Attackerman, responding to Sarah Palin's freakout over the news that we're going to try KSM in NYC:

What’s an actual insult to the victims of 9/11 is the idea that America is not strong enough to withstand the blatherings of a mass murderer. For me, the prospect of KSM grandstanding at his trial falls into I-wish-a-motherfucker-would territory. I want to hear how KSM builds a case against America, because everyone will hear how laughably conspiratorial and clownish it is. Think of what a cathartic moment it will be when America sees the face of the man considered to be UBL’s most efficient henchman and he delivers a pitiful harangue to a bank of cameras. No one will be emboldened to do anything but laugh. The only downside will be his inevitable discussion of how CIA operatives tortured him.

My hope for the KSM trial is that it does more than all this. It should forever shatter the pernicious myth that al-Qaeda is composed of supermen — supermen against whom America has no choice but to alter its character and most precious laws in order to confront. I suspect we’ll have an Eichmann-in-Jerusalem moment — and sorry for the unfortunate Nazi/al-Qaeda analogy; al-Qaeda are not the Nazis; but I couldn’t really think of any other parallel — except instead of the banality of evil, we’ll see the lunacy and vanity and self-absorption of it. That’s because al-Qaeda’s weltanshauung depends on a myth that holds America to be implacably determined to snuff out the glory of Islam. In reality, most Americans couldn’t give a fuck about Islam and only started to know the first thing about it because of 9/11. But that America — an America bearing no resemblance to the actual America — will be what KSM seeks to counter-indict. It’s farcical, and farcical in ways that can only benefit the real America.

Which leads to Glenn Greenwald's take:

...the Right's reaction to yesterday's announcement -- we're too afraid to allow trials and due process in our country -- is the textbook definition of "surrendering to terrorists." It's the same fear they've been spewing for years. As always, the Right's tough-guy leaders wallow in a combination of pitiful fear and cynical manipulation of the fear of their followers. Indeed, it's hard to find any group of people on the globe who exude this sort of weakness and fear more than the American Right.

People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice. Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings. The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London. Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali. India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents. In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.

It's only America's Right that is too scared of the Terrorists -- or which exploits the fears of their followers -- to insist that no regular trials can be held and that "the safety and security of the American people" mean that we cannot even have them in our country to give them trials. As usual, it's the weakest and most frightened among us who rely on the most flamboyant, theatrical displays of "strength" and "courage" to hide what they really are. Then again, this is the same political movement whose "leaders" -- people like John Cornyn and Pat Roberts -- cowardly insisted that we must ignore the Constitution in order to stay alive: the exact antithesis of the core value on which the nation was founded. Given that, it's hardly surprising that they exude a level of fear of Terrorists that is unmatched virtually anywhere in the world. It is, however, noteworthy that the position they advocate -- it's too scary to have normal trials in our country of Terrorists -- is as pure a surrender to the Terrorists as it gets.

Yglesias:

In political terms, the right likes the war idea because it involves taking terrorism more “seriously.” But in doing so, you partake of way too much of the terrorists’ narrative about themselves. It’s their conceit, after all, that blowing up a bomb in a train station and killing a few hundred random commuters is an act of war. And war is a socially sanctioned form of activity, generally held to be a legally and morally acceptable framework in which to kill people. What we want to say, however, is that this sporadic commuter-killing isn’t a kind of war, it’s an act of murder. To be sure, not an ordinary murder—a mass murder—but nonetheless murder. It’s true that if al-Qaeda were something like the “blowing up train stations” arm of a major country with which we were otherwise at war, it might make the most sense to think of al-Qaeda as fitting in with spies and saboteurs; criminal adjuncts to a warrior enterprise.

After all, do we really want to send the message to the world that a self-starting spree killer like Nidal Malik Hasan is actually engaged in some kind of act of holy war? It seems to me that we don’t.

Last but in no way least, this:

“It is of utmost importance to me that those who were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 face a court,” says Adele Welty in the video. Her son was a New York firefighter killed at the World Trade Center.

“It’s very important to me that we get the right people,” says John Leinung, whose stepson was killed while working in the Twin Towers. “That the right people are punished or held to account for what happened on 9/11.”

Pat Perry, whose son was a police offer killed on 9/11, says she would rather see the Guantánamo detainees who have been held without charge “appear in open court where we can all sift out what we feel is really the truth and the judges can make a decision based on our Constitution.”

