

CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.

STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: Go ahead. Go ahead.

STEWART: I watch your show every day. And it kills me.

CARLSON: I can tell you love it.

STEWART: It's so -- oh, it's so painful to watch.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: You know, because we need what you do. This is such a great opportunity you have here to actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy.

CARLSON: Is this really Jon Stewart? What is this, anyway?

STEWART: Yes, it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: I just can't.

CARLSON: What's it like to have dinner with you? It must be excruciating. Do you like lecture people like this or do you come over to their house and sit and lecture them; they're not doing the right thing, that they're missing their opportunities, evading their responsibilities? STEWART: If I think they are.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: I wouldn't want to eat with you, man. That's horrible.

STEWART: I know. And you won't. But the thing I want to get to...

BEGALA: We did promise naked pictures of the Supreme Court justices.

CARLSON: Yes, we did. Let's get to those.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: They're in this book, which is a very funny book.

STEWART: Why can't we just talk -- please, I beg of you guys, please.

CARLSON: I think you watch too much CROSSFIRE.

We're going to take a quick break.

STEWART: No, no, no, please.

CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials.

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: Please. Please stop.

CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire."

STEWART: Please stop.

CARLSON: Hopefully, he'll be here, we hope, we think.

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: And then, did U.S. soldiers refuse an order in Iraq. Wolf Blitzer has the latest on this investigation right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

Coming up at the top of the hour, the Pentagon investigator a report that U.S. soldiers refused to go on a dangerous mission in Iraq. We'll have details. In medical news, the FDA prescribes a strongly worded label on antidepressant drugs. And why some experts think the flu vaccine shortage is a grim warning about U.S. vulnerability to bioterrorism.

All those stories, much more, only minutes away on "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS."

Now back to CROSSFIRE.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

We're talking to Jon Stewart, who was just lecturing us on our moral inferiority.

Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?

STEWART: I'm sorry. I don't.

CARLSON: Oh, OK.

STEWART: What do you think?

BEGALA: Let me change the subject.

STEWART: Where's your moral outrage on this?

CARLSON: I don't have any.

STEWART: I know.

BEGALA: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material?

STEWART: I'm sorry?

BEGALA: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material if he won?

STEWART: Mr. T. I think he'd be the funniest. I don't...

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: Don't you have a stake in it that way, as not just a citizen, but as a professional comic?

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: Right, which I hold to be much more important than as a citizen.

BEGALA: Well, there you go.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: But who would you provide you better material, do you suppose?

STEWART: I don't really know. That's kind of not how we look at it. We look at, the absurdity of the system provides us the most material. And that is best served by sort of the theater of it all, you know, which, by the way, thank you both, because it's been helpful.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: But, if Kerry gets elected, is it going to -- you have said you're voting for him. You obviously support him. It's clear. Will it be harder for you to mock his administration if he becomes president?

STEWART: No. Why would it be harder?

CARLSON: Because you support...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: The only way it would be harder is if his administration is less absurd than this one. So, in that case, if it's less absurd, then, yes, I think it would be harder.

But, I mean, it would be hard to top this group, quite frankly.

(LAUGHTER)

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

STEWART: In terms of absurdity and their world matching up to the one that -- you know, it was interesting. President Bush was saying, John Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record.

But I've heard President Bush describe his record. His record doesn't match his record.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: So I don't worry about it in that respect.

But let me ask you guys, again, a question, because we talked a little bit about, you're actually doing honest debate and all that. But, after the debates, where do you guys head to right afterwards?

CARLSON: The men's room.

STEWART: Right after that?

BEGALA: Home.

STEWART: Spin alley.

BEGALA: Home.

STEWART: No, spin alley.

BEGALA: What are you talking about? You mean at these debates?

STEWART: Yes. You go to spin alley, the place called spin alley. Now, don't you think that, for people watching at home, that's kind of a drag, that you're literally walking to a place called deception lane?

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: Like, it's spin alley. It's -- don't you see, that's the issue I'm trying to talk to you guys...

BEGALA: No, I actually believe -- I have a lot of friends who work for President Bush. I went to college with some of them.

CARLSON: Neither of us was ever in the spin room, actually.

(BELL RINGING)

BEGALA: No, I did -- I went to do the Larry King show.

