Watch Colin Powell's rendition of YMCA.

For real.

I mean, like, really.

You should go read the best roundup yet of the recent Canadian elections.

I've been wondering for some time if Michael Moore's little hate-film isn't going to wind up helping Bush significantly. For, while it's certain to make some people vote against Bush, it's also likely to alienate a lot of people, especially as more and more evidence comes to light about how much outrageous misinformation and truly vicious twistings are in it.

Bill Hobbs thinks that, indeed, Fahrenheit 911 is John Kerry's Sister Souljah moment. Bill Clinton knew his party would be harmed by embracing hatred and extremism, and spoke up about it.

In 2000, while the Bob Jones controversey was clearly overblown in several important areas, the truth was that George Bush missed an opportunity to criticize them, and only did it when John McCain called him out on it. Then, to his credit, Bush did say something rather than simply letting the moment pass.

So now here's the question: Will John Kerry have as much dignity, decency, and fundamental honor?

I hope so. I really do. I'm rather ashamed of some of my friends over this movie, and I hope Kerry shows the kind of leadership that's needed in the White House by being at least as honorable as Bush was over Bob Jones U. and as Bill Clinton was over Sister Souljah.

The Moderate Voice is a former journalist (he even went through formal training at the Medill School of Journalism) so he was fascinated last night to hear some cable news outlets going on and on about President George Bush having a very tough and unfriendly news interview with an Irish reporter.

But since he worked in the news media, he learned long ago to try and find the PRIMARY SOURCE and read/hear/watch it himself...then decide. That means trying to bypass CNN, MSNBC and...yes...Fox News. So he found the 10 minute interview which you can watch here..

It downloaded very quickly and TMV watched it. And here's our reaction:

(1)What is the big deal about? Cable news networks here need to get a life.

(2)The reporter's mistake was jumping in very quickly with follow-up questions. Tough follow-ups are actually a reporter's job, no matter who the subject is. She did not try to overshout him but stopped once he indicated he was getting annoyed by her cutting him off. She let him give his full response.

(3)Bush wasn't used to immediate and tough follow-up quesetions because the U.S. press now stylistically tends to let interview subjects give their full response to a question during a press conference. Follow-ups sometimes (but not always) aren't asked. But the purpose of an interview is not to allow someone to give "a statement" but to extract information.

(4)The TV reporter doesn't come off like a bully. She's asking questions that many in her audience would like asked. She was doing her job. She was not a public relations person or a supporter. And Bush knows how to handle himself.

(5)The President comes off exceedingly well . He's clearly irked by her not letting him finish (increasingly so as it wears on) but he actually comes off BETTER than he's ever come off before. Why? Because he has challenging questions and is answering them. And his irritation at the reporter's style forces him to answer the questions with extra confidence and conviction.

TMV felt it was one of the best interviews Bush gave in years. If Bush had faced a journalist saying "So what do you think about terrorism?" who had not peppered him with challenging questions it would have been one more perfunctory talk with the press.

Our overall verdict: the reporter and the President did their jobs and both came off looking like pros. Sean Hannity or Michael Moore would not have looked as good or made GWB look as good.

UPDATE:
--Watch the interview for yourself, then read this. Is this an accurate description of what you saw? It may be in the eye of the beholder.
--Apparently the White House, though, was VERY offended because it cancelled an interview with Laura Bush that had been slated for the same Irish news company.

But they love this guy with the matinee idol looks even more...

A man intent on starting a killing rampage, with explosives and thousands of rounds of ammunition, changed his mind at the last minute because he encountered a friendly pooch and decided people who raised such nice dogs didn't deserve to die. So he turned himself in and confessed instead.

Shh, don't tell Michael Moore and his troglodyte fans, but this was in Toronto.

(Thanks, Kyle.)

Hmm. Black Five notes that the Kerry campaign is using convicted felons to register voters door-to-door. Which sounds dangerous, considering that the story alleges that the felons are given the full address, phone, etc. information on potential voters, and are actually paid to go door-to-door..

I find myself wondering if other campaigns do stuff like this, and also if there might not be an exaggeration here somewhere?

The UN is holding its first-ever conference on anti-Semitism this week. Hard to beleive that in its entire history the UN has never had such a conference, but there you have it.

Our friend Mark Firestone is a little cynical about it.

Former President Bush went skydiving with Chuck Norris and Fox News' Brit Hume. Sounds like the setup for a joke, doesn't it? But it's still true.