These 9/11 family members all say they agree that holding detainees without charge in Guantánamo is a betrayal of American values and they look forward to true justice being served in federal court.

“My son gave his life to save those trapped in the Twin Towers,” Welty says, “and it does not honor him that we violate our Constitution in retaliation for what happened on September 11.”

Yglesias:

In political terms, the right likes the war idea because it involves taking terrorism more “seriously.” But in doing so, you partake of way too much of the terrorists’ narrative about themselves. It’s their conceit, after all, that blowing up a bomb in a train station and killing a few hundred random commuters is an act of war. And war is a socially sanctioned form of activity, generally held to be a legally and morally acceptable framework in which to kill people. What we want to say, however, is that this sporadic commuter-killing isn’t a kind of war, it’s an act of murder. To be sure, not an ordinary murder—a mass murder—but nonetheless murder. It’s true that if al-Qaeda were something like the “blowing up train stations” arm of a major country with which we were otherwise at war, it might make the most sense to think of al-Qaeda as fitting in with spies and saboteurs; criminal adjuncts to a warrior enterprise.

After all, do we really want to send the message to the world that a self-starting spree killer like Nidal Malik Hasan is actually engaged in some kind of act of holy war? It seems to me that we don’t.

Via Atrios, a depressing read in the Boston Review:

Sullivan was working as an analyst at the Veterans Benefits Administration in Washington in early 2005 when he was called to a meeting with a top political appointee at the VA, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Michael McLendon. McLendon, an intensely focused man in a neatly pressed suit, kept a Bible on his desk at the office. Sullivan explained to McLendon and the other attendees that the rise in benefits claims the VA was noticing was caused partly by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were suffering from PTSD. “That’s too many,” McLendon said, then hit his hand on the table. “They are too young” to be filing claims, and they are doing it “too soon.” He hit the table again. The claims, he said, are “costing us too much money,” and if the veterans “believed in God and country . . . they would not come home with PTSD.” At that point, he slammed his palm against the table a final time, making a loud smack. Everyone in the room fell silent.

“I was a little bit surprised,” Sullivan said, recalling the incident. “In that one comment, he appeared to be a religious fundamentalist.” For Sullivan, McLendon’s remarks reflected the views of many political appointees in the VA and revealed what was behind their efforts to reduce costs by restricting claims. The backlog of claims was immense, and veterans, often suffering extreme psychological stress, had to wait an average of five months for decisions on their requests.

If only our troops loved Jesus more, then they wouldn't need to file so many damn PTSD claims. So said the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the VA under President Bush.

This might be one of Broder's best lines yet. On Afghanistan, he writes:

The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose -- and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right.

I mean, my goodness.... people are leaking stories to the press! Its a flood! Doesn't Obama know that the American the damage he is doing? Doesn't he see how this is tearing the country apart? If only he would hurry up and make a decisions. The president doesn't need to be right, after all. He just needs to be fast!

Please, someone... anyone... make Broder retire. He's just embarrassing himself now.

Wanna know why I say the Yankees have Strong Evil?

Check this out.

The best short relief pitcher of all time: a 0.74 ERA over 88 post-season games. Unbelievable.

Via Steve Benen, here's something from Paul Begala written last August that should be kept in mind as the debate over the Stupak Amendment unfolds over the next few weeks:

No self-respecting liberal today would support Franklin Roosevelt's original Social Security Act. It excluded agricultural workers -- a huge part of the economy in 1935, and one in which Latinos have traditionally worked. It excluded domestic workers, which included countless African Americans and immigrants. It did not cover the self-employed, or state and local government employees, or railroad employees, or federal employees or employees of nonprofits. It didn't even cover the clergy. FDR's Social Security Act did not have benefits for dependents or survivors. It did not have a cost-of-living increase. If you became disabled and couldn't work, you got nothing from Social Security.

If that version of Social Security were introduced today, progressives like me would call it cramped, parsimonious, mean-spirited and even racist. Perhaps it was all those things. But it was also a start. And for 74 years we have built on that start. We added more people to the winner's circle: farmworkers and domestic workers and government workers. We extended benefits to the children of working men and women who died. We granted benefits to the disabled. We mandated annual cost-of-living adjustments. And today Social Security is the bedrock of our progressive vision of the common good.

Politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect. I understand this specific issue is a very, very big deal to some people. But big enough to sink a once in a generation chance at meaningful heath care reform?

