A Dog That Did Not Bark

I have not seen this on any wire service. Via the Times of London:

A retired priest committed suicide by setting himself on fire in a German monastery in protest at the spread of Islam and the Protestant Church’s inability to contain it.

Roland Weisselberg, 73, poured a can of petrol over his head and set light to himself in the grounds of the Augustine monastery in the eastern city of Erfurt, where Martin Luther spent six years as a monk at the beginning of the 16th century.

Witnesses said that Weisselberg climbed into a building site next to the monastery church, where a Reformation Day service was being held. He shouted “Jesus and Oskar” before the flames engulfed him. The latter name was an apparent reference to Oskar Brüsewitz, a priest who burnt himself in 1976 in protest against the Communist regime in East Germany. Monastery staff tried to put out the flames and Weisselberg was still conscious as a nun prayed with him before he was taken to hospital. He died a day later, on Wednesday.

Media reports said that he had tried to kill himself inside the church but changed his mind when he found the side door was locked.

The Provost of Erfurt, Elfriede Begrich, told reporters that Weisselberg’s widow had said that he killed himself because he was alarmed at the spread of Islam and the Church’s stance on the issue.

She described Weisselberg as an erudite man who had addressed repeatedly the Church’s position on Islam in meetings over the past three to four years. He had written to her, urging her to take the matter more seriously, she said.

The Protestant Bishop of Saxony, Axel Noack, said the suicide had shocked the community and that he hoped it would not hurt relations between Christians and Muslims.

This is not newsworthy in the US media. Wretchard at the Belmont Club has a few words. It's all about perspective, I guess. All about what the media wants you to believe matters.

DoD Responds To Gannett Times

The left is making much of the editorial from the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Times that was sent to the major media on Friday before being published in the aforementioned "Times". Now I have been linked by a left blog already that took umbrage to me dismissing this. Because these "Times" papers are not - in any way - actually affiliated with the military. They are essentially trade magazines. They are also wholly owned by the Gannett media chain.

First thing - when has anything these publications wrote in an editorial been released to the major outlets before it got published? I don't recall this before now. Do you? So, are these editorials targeted at the elections? Only a fool would think otherwise.

Second thing - via Squiggler, here is the official Department of Defense response to the Gannett Times editorial. 

On Saturday, Nov. 4, the Army Times published an editorial titled, “Time for Rumsfeld to go.” The editorial included a number of inaccurate and misleading statements. SUMMARY: THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED A BALANCED PICTURE: The Department has always attempted to clearly and accurately describe the challenges our forces face in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary above all has always been very measured in describing the progress U.S forces are making in what will undoubtedly be a long struggle in the War on Terror. CHALLENGE THOSE WHO CLAIM ADMINISTRATION OFFERED A ROSY SCENARIO: We challenge those who say the Secretary has ever painted a “rosy picture” to provide his quotes as well as the full context of those remarks. THIS IS OLD NEWS MASKED AS NEW NEWS: The new “chorus of criticism” noted by the editorials is actually old news and does not include commanders in the field, who remain committed to the mission.  INSULTING MILITARY COMMANDERS: The assertion, without evidence, that senior military officers are “toeing the line” is an insult to their judgment and integrity. IRAQIS ARE RISKING THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR COUNTRY: Iraqi security forces are making slow but measurable progress. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have made themselves and their families targets and put their lives at risk for their new country. They are increasingly taking the lead in operations. The disparagement of these forces is completely unfounded. CHALLENGE POSED BY ENEMY IS TOUGH: As long as the enemy is determined to thwart a free and democratic Iraq the stability throughout the country will fluctuate. However, the security situation is not monolithic across the country. Many parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful.  WE WILL GIVE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED TO WIN: This country and the leadership of the Defense Department are going to ensure that our military forces have the resources to successfully carry out their mission. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

