Negative Campaigning

The Washington Post helpfully informs everyone that it is all the Republican's fault. Never mind that the way they "prove"  this allegation is by one of the oldest tricks in the book. They devote a paragraph or more to each and every Republican ad they object to. All - pretty much across the board - of Democrat hit ads are glossed over in one paragraph. I've said all along that this is the worst cycle I have seen in terms of negativity, but it is NOT the exclusive realm of the Republicans.

The result has been a carnival of ugly, especially on the GOP side, where operatives are trying to counter what polls show is a hostile political environment by casting opponents as fatally flawed characters. The National Republican Campaign Committee is spending more than 90 percent of its advertising budget on negative ads, according to GOP operatives, and the rest of the party seems to be following suit. A few examples of the "character issues" taking center stage two weeks before Election Day:

….

· In the most controversial recent ad, the Republican National Committee slammed Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) for attending a Playboy-sponsored Super Bowl party. In the ad, a scantily clad white actress winks as she reminisces about good times with Ford, who is black. That ad has been pulled, but the RNC has a new one saying Ford "wants to give the abortion pill to schoolchildren."

Some Democrats are playing rough, too. House candidate Chris Carney is running ads slamming the "family values" of Rep. Don Sherwood (R-Pa.), whose former mistress accused him of choking her. And House candidate Kirsten Gillibrand has an ad online ridiculing Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) for attending a late-night fraternity party. "What's a 50-year-old man doing at a frat party anyway?" one young woman asks, as a faux Sweeney boogies behind her to the Beastie Boys. "Totally creeping me out!" another responds.

But most harsh Democratic attacks have focused on the policies and performance of the GOP majority, trying to link Republicans to Bush, the unpopular war in Iraq and the scandals involving former representative Mark Foley and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. That is not surprising, given that polls show two-thirds of the electorate thinks the country is going in the wrong direction. And studies show that negative ads can reduce turnout; Democrats hope a constant drumbeat of scandal, Iraq and "stay the course" will persuade conservatives to stay home on Nov. 7. (Emphasis added).

This is disingenuous at best. The Democratic attacks are high-minded, the Republican ones are mean-spirited, according to the WaPo.

Nonsense. BOTH parties are trying to whack hell out of their opponents. Trying to connect Congressman X to Foley is no less an offense than trying to paint the anti-Ford ad they cite as racist. It isn't even a matter of degree. This is not really a news article.

It is cheerleading.

Worst Election Cycle EVER

I'm not a huge fan of linking Matt Drudge, his stuff is running at 0 for 2 in the Crabitat at the moment. But this one comes from a press release, so one way or another, it can't reflect back on Drudge. The Allen Campaign is hitting James Webb - hard - over Webb's fiction writing. Let me say this, it sounds desperate, it sounds weird.

But there is something weird about Webb's writing that may make it effective.

I will not excerpt it here. Go over to Drudge to read it. This may actually damage Webb. I have never read anything he wrote until today. If I had, I would have put the book down when I hit the lead part in the Drudge link - too over the top for me. That is why this may damage Webb. There are a lot of people all over the country that would find the mind that wrote that unacceptable at the dinner table. That is really what determines a lot of votes: would I like to sit down with this candidate in my home?

It does not negate the fact, however, that this is the worst election cycle I can remember seeing. It is positively raw.

Bread And Circuses

Wow, this is so blatant, it almost boggles the mind. (T)Hugo Chavez is attempting - and appears to be succeeding at- buying his reelection as president of Venezuela in the most ham-handed display of open vote buying I can recall. Enjoy it while you can, folks. After the election all of that goes away. Maybe the leftists could explain how they think Chavez is a hero given this sleazoid display of vote buying.

A new opinion poll by Zogby International suggests that the president will coast to victory on December 3 with 59% support, compared with 24% for his main rival, Manuel Rosales, 53. A separate poll last month gave a smaller, but still commanding, lead.

Mr Chávez, 52, first elected in 1998, not only wants to win, but to do so with a massive majority to endorse what he calls a 21st-century socialist revolution.

In recent weeks the government has inaugurated a blizzard of infrastructure projects and finance schemes to fund housing and education for the poor and middle class. A new rail line opened this month from the capital, Caracas, to an outlying suburb was jammed with passengers after Mr Chávez said that all journeys would be free until the end of the year.