They actually believe what they're saying. They want to persuade you. That's what they're trying to do by spinning. But I don't doubt for a minute these people who work for President Bush, who I disagree with on everything, they believe that stuff, Jon. This is not a lie or a deception at all. They believe in him, just like I believe in my guy.

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: I think they believe President Bush would do a better job.

And I believe the Kerry guys believe President Kerry would do a better job. But what I believe is, they're not making honest arguments. So what they're doing is, in their mind, the ends justify the means.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: I don't think so at all.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Now, you're getting into it. I like that.

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: OK. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BEGALA: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We are joined by Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, host of "The Daily Show" and author of No. 1 bestseller, "America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction."

CARLSON: And a ton of fun, I like that too.

BEGALA: Some questions from our audience. Yes sir, what's your name, what's your name?

QUESTION: Hi, my name's David. I'm from Boston.

STEWART: Hi, David.

QUESTION: My question is, what do you think the hump on G.W.'s back during the debate was?

STEWART: Say it again?

QUESTION: What do you think the hump on George's back during the debate was?

STEWART: The hump on his back?

BEGALA: Oh, you're familiar? This is (INAUDIBLE) conspiracy theory. Can I take this one?

STEWART: Yes, please.

BEGALA: It was nothing, his suit was puckering. A lot of people believe he had one of these in his ear. If he was being fed lines by Karl Rove, he would not have been so inarticulate, guys. It's a myth.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: It's not true. There's this huge myth out on the left.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Renee (ph) from Texas. Why do you think it's hard or difficult or impossible for politicians to answer a straight, simple question?

STEWART: I don't think it's hard. I just think that nobody holds their feet to the fire to do it. So they don't have to. They get to come on shows that don't...

BEGALA: They're too easy on them.

CARLSON: Yes. Ask them how you hold...

STEWART: Not easy on them...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: ... saying we were too hard on people and too (INAUDIBLE).

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: I think you're - yes.

CARLSON: All right. Jon Stewart, come back soon.

BEGALA: Jon Stewart, good of you to join us. Thank you very much. The book is "America: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction."

From the left I am Paul Begala, that's it for CROSSFIRE.

CARLSON: And from the right I'm Tucker Carlson, have a great weekend. See you Monday.

Report voting problems

If you experience problems at the polls or witness something out of the ordinary, you can contact
1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) or go to Ourvote.com.

Here's the Ballot

Next Tuesday the ballot will be full people, proposals and initiatives to vote on. Here's a little help sorting through it all for those living in the Holland or Grand Rapids areas. You can also go to publius.org and simply type in your name to see exactly what your ballot will look like.

These are the presidential candidates:

Badnarik, Michael [LIB]
Brown, Walter [NLP]
Bush, George W. [REP]
Cobb, David [GRN]
Kerry, John F. [DEM]
Nader, Ralph [NPA]
Peroutka, Michael Anthony [UST]

Here are candidates for Vice-President:

Baldwin, Chuck [UST]
Camejo, Peter Miguel [NPA]
Campagna, Richard [LIB]
Cheney, Dick [REP]
Edwards, John [DEM]
Herbert, Mary Alice [NLP]
LaMarche, Patricia [GRN]

For 2nd Congressional District in Michigan (Holland etc.):

Graeser, Ronald E. [UST]
Hoekstra, Peter [REP]
Kotos, Kimon [DEM]
VanTil, Steve [LIB]

For 3rd Congressional District in Michigan (Grand Rapids etc.)

Adams, Warren [LIB]
Ehlers, Vernon J. [REP]
Hickey, Peter H. [DEM]
Sales, Marcel J. [UST]

Click here to use the interactive voter map to find your candidates for State representitive.

For Justice of the Supreme Court:

Kelly, Marilyn [NPA] Markman, Stephen J. [NPA] Schwartz, Leonard [NPA] Thomas, Deborah [NPA] Zahra, Brian Keith [NPA]

For State Board of Education:

Boman, Scotty [LIB]
Danhof, Nancy [REP]
Graeser, Gail M. [UST]
McGuire, Marianne Yared [DEM]
McLogan, Colette [NLP]
Moyer, Herbert S. [DEM]
Ponzetti, Peter [GRN]
Poortenga, Stephanie [UST]
Smart, Robert M. [REP]
Whiteside, Ernie [LIB]