SPECIFIC CLAIMS REBUTTED: “Rosy Scenarios” CLAIM: “The ‘hard bruising’ truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.” FACTS: The President, Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and others have from the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom warned the American people that the fight in Iraq could be long and difficult, but ultimately worth the costs. To cite one of a multitude of examples, President Bush said on March 19, 2003 in his address to the nation at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom: “A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.” Abizaid taken out of context CLAIM: “Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success. Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: ‘I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it … and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.’” FACTS: Military commanders involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom have continually expressed their belief in the importance of the mission in Iraq. The selective use of General Abizaid’s quote from September ignores other things that General Abizaid said at that hearing. For example, he also said: “This is a hard thing. And it’s going to take a long time. And it’s going to take a lot of courage and a lot of perseverance and unfortunately more blood, and it’s going to take more treasure. But there are more people in Iraq that are working with us to try to make their country a better place than are trying to tear it apart. . . .The people that are trying to tear it apart are ruthless. They are pulling out everything that they can to make it fail. . . .And it’s hard. That’s why we kept extra forces there. And it’s hard and it’s tough and it’s difficult, but we will prevail. . . But I can tell you, people have a right to express their opinion. There’s political activity. There’s freedom of the press. There are things that are happening in Iraq that don’t happen anywhere else in the Middle East. And we ought to be proud of it.” Selected Leaking to the New York Times CLAIM: “Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on ‘critical’ and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year.” FACT: It is foolish to try to draw conclusions from one piece of classified information leaked to the New York Times. What that page referred to was a snapshot in time. Military and civilian leaders have repeatedly said Iraq is facing difficult challenges, and that as long as the enemy is determined to thwart a free and democratic Iraq the stability throughout the country will fluctuate. The security situation, however, is not monolithic across the country. Many parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful.  The challenge remains to help the Iraqi government develop a relatively stable country with security forces available to take on the fight against the enemy. This is what commanders are working to do, making adjustments and changes along the way. (There is more, follow the link)

By the way, do you honestly think many in the military will continue to receive this publication after this, Gannett company? Or did you just slit your own throat to try to spite your political opponents?

Happy Birthday

The US Navy Blue Angels turned 60 this year. They are celebrating with an air show in Pensacola, Florida on November 10-11th.

"In your last 30 seconds coming aboard a carrier, you have levels of concentration, and in combat there are those few moments of stark terror when you have intense concentration, but with the Blues you have intense concentration the entire time," he said.

Christensen and dozens of other former Blue Angels will gather for a Nov. 10-11 reunion and air show to mark the 60th anniversary of the Navy's elite aerial-demonstration team at its home base of Pensacola Naval Air Station.

"Each air show is as close as you can come to the environment around an aircraft carrier. The environment around an aircraft carrier is unforgiving — you cannot make errors because there is a chance somebody will get hurt," said retired Capt. Gil Rud, who commanded the Blue Angels from 1986 to 1988 and oversaw the team's transition from the A-4 Skyhawk to the F/A-18 Hornet.

Aside from the mental challenge, the job is physically taxing as well. Blue Angels don't wear the traditional G-suits that most jet pilots use to avoid blacking out during maneuvers. The suits inflate around the lower body to keep blood in the brain, which could cause a pilot to bump the control stick — a potentially deadly move when flying inches from other planes. Instead, Blue Angels manage G-forces by tensing their abdominal muscles.

And Blue Angels pilots learn to fly with a 40-pound tension spring attached to their flight stick to give them tighter control over their aircraft.

"It will tire your forearm out, especially after three training sorties a day. Sometimes you kind of have to peel your fingers off the stick," said Cmdr. Stephen Foley, the team's current lead pilot.

Altogether, 223 aviators have served on the team since it was formed by Adm. Chester Nimitz in 1946.

Raleigh "Dusty" Rhodes, 88, joined the Blue Angels in their second year, after returning from three years as a Japanese prisoner of war. The aerobatic flying was therapeutic, he said.

"I was so busy flying that I didn't have time to think about the war," he said.

Looking back on the last 60 years, "gives you a real sense of pride," Rhodes said. "It is the greatest type of flying and they are the greatest team in the world."