Civil servants were told that their Christmas bonus would be paid on November 1, a month early, and the municipality of Caracas said it would pay for an all-star baseball game next month.

A series of free concerts neared a climax in the city last weekend when tens of thousands jammed Plaza Venezuela to hear Manu Chao, a leftwing rock star hugely popular in Latin America. He drew cheers when he denounced Mr Chávez's arch-foe, the US president, George Bush.

With Mr Chávez's re-election almost assured, the government was attempting to mobilise voters who were undecided or tempted to abstain, said Carlos Romero, director of graduate studies in international affairs at the Central University of Venezuela. A large number of Venezuelans are so-called ni nis, neither for one candidate nor the other.

The finance ministry confirmed a steep increase in spending, but declined to say by how much. Angel Eniro Vera, the political director of Mr Rosales's campaign, said state funds were bankrolling the president's campaign with no control.

The Guardian does not sound as if it disapproves of this, it sounds neutral about it, really. How much of the money Chavez is throwing away on short term vote buying would actually improve the lives of the poor there? How much treasure that he wasted on trying to buy a seat on the UN Security Council would have helped the people he claims to champion?

There is an interesting thing to consider here. If George Bush was the power mad, corrupt beast that the left tries to paint him to be in this nation, why isn't he spending money on bread and circuses to ensure the election of Republicans?

And why are the Democrats figuratively promising ponies to everyone if they are elected?

Might want to think about that, folks.

The Disaster Of Uncovered Meat

Tim Blair slams the Australian Mufti who compared women, unfavorably, to meat. (I posted about what I think is a very, very encouraging reaction from the Muslim community to his crap here). The important point in Tim's post is the very last sentence. Although the whole thing positively rips a new one for apologists for the Mufti's exceedingly execrable words. Read the whole thing, it's harsh but spot on.

(Lest any of the ClueProof™ think I am being "culturally insensitive", let me assure you, I have exactly the same tolerance for anyone from any faith/ethnicity/social group/any other damn thing you can think of that thinks a woman is "asking for it" because of the way she dresses. Period. If someone thinks that is being culturally insensitive, I have some choice words for you that I won't post because I do try to adhere to the standards I ask of my commenters).

Best Halloween Parade Float EVER!

Anyone who has had a young son in the Cub Scouts knows that a) boys WILL be boys and b) groups of young boys when put in close proximity will try the patience of a saint. This is a fact of parenting that nobody ever tells you about in advance. Probably because those who have been through it want to see others suffer as they have. Now the boys don't even have to intentionally be trying to misbehave to cause mayhem. No, it is just the close proximity that produces unexpected results. And occasional mayhem. And more mayhem. Often.

And so we come to the annual Halloween parade in Bath, Pennsylvania.

Mayor Betty Fields said Wednesday the parade had started normally Tuesday night and had gone about 500 yards.

"All of a sudden the back of the truck started on fire," Fields said.

Fortunately, a parade means fire trucks. The Klecknersville Rangers Volunteer Fire Co., from Moore Township, was behind the Cub Scouts and quickly snuffed the flames.

Jason Harhart of the Klecknersville Rangers said it was unclear how the fire started. No injuries were reported. Fields said the parade continued on, and she gave the Cub Scouts a loyalty award for sticking with it.

Having been around the little monsters darlings when mishaps have occurred, I can absolutely guarantee that at least one of the Cub Scouts uttered the words in the title of this post, or ones very similar, shortly after they got their award. Or even before.

Meanwhile, In The Corporate Jungle

Oracle corporation is making direct threatening moves toward the open-source Linux market by targeting Red Hat. The fun just never ends, it seems.

RALEIGH, N.C. - One move by rival Oracle Corp. has turned Red Hat Inc. from a celebrated leader in open-source software to a fragile underdog.

Shares of Red Hat tumbled 24 percent Thursday on the news that Oracle will move aggressively onto Red Hat's turf by selling maintenance services for Red Hat products.

Oracle's brawn threatens an undersized Red Hat, which has benefited from a relative shortage of competition in the Linux sector — until now.