As with all legislation, these reforms can always be altered and improved later on, particularly because the major provisions don't take effect for as many as 3 or 4 years. If it cannot be corrected now, it can always be corrected later. But if this bill fails to pass, we lose everything in it. There is no a la carte option here.

Lieberman is willing to let the whole thing die because of the public option, exhibiting a level of self-interested short-sightedness that drives his opponents on the left nuts. But now, some of his fiercest critics want to draw a similar line over abortion funding. And so I have to ask: would the women that so many are fighting to defend be better off with a reformed system that doesn't provide insurance coverage for abortions, or with no reform at all? Because if this fight is pushed too far, those will be the choices.

I'm not saying that this isn't a fight worth having. If you believe it is, then fight! But as you do, keep the biggest possible picture in mind.

UPDATE: If you are going to fight, this line of attack from Markos (via Twitter) is a great one to take:

@markos: The thing the Stupak amendment is that I thought Republicans didn't want government between a doctor and patient.

[Updated to correct an absurd number of typos. Never blog before coffee!]

Politico:

While Republicans scored a pair of impressive electoral victories in New Jersey and Virginia with solid support among female voters, the events of the last week offer harbingers of serious trouble ahead with the largest swing voter bloc in the country -- women.

Women are supposed to a be a single voting bloc? And one that swings, no less? This is what passes for analysis at one of our nation's top political media organizations? WTF?!?

TNC:

I find that listening to political operatives to be unrevealing. They're always selling. It's why I can't watch cable news. It's like watching two used car salesmen fight it out on MILF Island.

A few things caught my eye as I was heading out the door...

TNC:

Conservatives pride themselves on their skepticism, and generally dismiss liberals as soft-headed Utopians. But in so many ways, political conservatism is Utopianism for the powerful. It isn't broadly skeptical of human nature, so much as it's broadly skeptical of people its agents don't particularly like. Hence the sense that Americans are intrinsically "good people," that this country "is the best nation that ever existed in history," that the South is home to "the greatest people that have ever trod the earth," and that the murder of four little girls in Birmingham was the work of a "Communist" or "crazed Negro," which had "set back the cause of white people."

Hence the notion that those voting against gay marriage, are not actually, in the main, motivated by bigotry, but a belief in tradition and family. But very few people would actually ever describe themselves as bigots. We think we know so much about ourselves. This is a country--like many countries--which is deeply riven by ethnic bias, and gender discrimination. And yet we don't seem to know any of the agents of that discrimination.

John Cole:

So, to review, the wingnuts took a seat that would have been a win for the Republicans, so much so that the seat had not gone to a Democrat since Reconstruction and the Democratic candidates had been getting about 35% of the vote the last few elections, ran the Republican out of the race, brought their own special kind of crazy to town, and the voters rejected them handily.

Even I didn’t expect Owens to win. I seriously hope they pursue this strategy nationwide.

In other news, a Goldman employee has finally lost a job, with Corzine out in NJ. I know nothing about the election there, nor the one in Virginia, but I do know that Terry McAuliffe is not Governor. That is a good thing.

The only really bad thing is the repeal of the gay marriage law in Maine. Other than that, I’d be hard pressed to draw any conclusions from yesterday other than that Sarah Palin is still a loser. I’m sure that won’t stop the right-wing hacks from claiming this has been a bad result for Obama, but let’s face it- everything is good news for Republicans.

RNC Chair Michael Steele:

"You're Not Gonna Spoil My Juice Right Now. You're not gonna take this high away from me."

Brian Beutler:

Most of the commentary about last night's elections has centered around Republican pickups in the New Jersey and Virginia statehouses. But what's gone largely unnoticed is that the two congressional seats up for grabs last night both went to Democrats, and that will have immediate ramifications for health care reform.

The NY-23 seat abdicated by Republican John McHugh (who resigned to become Secretary of the Army) went to Democrat Bill Owens--the first Democrat to hold the seat in over a century. And the CA-10 seat abdicated by Democrat Ellen Tauscher (who resigned to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs) went to Democrat John Garamendi.

That creates some simple arithmetic. Yesterday, Democrats had 256 voting members in the House. By week's end, they'll have 258.

Michel Steele again:

The GOP renaissance has begun.

Steve Benen:

New York has 29 congressional districts. As of today, the state is represented by 27 Democrats. As recently as a few years ago, Dems had "only" 21 seats from New York.