Rhodes' team began the diamond barrel roll, where four jets perform a loop in a tight diamond formation, becoming inverted at the top. "They still do it today," he said.

"For its time, it was pretty spectacular and considered to be dangerous by a lot of people, but for us, it was what we did."

I have seen the Angels perform and it is truly a sight worth seeing. They will make your heart stop now and then. The Blue Angel website is a pretty good place to get a lot of information on them. And do turn the volume up!

It’s Official: Support Chavez Or Starve

(T)Hugo Chavez has gone on the offensive against the leaked video tape of one of his cronies warning oil workers that they had better be loyal to Chavez. He's confirmed that this is indeed the case and that people who didn't support him had better plan on moving to Miami. He's got that whole Castro-wannabe thing done pat.

Television footage released during the week by opposition supporters showed Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez telling workers of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) to back Chavez or give up their jobs. The opposition said it was proof of political coercion which violated rules against the use of state bodies as campaign tools.

Chavez, a staunch critic of President Bush and his administration, is running for re-election on Dec. 3.

Meanwhile, opposition presidential candidate Manuel Rosales led 16-mile march through the capital on Saturday, drawing tens of thousands into the streets to endorse his candidacy. More than 1,000 police were deployed along the route to prevent clashes between Rosales supporters and "Chavistas" who gathered on street corners, shouting "Viva Chavez!" and "Oh, No! Chavez Won't Go!" as marchers passed.

On Friday, Chavez defended Ramirez, saying he agrees workers must be loyal to his Bolivarian Revolution movement.

"Of course PDVSA is revolutionary," Chavez said as he inaugurated a new subway line outside Caracas. "Petroleos de Venezuela workers are with this revolution, and those who aren't should go somewhere else. Go to Miami."

Chavez accused opponents of plotting coups against him and said the military — like the oil firm — must be totally committed.

"Venezuelan soldiers are in this revolution, and I have told them: anyone who isn't had better leave here," he said.

He also accused some private TV channels of fomenting conspiracies against his government and warned in a televised speech: "Don't be surprised if I say there are no more concessions to some TV channels," when their licenses expire in March.

Sounds like he's planning on shutting down any media that is not in his control. He'll be calling himself "Maximum Leader" as soon as Castro finally kicks off.

Stark Raving

Well, you really didn't think you'd heard the last of Mike Stark did you? He's the person who assaulted people, pushing them out of the way to try to confront George Allen with a bogus blogosphere rumor. He was wrestled to the ground and tried to turn it into Allen's problem.

Well, this time he's the one who pushed someone to the ground. He got handcuffed and led away as a result.

Mike Stark told The Associated Press that sheriff's deputies detained and released him. He was not charged.

"I'll own this town," Stark, a first-year University of Virginia law student, was overheard telling sheriff's deputies as he was led away from the rally at Shenandoah Valley Regional Airport.

Stark said that he was attending the event as a reporter for the Air America Radio network's "The Young Turks" show and that he wanted to ask Allen about his arrest record and why he didn't do more to stop his supporters from wrestling him to the ground at a campaign event on Tuesday.

On Saturday, Allen supporters formed a human wall to block Stark's access to the senator, who is in a tight election race with Democrat Jim Webb. As Stark tried to sidestep the wall, he brushed the side of a supporter, who fell. A deputy sheriff grabbed Stark, put his arm behind his back and led him away to the cheers of about 100 Allen supporters.

Stark said that he had little contact with the man and that he overheard him tell another supporter that he planned to "take a dive."

The supporter who fell refused to give his name or talk about the incident.

Dan Allen, an aide to the senator, also refused to discuss the incident. The Augusta County Sheriff's Office said it would have no comment until a formal statement Monday.

I honestly think this sort of stunt works against people like Stark. The fact that the AP is, again, reporting this straight is also interesting. Is it, as a commenter on the last post put it, because the media is trying to discredit bloggers? It very well might be since the headline stresses Stark is a blogger.

Wild Cards?