"Red Hat needs a new business model fast," said Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group tech consulting firm. "Oracle's organization is vastly superior. They'll be providing a better product at a better price. Nobody can say right now whether Red Hat will even be able to survive."

Unlike Microsoft Corp.'s market-dominating Windows operating system, Raleigh-based Red Hat distributes the open-source Linux system for free. The company makes money by selling service and support.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison announced Wednesday that his company will offer identical support services for Red Hat's products — at a roughly 50 percent discount.

"Oracle pretty much took Red Hat's entire business," Enderle said. "Of all the companies in software, Oracle's easily the scariest — they're just so aggressive."

Well, this complicates the picture for at least one Linux-based system. Red Hat is not the only fish in that pond, however.

Microsoft Will Be Watching The Office

Specifically, starting tomorrow, October 27th, the Microsoft mothership will now be validating any copies of Office that try to download a template. In January, they will check the software that tries to update. I do not have a real problem with this since my software is legal. I do, however have a dislike of a company that thinks it has the right to come into my home and inspect things.

If you don't like the mandatory antipiracy checks that Microsoft now enforces for Windows, brace yourself. The Microsoft Office productivity and collaboration suite is about to get a similar program.

The company's Office Genuine Advantage (OGA) program will require mandatory validation of Office software starting October 27, the software vendor quietly disclosed today. After that date, any Office Online templates downloaded from within the Office 2007 Microsoft Office System applications will require validation of legitimacy.

Similarly, starting in January, users of Office Update will have to validate the legitimacy of their Office software before they can use the service, Microsoft added.

I am not in favor of bootleg software, please do not think that is what I am objecting to. But I am now seriously going to try out Linux. If you need a legal - and free - office suite, the OpenOffice one works pretty darn well. The price is right, too.

I actually think that in the long run this will damage Microsoft, by the way. People will shift away from strong arm tactics (I am, just on general principle). It would make more sense for them to use incentives to use genuine products like additional cool functionality for certified users.

Another New Record For Dow

12,163 today, another new record.

The Dow Jones industrials, lifted in part by component Exxon Mobil, had their fourth consecutive record high close. The generally upbeat earnings reports of the past two weeks have helped power the blue chips as well as the rest of the stock market; Thursday's batch of earnings also helped investors digest a pair of government reports that suggested an economic soft landing might be harder to achieve.

The market was initially inspired by data that indicated capital spending jumped by the most in more than six years, but then fell on a report that showed new home prices plunged at its steepest pace since 1970. Investors were particularly wary after the Federal Reserve, which on Wednesday left interest rates unchanged, said it remains concerned about inflation even as the economy is slowing.

Doesn't seem to be really slowing all that much, does it?

Pleasing Osama

A pretty strident critic of George Bush and American anti-terrorism policies in general as well as being a respected expert in the field of counter-terrorism, Peter Bergen is no apologist for American efforts in Iraq. He is also an honest man. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq right now would be an unmitigated disaster for the United States and would be widely seen as an absolute victory for Osama bin Laden. He writes in the New York Times:

A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists. As Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book “Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner,” Al Qaeda’s most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. “Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching jihad against them require a Muslim authority, established on a Muslim land,” he wrote. “Without achieving this goal our actions will mean nothing.” Such a jihadist state would be the ideal launching pad for future attacks on the West.

And there is no riper spot than the Sunni-majority areas of central and western Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — the most feared insurgent commander in Iraq — was issuing an invitation to Mr. bin Laden when he named his group Al Qaeda in Iraq. When Mr. Zarqawi was killed this year, his successor, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, also swore allegiance to Al Qaeda’s chief.

Another problem with a total American withdrawal is that it would fit all too neatly into Osama bin Laden’s master narrative about American foreign policy. His theme is that America is a paper tiger that cannot tolerate body bags coming home; to back it up, he cites President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 withdrawal of United States troops from Lebanon and President Bill Clinton’s decision nearly a decade later to pull troops from Somalia. A unilateral pullout from Iraq would only confirm this analysis of American weakness among his jihadist allies.

Bergen argues for a reduced but long-term American presence in Iraq. Andrew Cochran at the Counterterrorism Blog has additional thoughts. It would be a good idea to read these.