For The University of Michigan Board of Regents:

Boman, Scotty [LIB]
Danhof, Nancy [REP]
Graeser, Gail M. [UST]
McGuire, Marianne Yared [DEM]
McLogan, Colette [NLP]
Moyer, Herbert S. [DEM]
Ponzetti, Peter [GRN]
Poortenga, Stephanie [UST]
Smart, Robert M. [REP]
Whiteside, Ernie [LIB]

For Member of the Michigan State University Board of Trustees:

Burgis, Benjamin Alan [GRN]
Dern, Katherine [NLP]
Ferguson, Joel I. [DEM]
Foster, Melanie [REP]
Hall, Bill [LIB]
Miller, Michael H. [LIB]
Pittman, Randall [REP]
Thompson, Phil [DEM]
Van Sickle, Crystal [UST]

For Member of The Wayne State University Board of Governors:

Abbott, Tina [DEM]
Adams, Philip A. [UST]
Guttshall, Margaret [GRN]
Haroutunian, Susan Licata [REP]
Hillegonds, Paul C. [REP]
Jankiewicz, Jerry [LIB]
Jones, Thomas W. [LIB]
Miller, Annetta [DEM]
Oakford, Kathleen [NLP]

The ballot will also contains Proposals A, B, C, D and E.

Here's the Michigan Daily's opinion of how to vote on the proposals. It provides a breakdown of exactly what voting yes or no on each of them means.

State proposals

Proposal A: Watch out for tricky wording. Michigan has a ban against using bingo proceeds to fund campaigns. This proposal, if passed, would uphold the ban - a no vote would lift the ban. The proposal would keep the change in definition of an organization permitted to sponsor bingo so that churches, for example, may continue, but political entities may not begin to practice.

A "yes" on this ballot question would help keep campaign finance in line. Vote YES on Proposal A.

Proposal B: Currently, judges must be lawyers under 70 years of age to take office. Proposal B would add on a prerequisite five years experience. The state doesn't need judges fresh out of law school. Vote YES on Proposal B.

Proposal C: Ever heard of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Proposal C would prevent the state from raiding the Veteran's Trust Fund to cover general funds. The proposal would establish the fund as its own, and ensure that the trust monies go to veterans and their families. Vote YES on Proposal C.

Proposal D: This proposal would add restrictions to bear hunting - but the restrictions would be imposed from outside of the Department of Natural Resources, which handles all other hunting regulations. Political commercials framed the issue as humans versus bears - but it's really about who has control over hunting regulations. Vote NO on proposal D.

Proposal G: More bears, so bear with ... The proposal regards the management of wildlife populations in Michigan - basically, it delegates the responsibility to the Natural Resource Commission, a part of the DNR. Good plan. Vote YES on proposal G.

Proposal E: This proposal would change current regulations to allow gambling in "qualifying" cities - and the only city that would qualify is Detroit. However, Detroit should look for other sources of revenue.

<> Vote NO on proposal E.

For even more detailed information on the proposals check out the Citizen's Research Council of Michigan.

Don't forget to vote. . .even if the weather's bad.

Put on your Red Sox

In the past few weeks, the Boston Red Sox have been wowing old fans and making new ones. Now their two game lead against the St. Loius Cardinals in the World Series is not just history in the making but news worthy of a spot on Silverwagon.com.
1918, the same year the Spanish Flu Pandemic killed 675,000 Americans, was also the same year the Red Sox last won the world series against Chicago Cubs, 4-2. In his book, Babe Ruth and the 1918 Red Sox, Allan wood describes the year as follows:

In 1918, the United States was struggling through the first World War. An epidemic of influenza took the lives of more than 650,000 Americans. Fuel shortages and food rationing were daily facts of life. Against this chaotic backdrop, the Red Sox began their quest for an unprecedented fifth World Series title. And a young Boston player named Babe Ruth began his historic transformation from ace pitcher to the greatest slugger the game has ever known.

So here we are in 2004, another year in which the U.S. is plagued with problems. The 533% increase in the number of "buttck-augmentation" surgeries being just one of these problems, and the news that "A quadriplegic man succeeded in checking email and playing computer games via a microchip embedded in his brain (source)" are just two of the smaller ones.

The Red Sox winning again after all these years would be just one little high note.







p.s. The prudential building in Boston even staggers it's lights at night to spell out "Go Sox."