AJ Strata actually sees some things that may very well spell some surprises for election day. It seems absentee voting is very, very heavy (mokus, the artist formerly known as Black Jack, had noted the same thing in comments the other day). There are more interesting things going on, as well. From TKS:

Well, here are some of the polls out Friday - Corker's up 9? Kean is within 2? Talent's still neck-and-neck? And now Steele's tied with Cardin? No polls out today in Montana, but the sense that this is neck and neck, and once left-for-dead Burns has the momentum? The guy who was opposite Rich Lowry on television this afternoon saying Democrats are worried about Rhode Island? (yawn)

All of this in a wave election?

And to piggyback on Byron's observation of Kos' comments: I'm not completely shocked that Kos is giving up on Tennessee, but again, Markos is kind of an interesting indicator. It will be tough for anybody to contend that Corker's not pulling away if even Kos says this one is over. (A smidgen of congratulations to Kos: One of the legimate knocks on him is that he puts too much effort and resources into the longest of longshots, and ends up going 0 for 16 or whatever instead of tipping the scales in much closer races. One of the things that political professionals have to do is make tough decisions, husband their resources, and set priorities; Kos has just determined that trying to salvage Harold Ford Jr. is not worth it for the Democrats.)

What really surprised me was Kos' comments about Montana. Folks, Kos was beating the drum for Tester since way back when nobody had heard of the flat-top. Tester's primary win is one of the netroots' true legitimate victories. On a similar note, Kos said that the Quinnipiac poll showing Lamont down 12 to Joementurm was "a sign Lamont is closing the gap." If Kos can see glimmers of hope in a race like Connecticut's, what is he seeing in Montana that has him sounding the alarm? How bad must these indicators be for him to be giving the "all hands on deck" sign, instead of saying, "we're on our way to victory!"

So, there are indications that all is not as the media has been trying to say it is. Back to AJ:

Simply Google “absentee” and you will stories from every state where absentee voting is way, way up and reaching levels comparable to the 2004 elections (they seem to have already passed the 2002 midterm marks). What this does mean is all those polls we have been seeing, where Dems have been weighted because of the drop of in Rep responses are bogus. And I do mean bogus. Rassmussen and others have said they have seen a big ‘increase’ in Dem party responses. And with these massive absentee and early voting levels it is clear these were not changes in the electorate, but changes in the electorate’s participation in polls. That is why pollsters would have done better to show the two results based on heavy turn out for both sides of the partisan aisle, and one result for equal turnout.

This is extremely interesting. It is going to be a rollercoaster ride from here on out. One thing that has not been happening that should have is that Democrats have not been pulling away. If the election was going to break Democrat, they should have started opening the lead. That has not been the case. So what internal data has Kos seen that has him worried? Makes you wonder.

We Win Or You Cheated

Michael Graham points out that line of reasoning being spoken openly by Robert Kuttner in the Boston Globe. It's the kind of logic that has been building in the press lately.

That's liberal Robert Kuttner's claim in today's Boston Globe-Democrat, offered without irony (Democrats are, after all, the "vote early and often" party).

"[U]nless there are levels of theft and fraud that would truly mean the end of American democracy, a Democratic House seems as close to a sure thing as we ever get in American politics three days before an election… November 2006 will be remembered either as the time American democracy was stolen again, maybe forever, or began a brighter day. "

Last week, Democrats were complaining that black voters weren't going to turn out because they're assuming the elections are rigged, anyway. Now the dopes at the NYTimes-Boston Bureau tell them they're probably right. Brilliant.

I am trying to figure out what is more breath-taking–Kuttner's arrogance ("Of course we've already won this election! We shouldn't even allow the actual voting, that can only screw things up.") or his unfounded insults against his political opponents ("the only way the GOP–who've won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections–can win is by cheating!")

This has been something I have been worried about all along. That this is exactly what will happen if the conventional wisdom turns out to be completely wrong. Remember that the CW was that Bush was toast in 2004. Certain elements have been making accusations ever since.