UPDATE: The Glittering Eye also has a good take on this.

This Is Good News

The Australian Muslim community is enraged and demanding the offending person be removed from office. What's different here is that the community is demanding that the Muslim community's Mufti, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, be removed for his execrable Ramadan sermon in which he compared immodestly dressed women to meat and hinted that rape victims were as much to blame as their attackers. This would appear to be a major uproar that will likely lead to him being sacked.

AUSTRALIA'S Muslims yesterday turned on their leader, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, amid calls for him to be sacked as the nation's mufti for blaming women for inciting rape.

Sheik Hilali was universally condemned by mainstream politicians and Muslim leaders nationwide and could even face a revolt from within his tight-knit community over the Ramadan sermon in which he likened immodestly dressed women to meat and suggested rape victims were as much to blame as their attackers.

Muslim women were devastated by the sermon - revealed in The Australian yesterday - while John Howard described the comments as "appalling and reprehensible".

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward demanded that Sheik Hilali be charged with "incitement to rape".

Members of the Lebanese Muslim Association, which owns Sheik Hilali's home mosque in Lakemba, in Sydney's southwest, met late last night to consider his eviction.

Association board members agreed to delay their decision on the mufti's future until after they had listened to a tape of the controversial comments and considered the context in which they were made.

Sheik Hilali had earlier refused to resign but apologised for any offence caused to women.

"I unreservedly apologise to any woman who is offended by my comments. I had only intended to protect women's honour, something lost in The Australian presentation of my talk," he said in a statement.

Despite insisting The Australian misrepresented the sermon delivered at his mosque in southwest Sydney in September, two independent translations of the Ramadan address were even more damning of the sheik.

The Australian has the transcripts. They are very, very damaging. There are some of the strongest criticisms I have heard yet being voiced by Muslims about this nastiness:

Sydney-based cleric Ibrahim el-Shafie said Sheik Hilali was "divisive" and Muslims had suffered as a result.

"I would suggest that this person would step aside and leave the community," said the imam, from Bankstown Mosque in Sydney's west. "Every imam, every religious figure needs to take the responsibility and they should all vote to push him out and put him aside - (enough) is enough."

Another prominent Sydney cleric, Khalil Shami, said he wasn't surprised to hear Sheik Hilali making such comments about women. He said Sheik Hilali had been "destroying the reputation" of Australian Muslims for years and had never made any serious statement to improve the community's integration into the mainstream.

"I've never heard the mufti say anything about how we can work together (with the wider community)," said the imam, from Penshurst Mosque in Sydney's southwest. "He's separated us (even further) now. And on this occasion, now I think we should tell him he shouldn't make any more statements on behalf of all Muslims."

Good for them. The board of the Lebanese Muslim Association is apparently meeting right now to determine if they are going to bar him from using their mosque to preach from. Let's hope they do the right thing.

This Is Highly Unusual

The Department of Defense has asked the New York Times to correct an editorial. The Times has refused.

Oct. 24, 2006 —The Pentagon today asked the New York Times to correct an editorial, which claimed that “There have never been enough troops, the result of Mr. Rumsfeld’s negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories, rather than listen to his generals.”  Whether the Times believes there were (or are) enough troops in Iraq, it is demonstrably untrue that troop levels in Iraq are the result of Secretary Rumsfeld’s “not listening to his generals.”

Generals involved in troop-level decisions have been very clear on this matter, making numerous statements that are not new—or difficult—to find, such as extensive commentary in General Franks’s book, American Soldier.  The implication is that the New York Times either believes these generals are not being truthful, or that they are too intimidated to tell the truth. The Pentagon would vigorously dispute both characterizations.

Read what generals themselves have to say about the subject, in a Pentagon letter to the editor.

This is something you don't see a whole lot of.

One Of Life’s Little Embarrassments

Every once in a while a little embarrassment creeps into everyone's life. Whether it's a case of unexpected biological noises at inopportune times, or forgetting your wallet when trying to buy something, it's just part of being human. Some things, however, are more embarrassing than others. For example, if you are a fireman, there is one oopsie that just makes people laugh at you:

Letting your firehouse burn down.

Fire crews answering a 999 call yesterday found one of their own stations blazing away.