Cowboy memory

Here is just a quick note on last night's debate.

From the transcript:

BUSH: Thank you very much.

I want to thank Arizona State as well.

Yes, we can be safe and secure, if we stay on the offense against the terrorists and if we spread freedom and liberty around the world.

I have got a comprehensive strategy to not only chase down the Al Qaida, wherever it exists -- and we're making progress; three-quarters of Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice -- but to make sure that countries that harbor terrorists are held to account.

As a result of securing ourselves and ridding the Taliban out of Afghanistan, the Afghan people had elections this weekend. And the first voter was a 19-year-old woman. Think about that. Freedom is on the march.

We held to account a terrorist regime in Saddam Hussein.

In other words, in order to make sure we're secure, there must be a comprehensive plan. My opponent just this weekend talked about how terrorism could be reduced to a nuisance, comparing it to prostitution, illegal gambling. I think that attitude and that point of view is dangerous. I don't think you can secure America for the long run if you don't have a comprehensive view as to how to defeat these people.

At home, we'll do everything we can to protect the homeland. I signed the homeland security bill to better align our assets and resources. My opponent voted against it.

We're doing everything we can to protect our borders and ports.

But absolutely we can be secure in the long run. It just takes good, strong leadership.

SCHIEFFER: Anything to add, Senator Kerry?

KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, Where is Osama bin Laden? He said, I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned.

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.

Here is a direct quote from the March 13, 2002 news conference which Senator Kerry was referring to:

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you."

and later. . .

Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him,
when he had taken over a country."

Nurture or Responsibility

In one of the most interesting discussions I have heard recently (listen to discussion with link at the bottom of the NPR page), George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist and linguistics professor at UC Berkley discusses his research into the deep rooted differences between people who identify themselves as conservatives and liberals.

On Tuesday's Talk of the Nation on NPR, Neal Conan and Dr. Lakoff discuss the idea that behind all of our political philosophy is our understanding of the nation as a family-and most importantly that there are two very different types of families. Dr. Lakoff distinguishes the two with the labels strict father and nurturing parent families. In the strict father view, "the world is a dangerous and difficult place, there is competition, and there will always be winners and losers. . . Children want to do just what they want to do and that they need to be made good." Lakoff states that in this view a strict father is needed to support the family in a difficult world, win the competitions and teach his children the differences between the absolute right and wrong, painful punishment and withdrawal of affection being effective ways of teaching this difference. He also highlights the conservative notion that being prosperous is directly linked to being moral, which in turn he links to conservatives going against social programs as they give people something they have not earned.

The opposite of the strict father model being the nurturing model, Dr. Lakoff describes this model being centered on empathy. Empathy leads to the protection of children and the family, which leads to protection of the environment and freedoms. Character being at the heart of the two models, Dr. Lakoff describes each side’s definition of character as:

"Their (conservatives) notion of character is internal moral strength. Whereas the notion for character for progressive is caring and responsibility"

This discussion is incredibly enlightening. While it is important to keep in mind that Dr. Lakoff is a liberal democrat and that he obviously sides with the nurturing family view, his research and facts can provide a deeper understanding for why it is so difficult for individuals of different political opinions to understand each other. Dr. Lakoff points out an interesting example here:

"We have a two-tier economy. About a quarter of our work force can't afford health care and are working people who don't make much money at their jobs. A large percentage of the jobs in this country don't pay enough to really live on. And those people cannot, even though they work hard, cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Because if everybody did, nobody would do those jobs and they are absolutely necessary jobs. These are jobs where the people who do them support the lifestyles the top three-quarters of the country. There aren't other jobs for them and somebody's got to do them. That is what you can see if you are a liberal, but if you're conservative, you just don't see it. You have the idea that any individual, one by one, can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but you don't see the mass of people and the mass of jobs because you only look at the individuals"

So our political stances go much deeper than our personal opinions. They are rooted in how we have been raised and our ideas of individual responsibility and opportunity. While liberals believe in nurturing the entire community or family, conservative hold to the idea that each individual has an equal opportunity to pull themselves up and a responsibility to do so. This may be an over generalization and obviously everyone falls somewhere between these two opposites. The ideas presented in the discussion, though, and in George Lakoff's book Moral Politics certainly creates an avenue for bringing liberals and conservatives to a better understanding of themselves and the individual on the other side of issues.