27 Years Ago Today

Iranian "students" stormed the United States embassy in Tehran, Iran. For the next 444 days, the inept handling of the situation kept Americans in captivity. We have been paying for that inept response ever since. Thanks, Jimmy.

The Gift That Won’t Go Away

That would be John Kerry. There is still buzz about this because of the posting of the Seattle P-I editorial on his website, of course. The fool simply will not shut his pie hole, which I am quite sure is making a number of political strategists on the Democratic side crazy. It really doesn't matter at this point, of course. I think he did a fair amount of damage in the first two days of this incident. But Ed Morrisey has a must read on it.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer then contradicts itself by claiming that Kerry didn't call the troops "stupid", which is true; he implied that they were lazy and uneducated, which is technically not identical. If the P-I believes that Kerry was "right either way", and was warning students about the consequences of a poor education, then they're saying that lazy and uneducated people end up in the military. In fact, they say it outright:

Although there are plenty of well-educated people in our armed forces — Kerry was one of them — military service has long been an opportunity employer for those with less education and fewer skills than they need to work in the private sector. Indeed, the military sells itself as a place to garner skills and to help pay for higher education.

And wars, including this one, are often fought by those less privileged — albeit no less smart — than the sons and daughters of those who lead us into them.

Actually, this proves what happens when people lack a real education, one in which research and fact-finding have been subsumed to the advancement of cliches and unsupported assumptions. The military, as the Heritage Foundation pointed out in its extensive research, has a higher proportion of educated people than the general civilian population, especially in the officer corps. The P-I editorial board obviously doesn't do its homework either, which makes this a laughable entry in the debate.

But all this is separate from the political decision to put this on the Kerry website after insisting that he didn't intend on casting aspersions on the intellectual capacity of the troops. If he really didn't mean to call them lazy and uneducated, then why did he go out of his way to host an editorial on his site that does exactly that?

The picture he has up from Blackfive is worth clicking the link for.

Political Vermin

The British parliament. Home to generation upon generation of political vermin. Those who break the rules and customs and do the unthinkable: crossing the aisle to the opposition. Heinous in every way in Britain and sure to bring cries of, "Shame, shame," from members.

But really, quite normal behavior for a mouse.

The House of Commons is suffering from a plague of mice, but the authorities have turned down requests for a cat to scare them away.

They can be seen regularly scampering around reporters' rooms, and even in the bar in the press gallery. The small brown mice are increasingly bold - even tame- emerging in the evening.

One was found contentedly eating crumbs on a political correspondent's desk, and was not disposed to move until the last morsel was consumed.

The Daily Telegraph room has several mice running around on the floor, or nesting behind their computers. They have been seen running up and down desks, and over the computer keyboards, leaving behind unsavoury droppings.

The latest invasion could be another sign of global warming. But it is more likely to be the result of major structural changes to the Press Gallery during the recent long summer recess, when the rooms were shut up for months.

A sign of global warming? Good Lord. More likely a sign of poor vermin control. Oh well, maybe when the next Black Plague breaks out they'll get around to buying a cat.

Six years ago, there was consternation when a small brown mouse appeared in the Commons chamber during a debate on a Bill to allow members of the Irish Parliament to stand for election to Westminster. Unlike its political counterparts it showed no compunction in crossing the floor of the House.

To cries of "shame" the mouse moved from the Labour benches, across the chamber and over to the Opposition.

Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten was also a witness to the mouse's brief political career.

He said at the time: "It flirted with New Labour for a bit and came to the Tories, and as a Liberal Democrat I made a lunge for it - but like an England cricketer I let it slip.

"I think the moral of the story is we need a cat to try and stop this sort of thing happening in the future."

Once a mouse upstaged Winston Churchill when he was delivering a mighty post-war oration in the Commons. Astonishingly, he could not command the attention of MPs.

Instead, all eyes were on the small brown mouse, which was slowly and purposefully crossing the floor of the Commons from beneath the Government benches to the Opposition benches across the way.

Do mice stand for election to parliament or do they scamper?