What's more, New England, made up of six states, has 22 congressional districts. Currently, the region is represented by 22 Democrats.

So, north of the Pennsylvania border, there 51 congressional districts representing 34 million people. Republicans have a whopping two seats.

John Cole:

Could Chuck Todd explain to me how many votes in Congress for health care reform Chris Christie and McDonnell have? Our media is just hopeless.

Kevin Drum:

I understand that everyone wants to spin yesterday's election results in the best possible light for their side, but the sheer volume of yak is astonishing. Was there this much postgame analysis after the off-off-year elections in 2005 or 2007? I don't remember it, but maybe I'm just forgetful these days.

In any case, jeez, can we all get a grip? Democrats lost races in two states. That's a bummer for them, but hardly a referendum on the future of the party. Republicans lost one House seat after a stupid primary squawl. That's a bummer for them, but hardly a referendum on the future of conservatism. Everyone needs to turn down the dial before this election becomes the balloon boy of politics.

Steve Benen:

The Washington Post published a lengthy analysis of political independents in July 2007, based on a survey conducted by the Post in collaboration with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University. The result was a pretty straightforward reminder: there's an enormous amount of political diversity among independents.

Strategists and the media variously describe independents as "swing voters," "moderates" or "centrists" who populate a sometimes-undefined middle of the political spectrum. That is true for some independents, but the survey revealed a significant range in the attitudes and the behavior of Americans who adopt the label. [...]

The survey data established five categories of independents: closet partisans on the left and right; ticket-splitters in the middle; those disillusioned with the system but still active politically; ideological straddlers whose positions on issues draw from both left and right; and a final group whose members are mostly disengaged from politics.

Appealing to "independents" is inherently tricky if "independents" don't even agree with one another.

There. Now you know what I think.

So let me get this straight: attending a ceremony at Dover Air Force Base to honor the fallen is "narcissistic," but landing a jet on an aircraft carrier while dressed in a flight suit to proclaim a war that has only just begun over is the height of patriotism?

So this is narcissistic:

And this is patriotic:

Good to know.

For the past week or so, I've been unable to figure out what to write about the special election being held in NY-23. But the news that the Republican Party's candidate, Dede Scozzafava, has dropped out to make way for the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, has fixed that.

The district should be a safe seat for the GOP. The party's nominee, Scozzafava, is actually to the right of the median member of her party in the NY State Assembly. Hoffman, meanwhile, doesn't even live in the district. And his party is mostly a joke. Here, for example, is the entirety of their position on NATO, one of the 20 major issues listed in their drop-down menu:

"NATO must redefine its mission or we should deem it an institution that outlived its usefulness."

But once a weird collection of national conservative activists got involved, Scozzafava's campaign tanked and Hoffman's took off. And the result? The GOP is now rallying behind the Conservative Party candidate.

Looking back over the entirely of American history, there are plenty of examples of a strong majority party co-opting the ideas, ideals, and language of a small third party that posed a threat to its coalition. But its hard to find an example where a party that had recently badly lost a series of national elections found their way back to the majority by embracing the candidates and ideologies of a fringe third party. In fact, so far as I know, there aren't any examples of that. And my guess is, this won't be the first.

The point of a political party is to build an organization that can bring together a diverse coalition of peoples and groups to win elections, at the state, local, and national levels. You don't do that by having out of state activists overrule the decisions of leaders at the local level. You can try it if you like, but in the end you'll discover I'm right. It won't work.

UPDATE: Well, okay then. Apparently Newt Gingrich agrees with everything I just said.

UPDATE II: And then Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat Bill Owens. Here's her statement:

"You know me, and throughout my career, I have been always been an independent voice for the people I represent. I have stood for our honest principles, and a truthful discussion of the issues, even when it cost me personally and politically. Since beginning my campaign, I have told you that this election is not about me; it's about the people of this District.

"It is in this spirit that I am writing to let you know I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same.

"It's not in the cards for me to be your representative, but I strongly believe Bill is the only candidate who can build upon John McHugh's lasting legacy in the U.S. Congress. John and I worked together on the expansion of Fort Drum and I know how important that base is to the economy of this region. I am confident that Bill will be able to provide the leadership and continuity of support to Drum Country just as John did during his tenure in Congress.

"In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York. Bill understands this district and its people, and when he represents us in Congress he will put our interests first.