But embarrassingly, the retained fire station in Arundel, West Sussex which was destroyed in the blaze wasn't fitted with an alarm.

Neil Odin, southern area commander for West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, said: "Unfortunately we had severe damage to our fire station, which is embarrassing, which shows it can happen to anyone."

Not that we'd make fun or anything.

Great News For Alec Baldwin!

Paging Alec Baldwin. They've sent transport around for you!

More here.

The Damage Can Be Huge

The Christian Science Monitor has an editorial today that addresses the many controversies surrounding the efforts to require ID when casting a ballot. They are unhappy with the fact that such actions are even needed, but they also recognize the huge amount of damage fraud can do to confidence in the electoral system.

Obviously, cleaning up the nation's electoral system to prevent another crisis like the Bush-Gore debacle is not going to be easy. And yet in many states where a red-blue political split can easily lead to a disputed election outcome, the need is great to prevent anyone from violating the process, all the way from voter registration to the final count.

The people's faith in the election system must be restored. And the nation that promotes democracy to the world can't allow the kind of legal eye-scratching that was on display for six weeks in 2000, when it was uncertain if the US would even have a president-elect come inauguration day.

The nation is faced with a difficult trade-off: Move toward zero tolerance of fraud that will help restore voter trust while also placing a burden, perhaps even a barrier, to a small percentage of potential voters.

…

As for accepting some fraud, the number of proven cases is small, but the damage to voter confidence from just a few cases can be huge, enough to keep many people from even voting. In St. Louis, for instance, hundreds of bogus address changes were discovered this month, forcing officials to ask voters to bring a polling-place notification card to the polls. Obviously, that state's high court erred in its assessment by citing a small risk of fraud. Can the Missouri election results now be trusted?

I've been pretty clear about my stance on this. Opposition to voter IDs is support for voter fraud. Period. The arguments that these requirements constitute some form of poll tax are easily negated by making the IDs free. But as so many have pointed out, if you can't produce ID, you can't cash a check or rent a car or a host of other things in this society. Why in the world should you be able to exercise the most fundamental right of a citizen without even proving you are a citizen? It makes no sense.

But the effects of even small amounts of fraud can be huge. That must be stopped.

UPDATE: The Achoress forwarded this link to me. It is about the voter registration fraud in St. Louis.

Venezuela, Guatemala Seek Compromise

It appears that the deadlock over the open Latin American seat on the UN Security Council may be reaching an end. But only if (T)Hugo Chavez stops trying to insert his Bolivian puppet in his place. Guatemala has refused that transparent bit of sleaze outright.

In the interim, the Venezuelan and Guatemalan foreign ministers meet in New York on Thursday to try to agree on a consensus candidate for the seat, one of two earmarked for Latin America on the 15-nation council.

"They accept in principal that they will withdraw their candidacies. But they are not set on a third country," Brazilian Ambassador Ronaldo Moto Sardenberg told reporters.

Guatemala and Venezuela are vying for a two-year seat on the Security Council, the most powerful U.N. body, that will be vacated by Argentina on December 31. Peru stays on the council until the end of 2007.

Guatemala is backed by the United States while Venezuela has painted the race as a battle against Washington and its U.N. ambassador, John Bolton.

"We will not go to the meeting with a knife in our hands," said Venezuela's U.N. Ambassador Francisco Arias Cardenas. "We are looking for a favorable agreement, a dignified one. We want to send a lesson to those countries who try to impose their will on others that this is not the way to go."

The new developments emerged during a meeting of the 35 Latin American and Caribbean U.N. members, whose divisions have held up work in the assembly.

"The pressure is on them now. They cannot possibly leave New York empty-handed," said Mexico's U.N. Ambassador Enrique Berruga.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said his ally Bolivia would be a good compromise. "I and the people of Venezuela would feel worthily represented by comrade (President) Evo Morales and the people of Bolivia, who are a brother nation," Chavez told a women's meeting in Caracas.

But Guatemala's Foreign Minister Gert Rosenthal has made clear that Bolivia was unacceptable. Other nations mentioned for the seat have included Uruguay, Paraguay, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic.

They will have to settle on someone else or there will not be a deal.