Oaxaca University Occupied By Leftists

It seems that the big offensive against the leftists holed up in the university in Oaxaca failed. The Mexican forces were driven back when confronted with superior numbers and increased violence.

OAXACA, Mexico - Masked men patrol the gates, armed with bats and gasoline bombs, and barbed wire and booby traps defile the campus lawns. Since protesters took over the state university in Mexico's besieged Oaxaca City, there have been no classes, only talk of revolution.

The university of 30,000 students has become a stronghold for leftists trying to oust the Oaxaca state governor in a five-month-old conflict that has left at least nine people dead.

Demonstrators poured into the university last weekend after thousands of federal police pushed them out of the city's main plaza, where they had camped out since May. Federal police tried but failed to clear street barricades outside the university Thursday; they are not allowed to enter the campus under a law designed to protect academic freedom.

University Rector Francisco Martinez has made it clear that police were not welcome.

"We cannot consent for the campus to be an object of occupation," he said in a radio message Friday. "I want to ask the federal government to be sensitive in its solution to the problem."

Some critics say the university's autonomy law is protecting rebellion.

Federal police backed by armored vehicles and helicopters surrounded the university Thursday. Hundreds of protesters ran out, attacking with gasoline bombs, stones and fireworks stuffed with glass and nails.

Police fought back with batons, water canons, tear gas and even threw back some rocks. After a six-hour battle that injured more than 30 people, police retreated and protesters claimed victory.

As always, Mark in Mexico has more. This is a case where the leftist agenda simply does not care what damage it does to the city or the people living there.

Embarrassingly Bigfoot

9/11 truthers are not the first people to bring embarrassment to the institutions that employ them. There are others in tenured positions that cause discomfort for their colleagues. Jeffrey Meldrum of Idaho State University is one such person. For he is a true believer in Bigfoot.

POCATELLO, Idaho - Jeffrey Meldrum holds a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences and is a tenured professor of anatomy at Idaho State University. He is also one of the world's foremost authorities on Bigfoot, the mythical smelly ape-man of the Northwest woods. And Meldrum firmly believes the lumbering, shaggy brute exists.

That makes him an outcast — a solitary, Sasquatch-like figure himself — on the 12,700-student campus, where many scientists are embarrassed by what they call Meldrum's "pseudo-academic" pursuits and have called on the university to review his work with an eye toward revoking his tenure. One physics professor, D.P. Wells, wonders whether Meldrum plans to research Santa Claus, too.

Meldrum, 48, spends most of his days in his laboratory in the Life Sciences Building, analyzing more than 200 jumbo plaster casts of what he contends are Bigfoot footprints.

For the past 10 years, he has added his scholarly sounding research to a field full of sham videos and supermarket tabloid exposes. And he is convinced he has produced a body of evidence that proves there is a Bigfoot.

"It used to be you went to a bookstore and asked for a book on Bigfoot and you'd be directed to the occult section, right between the Bermuda Triangle and UFOs," Meldrum said. "Now you can find some in the natural science section."

Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department, called Meldrum's research a "joke."

"Do I cringe when I see the Discovery Channel and I see Idaho State University, Jeff Meldrum? Yes, I do," Hackworth said. "He believes he's taken up the cause of people who have been shut out by the scientific community. He's lionized there. He's worshipped. He walks on water. It's embarrassing."

Much like having a Kevin Barrett is for the University of Wisconsin - Madison, I imagine. We have already set the people hunting for the ivory billed woodpecker straight on why they could not get a picture of the imaginary bird they swear is still out there. Instead of wasting the time searching for the bird, they should have been looking for bigfoot. Now we'll point out that if Meldrum really wants to find bigfoot, he needs to be looking for something, or someone, else!

Out On A Limb

Dean Barnett offers a completely different view of the election than what the conventional wisdom says will happen. When I say different, I mean really different. I don't know if I'm that confident, but I still think there may be a few surprises.

Historical Perspective

Charles Moore, writing in the Telegraph has a perspective on what the outcome of the politics of personal destruction can lead to. The desperate attempts to blame the other party and especially the head of that party can have unintended consequences.