"Please join me in voting for Bill Owens on Tuesday. To address the tough challenges ahead, we must rise above partisanship and politics and work together. There's too much at stake in this election to do otherwise."

This is exactly, precisely why the party purification strategy that hard core conservatives are pursuing will drive their party further into the minority. You cannot grow if you insist on purging anyone at the margin of your party that's closest to the center.

And while I'm updating... several of you wrote me to ask how this is different from the strategy the Netroots pursued from 2004-2008. One or two even suggested that I'm being hypocritical. But no, I'm not.

The Netroots pursued a "more Democrats, better Democrats" strategy, which meant that you first expand the size of the party by welcoming in people at the rightward edge of the coalition, then you improve your candidates by nominating people who better represent the party's core values. Or in terms of voters, first you convince them to vote with your party, then you convince them to vote with you on the issues.

Conservatives have inverted this, and are instead pursuing a "better conservatives, more conservatives" strategy, and that won't grow their party back into the majority.

This is one of the best illustrations of how the "some people are saying" phenomenon works in our modern broadcast media system. I've always maintained that those mythical "some people" are nothing more than a combination of their colleagues and other media personalities. I never expected I'd get such a perfect illustration of that fact, produced by the Daily Show no less!

“I feel relevant.”

That quote comes from Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who in three words has perfectly captured the absurdity of his approach to representing his constituents.

Hey Joe? It's not about you. It's about them.

Good to know that CT is still a Federalist stronghold, even after all these years.

UPDATE: This from Lieberman a few days ago is also worth highlighting:

There’s a hard core of partisan, passionate, hardcore Republicans. There’s a hard core of partisan Democrats on the other side. And in between is the larger group, which is people who really want to see the right thing done, or want something good done for this country and them — and that means, sometimes, the better choice is somebody who’s not a Democrat.

The first quote perfectly captures Lieberman's neo-federalism. This one perfectly captures Village Politics. Partisans, according to the good Senator, don't "want to see the right thing done" and don't "want something good done for this country." They must be ignored! But the mass of people in the middle! They are virtuous! And wise! And intelligent! Just like Joe.

If I didn't dislike the state so much, I'd consider moving there in 2012 just to help the candidate nominated by the Democratic Party knock this pompous ass out of the Senate.

In my "playing catch up" post earlier tonight, I wrote the following:

if only 20% of Americans consider themselves Republicans, but nearly double that number self-identify as "conservative," what does this mean? Most likely, it means that some people are so conservative that they don't feel at home in the GOP, some are conservative Democrats, and some don't know what they are talking about. More importantly, it means that you should ignore these "liberal vs. conservative polls" and focus only on the ones measuring party ID. After all, its party ID that's important come Election Day. And ideology? That's only important in discussion section.

As if on cue, here's a poll from Pew measuring how people perceive the various news networks. The key finding:

14% of people think FoxNews is "mostly liberal," and 24% think Fox has no ideology.

Now do you believe that these polls don't measure anything meaningful?

I have so many posts saved that its almost overwhelming. While I watch baseball, time to play catch up....

+ Another in a series of "this is why we voted for Obama" moments. Kevin Drum:

It's a testament to the difficulty of healthcare reform and the power of the healthcare lobby that it's able to make reform of Pentagon procurement look almost easy by comparison. But that's how it's turned out: at the same time that President Obama's healthcare reform has been fighting through the congressional underbrush one painful subparagraph at a time, his defense cuts have practically sailed through. Remarkably enough, he's succeeded almost completely in cutting back the weapons platforms he targeted earlier this year, and he's succeeded so quietly that I'd pretty much forgotten it was even happening. But it did, and the defense appropriations bill Obama signed yesterday included nearly all the cuts he had asked for...

+ This, however, is not why we voted for him. To be honest, there still is not enough public pressure to make this happen. And without public pressure, it won't happen. Which would be sad, except: that's how our system is supposed to work!

+ I don't care who Obama plays basketball with. Wait no, I do... I want him to play basketball with whomever he wants to play basketball with. He's a guy, so like all guys, I suspect it he will play with other guys. Why anyone would see this as a problem is beyond me. Oh, wait... The only people who see it as a problem are people in the media who are looking for a good controversy that will "drive the conservation" for a day or two.

