As the polls start to swing Right, I’ll grasp at any good news, and the following does offer a little light:

NYTimes article

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A sweeping voter registration campaign in heavily Democratic areas has added tens of thousands of new voters to the rolls in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, a surge that has far exceeded the efforts of Republicans in both states, a review of registration data shows.

The analysis by The New York Times of county-by-county data shows that in Democratic areas of Ohio – primarily low-income and minority neighborhoods – new registrations since January have risen 250 percent over the same period in 2000. In comparison, new registrations have increased just 25 percent in Republican areas. A similar pattern is apparent in Florida: in the strongest Democratic areas, the pace of new registration is 60 percent higher than in 2000, while it has risen just 12 percent in the heaviest Republican areas.

…

The precise impact of the swell in registration is difficult to predict, as there is no reliable gauge of how many of these new voters will actually vote. Some experts, though, say that the spike has not been accurately captured by political polls and could confound prognostications in closely contested states.

It’s also encouraging to note that some polls have shown as many as 1/3 of respondents saying the debates will influence their decision. So regardless of which way they are leaning now, as many as 1/3 could change their minds in the next few weeks.

I realize the changes aren’t dramatic. But I see no reason to purchase the Star Wars Trilogy DVD. Those aren’t the movies I saw as a kid. Hayden Christiansen was only 2 when Return of the Jedi came out, he shouldn’t be spliced into a scene now two decades later.

Lucas is the director — they are his films. He can do whatever he wants with them. But, to paraphrase a commercial, “this isn’t my oldsmobile.”

Especially since I’ve heard ‘rumors’ of a LaserDisc-to-DVD transfer of the true originals available online.

Sit by my side, come as close as the air,
Share in a memory of gray;
Wander in my words, dream about the pictures
That I play of changes.

The worldís spinning madly, it drifts in the dark
Swings through a hollow of haze,
A race around the stars, a journey through
The universe ablaze with changes.

—Phil Ochs

The House voted to prevent federal couts from reviewing the constitutionality of the Pledge.

Earlier they voted to restrict court review on the definition of marriage.

They claim to be acting against activist judges, but how do they describe their own attacks on the separation of powers?

And how would they feel about a Democrat-controlled congress that voted to restrict court review of gun control legislation? Or voted to restrict court review of Roe v Wade?

Why does the mere thought of this sound like treason to me? Like suggesting we should have a king, or citizens should be required to pay a fee before they vote?

If Congress passes an unjust law, but declares it unreviewable — what options are left?

Cat Stevens can’t set foot in the United States, but Yanni is allowed to walk around free?

Man, talk about the terrorists winning…

– Peter David

Elton John insults rude, vile pigs by comparing them to photographers

Last Night on the corner of Manchester and Hanley Roads, I saw a billboard that surprised me.

It was advertising two shows on TBS: Friends and Sex in the City. It’s slogan was:

Have “Sex” with “Friends”

It seemed in very bad taste. Apparently I’m not the only one who feels this way.

Sure, its humorous. Its just not appropriate advertising for a billboard.

Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
by John Gray

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joeís bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joeís employer pays these standards because Joeís employer doesnít want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed heíll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didnít think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joeís deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joeís money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didnít want to make rural loans. The house didnít have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didnít belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicanís would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldnít have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the hostís keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesnít tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, ìWe donít need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, Iím a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I haveî.

Recvd in Email, but found webcopy on Michael Moore’s website

Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens) denied admission to the US

WASHINGTON – A London-to-Washington flight was diverted to Maine on Tuesday when it was discovered passenger Yusuf Islam ó formerly known as singer Cat Stevens ó was on a government watch list and barred from entering the country, federal officials said.

The AP ends their article with:

Islam drew some negative attention in the late 1980s when he supported the Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence against Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. Recently, though, Islam has criticized terrorist acts, including the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the school seizure in Beslan, Russia, earlier this month that left more than 300 dead, nearly half of them children.

Stevens/Islam did not support the death sentence. Here he is in his own words:

Yusuf Islam Talks about the Satanic Verses Controversy
By Yusuf Islam
CatStevens.Com
March 12th, 2003

Firstly, it is very difficult to educate people in the midst of a political battlefield of smoke and antagonization, which is what I believe represented the atmosphere between the West and Iran back in the early 1990ís when I simply attempted to answer a question presented to me during a lecture.

Sadly, 14 years later and right up to today, some people still try to connect me to this issue, whereas I had nothing really to do with it; I was tricked and foolishly fell for the trap.

My view today with regard to respect for treaties and international law has obviously developed since those early days of ëfire and brimstoneí; the keeping of the peace and respect for the sacred is to me at the heart of Islamís and other Religionís prohibition against Blasphemy. But there are deep legalistic questions connected to this subject of which there can be many views, this is not necessarily the subject of this particular essay.