Fifty years ago on Monday, Britain ordered its soldiers in Egypt to cease fire. An Anglo-French force, secretly colluding with Israel, had invaded because Nasser, the President of Egypt, had nationalised the Suez Canal. Militarily, our invasion was successful, but it caused international political outrage. America and the United Nations denounced it

The ceasefire was a humiliation for Britain, and marked the end of our leading, colonial role in the Middle East. The Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, was discredited, and anyway became too ill to continue. In January, he resigned. The Edens sailed to New Zealand via the Panama Canal on a recuperative holiday. Their cabin steward was a young man called John Prescott, who won so many boxing matches that he was presented with a prize bottle of wine by Eden. He continued to punch people in later life, and is now our Deputy Prime Minister.

Many in both main political parties today hope for a similar fate for Tony Blair – though he has already suffered the punishment of having John Prescott as his political cabin steward for more than 12 years – and for a similar reason. They regard the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq as a fiasco, and they want history to say that it closed Mr Blair's career. In America, like-minded people are looking for a comparable humbling of George W. Bush in the mid-term elections on Tuesday.

A more indirect effect of Suez was the fall of the pro-British Iraqi monarchy in a coup in 1958. Ten years later, the Ba'athist elements in the coup gained complete control of government in Iraq, eventually producing the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Another interesting event expected next week is that Saddam could well be sentenced to death.

I mention Suez to suggest a bit of perspective on Iraq today. Judging by their pipsqueak decision to troop in behind the massed ranks of the Welsh Nationalists in the House of Commons this week, and try to force an inquiry into the origins of the Iraq war on the Government, the Tories see advantage in hanging the war round Labour's neck. They also want to edge away from their early support for it.

It might make them pause if they remembered that the blood-curdling Labour denunciations of Eden, which followed only a few weeks after Labour's warlike denunciations of Nasser, did the Opposition absolutely no electoral good. Then, as will soon be the case now, a new man took over the government. By the time of the general election more than three years later, neither party wanted to talk about Suez. The Tories, who had been responsible for it, increased their majority to 107. Today, the parties are reversed, but the lesson is the same.

Read the whole thing. Those who forget the past and all that.

Mixed Signals

Jay Cost, over at Real Clear Politics has a very interesting post up about voter registrations. A new study by Curtis Gans of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate has some extremely surprising information about voter registrations and party affiliations.

Gans also offers some surprising information on partisan registration. He has analyzed the 13 states that have supplied partisan registration voting data, comparing them to prior years. Relative to 2002, the Republicans have actually closed the registration gap. In 2002, the Democrats had a 7.0% registration advantage over Republicans in these 13 states. This year, their advantage is down to 5.8%. I won't report the actual figures because they are inflated (due to deaths and geographical movement), but the trend lines here are, as Gans argues, valid (so long, of course, as Democrats are no more likely to have died or moved than Republicans).

Unfortunately, Gans only offers data for midterm elections — so we cannot determine whether, in 2004, the Republicans greatly increased their share of registered voters in 2004 and the Democrats have reduced that increase this year. Also, registration seems to square only loosely with final vote outcomes. Between 1978 and 1982, Republican registration increased by 0.8%, but they won fewer seats in the latter year. Between 1990 and 1994, it also increased by 0.8%. (Though I would note with interest that the last time the GOP lost as many seats as Cook and Rothenberg are predicting they will lose, their share of registered voters fell by 2.5%.) And, of course, being registered to vote and actually voting are two entirely different things.

This is significant for a couple of reasons. The conventional wisdom is that the Republican base is dispirited and shrinking. But this data does not show that. The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats are gaining numbers of voters. This data does not show that. Is it conclusive? Of course not. But it is of interest, especially given the predictions of the pending Greatest Electoral Defeat In Recorded History Ever™ and the fact that early polling shows that theoretical Republican candidates whomp heck out of Democrats for the 2008 presidential race. These two things are sending very mixed signals about the electorate. The study the Cost is writing about adds even more to the confusion.