+ I might have mentioned this before, but I had absolutely no idea that Glenn Beck's last book is supposedly inspired by Thomas Paine. And I say "supposedly," because there is absolutely no way that Beck would say such a thing if he had actually ever read Thomas Paine. Take, for example, his pamphlet on Agrarian Justice, which is really just an extended riff on one of the many subjects he covered in Rights of Man. It's an argument for a redistribution of wealth from landowners to the rest of society for, in his words "for the loss of his or her natural inheritance." As in, its an argument that we would today describe as "socialist." So... either Glenn Beck is a socialist, or he hasn't read the works that he claims directly inspire his arguments beliefs.

+ Speaking of strange conservative arguments, check out this bit of analysis from the Democracy Corps study of the conservative movement:

A central part of the collective identity built by conservative Republicans in the current political environment is their belief that they possess knowledge and insight that the majority of Americans – whether too lazy or too misguided to find it for themselves – do not possess. A combination of conservative media outlets are the means by which they have gained this knowledge, led by FOX News (“the truth tellers“), and to a lesser degree conservative talk radio. Their antipathy and distrust toward the mainstream media could not be stronger, and they fiercely defend FOX as the only truly objective news outlet.

This is how many movements work late in life. They become so insulated, and so self-referential, that they become convinced that they and only they know the truth about the world around them. So long as the movement retains majority support, this isn't much of a problem. But once they fall back to minority status - as all movements inevitably do - this obviously becomes an enormous problem.

This time around, this particular movement faces a very unique problem. Fox News, their "truth tellers," have absolutely no interest in actually telling the truth. Their interest is in ratings, and in affecting the 24-hour, short term news cycle. Top-down broadcast media do not and cannot do long term party building. And that, I suspect, is creating a feedback loop that is driving both the network and its politically active viewers further and further from the center of American politics. The more extreme the view, the more attention it gets and the more polarized Fox viewers become. What breaks the cycle? Honestly, I have no idea. Yet. But give me some time. That's one of the things I'm working on.

+ Former Pres. Clinton was in VA recently on behalf of the Deeds campaign, and he offered up a great explanation of the meaning pre-election polls:

...polls are both accurate and they're not."

"So are the polls right?" he told the audience gathered in McLean. "The answer is yes, no and maybe."

"Yes, the polls are an accurate measurement of the voter groups that they talk to in proportion to each other," Clinton said. "The no answer is, that's not a profile of the people who voted in the primary...or in the general election in 2008."

"The maybe is you," he told the crowd. "The maybe is what you do in the next two weeks, and whether you're prepared to step into the breach."

+ Speaking of polls... if only 20% of Americans consider themselves Republicans, but nearly double that number self-identify as "conservative," what does this mean? Most likely, it means that some people are so conservative that they don't feel at home in the GOP, some are conservative Democrats, and some don't know what they are talking about. More importantly, it means that you should ignore these "liberal vs. conservative polls" and focus only on the ones measuring party ID. After all, its party ID that's important come Election Day. And ideology? That's only important in discussion section.

+ Andrew Sullivan's take on the blackness of America is a must read. As is TNC's short response.

+ You know how I'm always railing on about the natural irrationality of human behavior? Here's a great bit of evidence backing my view. It's not just humans. It's monkeys too. Which, assuming you aren't one of those people who wants to
"teach the controversy," shows that our behavioral biases might just predate out humanness. They are old. They are deep. And they are something we will never be able to overcome.

+ While I'm standing on my favorite soap boxes... Data show that the strength of the economy when you graduate from college has an impact on your wages more than 15 years later. The stronger the economy, the more money you can and will make a decade and a half later. You know what that means, kids... we aren't in this alone. We rise and fall together, no matter how fantastic our individual talents are. We are the community, and the community is us.

+ This might be my favorite quote from the entire debate over health insurance reform:

The political beauty of the public option opt-out, in a nutshell: the red states will throw a tantrum & hold their breath -- until they turn blue.

+ If this is true, its incredibly depressing. Short version from Kottke:

JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs made $6.8 billion in profit last quarter. Basically they borrowed money from the US Govt at 0% and then bought bonds from the US Govt that paid 2-3%.

+ If you haven't seen this, you need to stop and watch it. Its four minutes you'll never forget. Its also while I will always and forever believe in "we, the people" - and by we, I mean all of the people:

+ Last but not least. Its fucking fall, bitches:

I don't know about you, but I can't wait to get my hands on some fucking gourds and arrange them in a horn-shaped basket on my dining room table. That shit is going to look so seasonal. I'm about to head up to the attic right now to find that wicker fucker, dust it off, and jam it with an insanely ornate assortment of shellacked vegetables. When my guests come over it's gonna be like, BLAMMO! Check out my shellacked decorative vegetables, assholes. Guess what season it is—fucking fall. There's a nip in the air and my house is full of mutant fucking squash.