Check your levels

I love coffee, yet along with a good part of the thinking public, I have always had the sneaking suspicion that something might a little off about the brew passed across the counter at the neighborhood Starbucks.

Daniel Gross of Slate on MSN.com did some research on Starbucks coffee and found some interesting facts (see his article here). Aside from the fact that the chain announcned plans to up the price of its espressos due to the rising costs of sugar and coffee, more startling are the whopping caffeine levels in Starbucks coffee and drinks. According to this chart from the Center for Science and Public Interest, a 16 oz. cup of regular coffee from Starbucks contains 550 mg. of caffeine-that's more than twice the amount in one dose of Maximum Strength NoDoz and nearly the equivalent of 8 1 oz. shots of Starbucks espresso. Next to the java from 7-11 and Dunkin Donuts which averages around 157 mgs. of caffeine per 16 oz. cup, Starbucks coffee is loaded with tasty trimethylxanthine (caffeine's scientific name).

Just think, with the average american consuming 200 mg of caffeine per day, suck down just one 16 oz. Starbucks coffee, you'll have already caffeinated yourself over twice as much as everyone around you. But then again, doesn't everyone drink Starbucks coffee.

I'm not suggesting there's really anything wrong with that much caffeine, it's simply good information to have.

The most interesting

In an interview (listen to the interview with real player here) on the NPR Program, The Connection, New Yorker writer John Lee Anderson describes conversations and experiences while living and writing from Iraq on the war, the Iraqi people and the future of the country. One of the most interesting people he meets is Ala Bashir "one of his prisms into the society. . .and the man closest to Saddam" as Anderson describes him. In an article on Aljazeera.net, Bashir is described as

"a prominent Iraqi painter, sculptor and internationally known plastic surgeon who once treated thousands of Iraqi soldiers for disabilities arising out of wounds sustained during the 1980-1988 war with Iran. He was also a senior surgeon at Baghdad's Ibn Sina hospital where he provided medical services to Saddam Hussein and senior Iraqi cabinet members. Dr Bashir left Iraq after US-led occupation forces reached Baghdad on 9 April and stayed in Qatar for a while before moving on to Norway."

Anderson described the friendship the two developed and the point at which he eventually broke his silence months before the war broke out. The two met in an art gallery where, as Anderson tells in the captivating interview Bashir

"stood, I'll never forget it, about four inches from my face, it was very unusual. There was an air conditioner nearby, a very noisy old one. . .and began to tell me that everything I had heard about Iraq was true, that there where thousands of disappeared people, that the fear that I felt, that the silence was because everybody was terrified, that nobody was ever going to tell me the truth. It was as though the earth moved or opened beneath my feet-this was the man, I mean after all was Saddam's confidant. This was his personal doctor who had served him faithfully for years and he was telling me that the man he served was after all a terrible killer. And he was taking a huge risk in telling me this."

The reporter goes on to describe his further meetings in Bashir's home during which he expanded on the their conversation in the meseum.

"And it was quite extraordinary because there was something unreconcilled in this. He would swerve between telling me graphically about the brutalities of Saddam or people around him and then he would fall back on statements about how Saddam was necessary for Iraq, that Iraq's history has always been about killing and dying. There was a kind of fatalism to his reflections on Saddam. And like many people around figures of often great and brutal power, he attributed the excesses to the people around Saddam."

The Connection interview continues and Anderson tells of Bashir's hiding in his sister's home during the invasion of Baghdad after being summoned by Saddam. Bashir did not obey the summons and escaped according to Anderson. Bashir worked with the CIA and helped to turn over many of the individuals on the infamous deck of cards.

Bashir is now living in Qatar where he is paiting a series of canvases titled the "Masks of Cain" (one of which can be seen on the Aljazeera link above and another of his paintings can be seen here).

I found listening to this conversation and learning about Dr. Bashir fascinating as it gives us a look inside the real Iraq that most Americans have no context for. This man obviously is a very intelligent and complex individual and l hearing his story is effective tool for creating that much more context for this war that has split not only the U.S. down the middle but changed the world.

Read John Lee Anderson's "Letter From Baghdad" regarding Dr. Ala Bashir and check out Anderson's book, The Fall of Baghdad.

the first post

the first post