SoÖback in February 1989 I was delivering a talk about my journey to Islam at Kingston University in London, when somebody (probably a disguised journalist) mischievously posed a question about Islamís view on apostates and blasphemers. As a student who had studied the issue for the first time, I simply did my best by answering direct from legal texts which I had read.

Instead of reporting my response in context, which I naively expected, suddenly the headline in next dayís paper read ìCat Says Kill Rushdie!î Well, needless to say, all hell then broke loose and my political education had really begun. Thank God the newspaper responsible, Today, has since folded and is now out of circulation; unfortunately the monstrous myth it created still survives.

What I actually tried to do at the lecture in Kingston, and subsequently during other interviews, was to quote ëfrom the bookí what Islam says about the legal consequences for someone who commits blasphemy within the context of Islamic law where it is adopted and applied, I never ever sanctioned people taking the law in their own hands or overstepping the laws of the Britain which is what the Fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini proposed. The truth is I never once stated support for the ëFatwaí

I was simply a new Muslim who had stated something which I considered quite plain and obvious and if you were to ask a bible student you know what the Ten Commandments were you would expect him to repeat them honestly, you wouldn’t blame him for doing so; the Bible is full of similar headlines if youíre looking for them.

Here’s Google’s Cache of this as I am currently having difficult accessing the original. (Probably lots of people are going to the domain this morning.)

His being on the watch list probably has more to do with Israel’s 2000 claim that he financially supported Hamas. Yusuf Islam denied this, or at least said it was unintentional…which isn’t of course the same thing. But there are Muslim charities that advertise themselves as humanitarian, but support terrorist organizations like Hamas.

The question arises — does someone who vocally supports peace, and vocally criticizes terrorism — deserve to be on a watch list if he gave money to an organization that funded terrorists, if he was unaware that the money might end up there?

I was polled tonight!

I really wish I had recognized the name of the polling agency, because by the end of the phone call I had forgotten it. And I really wish I could identify it here.

But I did discover one possible cause of variations in polling statistics.

Poller error. Those they hire to make the phone calls aren’t always the brightest. Who would sign up to probably get paid crap to phone people and ask the same questions over and over? People who couldn’t get any other job.

After verifying that I was planning on voting for Kerry, the next question the individual asked me began with the phrase, “Even though you aren’t now supporting Kerry, is there anything…” I had to give him some credit. He caught himself though.

My guess is the “script” had a line between both questions reading “If caller answers Bush….”, and his eyes skipped over that line.

However, I was somewhat surprised he didn’t follow up with a parallel question. “Even though you aren’t now supporting Bush, is there anything…”

It makes me wonder….did he forget to ask that, or was it not on the list? Did they only ask that followup question for Bush supporters?

Later he asked me what religion I was.
I told him I was Jewish.
The next question he asked, swear to God, was “Do you consider yourself a Fundamentalist Christian?”

I laughed, and said, “no.”

So there you have it. These are the people they have conducting the polls.

I wonder if the “margin of error” takes this into consideration.

One last complaint. When he asked me if certain descriptions of Bush/Kerry describe them “Very Well” “Somewhat Well” “Fairly Well” or “Not Well”, even I got confused. I have a degree in English. What’s the difference between Somewhat Well and Fairly Well? I much preferred the part of the poll where I ranked stuff on a scale of 1-100.

I was polled tonight!

I really wish I had recognized the name of the polling agency, because by the end of the phone call I had forgotten it. And I really wish I could identify it here.

But I did discover one possible cause of variations in polling statistics.

Poller error. Those they hire to make the phone calls aren’t always the brightest. Who would sign up to probably get paid crap to phone people and ask the same questions over and over? People who couldn’t get any other job.

After verifying that I was planning on voting for Kerry, the next question the individual asked me began with the phrase, “Even though you aren’t now supporting Kerry, is there anything…” I had to give him some credit. He caught himself though.

My guess is the “script” had a line between both questions reading “If caller answers Bush….”, and his eyes skipped over that line.

However, I was somewhat surprised he didn’t follow up with a parallel question. “Even though you aren’t now supporting Bush, is there anything…”

It makes me wonder….did he forget to ask that, or was it not on the list? Did they only ask that followup question for Bush supporters?

Later he asked me what religion I was.
I told him I was Jewish.
The next question he asked, swear to God, was “Do you consider yourself a Fundamentalist Christian?”

I laughed, and said, “no.”

So there you have it. These are the people they have conducting the polls.

I wonder if the “margin of error” takes this into consideration.

One last complaint. When he asked me if certain descriptions of Bush/Kerry describe them “Very Well” “Somewhat Well” “Fairly Well” or “Not Well”, even I got confused. I have a degree in English. What’s the difference between Somewhat Well and Fairly Well? I much preferred the part of the poll where I ranked stuff on a scale of 1-100.