If MSNBC is conservative all morning (3 horus of Morning Joe), and liberal all night (Keith, Rachel, Ed), how is it "liberal" in the same way Fox is "conservative"?" Did I miss the announcement where Fox added a truly liberal AM host?

Oh, right....

All of this "teh media is biased" stuff is just stupid. Until the day comes when Skynet runs our media system, it will always be biased. The question isn't if, it's how. For god's sake, even the norms of objectivity are a form of bias, given that they require reporters to fit stories into preconceived templates.

Is Fox biased? Of course. Its run by Roger Ailes.

Is MSNBC biased? Of course, its run by GE.

Is the Washington Post biased? Of course, it, like POlitico, is run by people who believe it is their job to cover official Washington as it wants to be covered.

I could go on, but I hope you get the point.

Like me, the New Yorker's Steve Coll is a life long Redskins fan. Like me, he has had enough:

My grandfather had four season tickets; he had purchased them just after the Second World War. My father had two season tickets. He was a lawyer who handled ABC Television; when the Redskins played on Monday nights, at home, I would tag along with him to pre-game cocktail parties and allow myself to be patted on the head by Howard Cosell. To say that I became a Redskins fan as a boy would be incomplete.

I attended the team’s three winning Super Bowls. The last one, in 1992, required me to fly to Minneapolis from New Delhi, where I was then posted as a correspondent. I might have considered myself an extremist if I had not understood my case of Redskins-dom, empirically, to be somewhere near the median.

I attended the final game played by the Redskins at R.F.K. Stadium, in 1996. Afterward, I climbed over railing onto the field, pulled up several chunks of turf, stuffed them into my pants, and walked nonchalantly, alongside other looters, towards the exits. At the time, I held a position of responsibility at the Washington Post. I feared that I might be arrested and embarrass my employer, and yet I walked on. Some days later I carried the turf to a cemetery in Northeast Washington and planted it beside my grandfather’s headstone.

Tonight, the Redskins will play the Philadelphia Eagles at home on national television. If you tune in, you will undoubtedly hear the commentators speak at length about the crisis that now surrounds the team. The owner, Daniel Snyder, is widely reviled in Washington, and for good reason. He meddles, bullies, and trusts his own football judgment too much. John Kent Cooke, who ran the team before Snyder purchased it about a decade ago, remarked recently that Snyder had “destroyed the franchise.” Fans did not generally receive this comment as hyperbole. The issue is not the team’s performance on the field, dismal as that is. It is the culture created by the owner—one of greed, expediency, and mean-spiritedness. The general atmosphere around the team suggests Zimbabwe—a failed state, an intractable dictator, and an impotent and suffering populace.

Three years ago, I got news that after more than a decade on waiting, my name had finally cleared the season tickets wait list. Despite the fact that I live in Boston, I bought the tickets. I figured it would cost me, but worst case scenario I would be able to sell the tickets I couldn't use on StubHub. Last season, one game didn't sell. This season, so far two. Worse, I couldn't even give the tickets away.

I don't blame the players. I don't blame the coaches. I blame the owner and the GM. We've desperately needed a new O-Line for years. But they draft wide receivers. I have no idea if those wideouts are any good, of course, because our quarterbacks never have time to throw the ball.

I wish their was a way to fire the owner. But there isn't.

Hey Dan Snyder: are you happy? You have totally destroyed one of the proudest franchises in all of professional sports. Nice work. But hey: at least when you die, you will be remember. Remembered as the mad who destroyed one of the few institutions in DC that brought the entire city together. Well done, sire. Well done.

Via Kottke, Christopher Hitchens on his travels around the world debating religious believers::

I haven't yet run into an argument that has made me want to change my mind. After all, a believing religious person, however brilliant or however good in debate, is compelled to stick fairly closely to a "script" that is known in advance, and known to me, too. However, I have discovered that the so-called Christian right is much less monolithic, and very much more polite and hospitable, than I would once have thought, or than most liberals believe.

Next up, Hitchens travels the world debating liberals, only to discover that they too are "much less monolithic" than he "once would have thought."