Anyway, Chris Muir should be shot for this:

The (in)famous photo of a nearly dozing Bill and Hillary Clinton at Ronald Reagan's state funeral became the topic for self-righteous indignation among some conservative talk show host and their listeners (perhaps because a conservative would NEVER be drowsey at a former Democratic President's funeral service).

Donald Sensing, who is also a man of the cloth, looks at several possibilities why their eyelids were closing -- including one he thinks could be true and one he thinks probably isn't....

In England, a politically wounded Tony Blair:

LONDON (Reuters) - Britons, angered over Iraq, have handed Prime Minister Tony Blair a drubbing in local government elections but the prime minister won a little respite on Friday as his Labor Party retained the London mayoralty.

"Iraq has been a shadow over our support," Blair told reporters in Washington, after attending Ronald Reagan's funeral. He urged his jittery followers to hold firm.

There was no good news for Blair in the local polls.

With results in from nearly all the 166 contested councils across England and Wales, Labor had lost a net 461 seats and control of eight councils, including its northern strongholds of Newcastle and Leeds.

The BBC projected Labor's national vote at 26 percent, way behind the Conservatives on 38 percent.

The Liberal Democrats, strong opponents of the Iraq war, had 29 percent, pushing Labor into an unprecedented third place.

"I think it's a question of holding our nerve and seeing it through and realizing, yes, Iraq has been an immensely difficult decision," Blair said.

These election results don't comprise a judgement on whether the war was justified, needed or, in the end, successful in meeting long range goals. These controversies continue -- and the answers to these questions will come later on.

The truly bad news: unlike in the United States where there is not a monster gap between the two leading presidential candidates on the war, the divide in Great Britain (as in Spain) was large. What message does this send to the terrorists about the willingness of democracies to hang in there through a difficult situation?

It's often sad to hear what happened later on to child actors as they grew into adulthoold -- from many of the Little Rascals, to the procession of TV era kids who had drug, crime problems or took their own lives.

Here's one who navigated fairly well through the iceburgs of fame, fortune and family dysfunction. You will not agree with everything he says here but he seems to have come out with most of his values and common sense intact. His skull is not Home Alone...

(Note: Before The Moderate Voice gets emails and comments in the comment boxes accusing him of being a fervant conservative who is ceaselessly pushing Reagan and Reaganism, make sure to read an item posted today on Dean's World here. Paying respects to a President who served the country is important -- whether it's for Reagan, or one day Gerald Ford or one day Bill Clinton. They deserve our respect and thanks.)

The big ceremony was held today in Washington. Rather than pontificate on it, here are some Reagan links that will be updated throughout the day:

--Text of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's euology.
--President George W. Bush and Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney tell mourners about their view of Reagan.
--Text of Mulroney's tribute.
--Text of President Bush's tribute.
--Former President and former Vice President George Bush remembers Reagan.
--Good piece in Australian newspaper on the state funeral.

How many men who died left an ex-wife saying things like this?

Has Arizona Senator John McCain seriously considered in effect bolting his party and running as Veep with his friend Senator John Kerry? Or has he simply dismissed formal overtures from the Kerry camp and thinly-disguised pinings of The Modern Day JFK?

According to the Washington Post, the answers are YES and NO. You can read about it all in detail here, but basically the one sticking point for McCain is that by running with Kerry he might a)diminish his credibility, b)find he has less influence as Veep than staying in Congress. David Ignatius writes:

The bitter political divide in America worries McCain, especially when the nation is at war. He knows that for many Americans, he has become a symbol of a bipartisanship that could overcome these divisions -- and bring Red and Blue America closer together. That call to duty is powerful for McCain. He'll be 68 later this summer, and he knows that his time to shape American public life is now.

The Kerry camp has made overtures, and McCain has taken them seriously. He has tried to imagine the details of how such a partnership would work in practice. But the more McCain thinks about such a unity ticket, the more difficulties he sees.

McCain's problem is that while he genuinely likes Kerry as a friend, he disagrees with him on many important issues. Take Kerry's recent statement that he favors bilateral negotiations with North Korea. McCain has never favored that approach and thinks it would be a potentially dangerous mistake. How, he wonders, would the two reconcile such a sharp disagreement on one of the most important foreign policy issues facing the country?

Or take the sensitive issue of gays in the military. Kerry has indicated he wants a reexamination of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy favored by the military. McCain disagrees. How would they resolve that one?

Indeed, McCain's appeal has been that although he is a mixed bag of political beliefs -- much like California's highly-popular Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger -- he won't compromise on certain things. And he is brutally blunt. More from the Post:

Advocates of the national-unity approach, like me, argue that the fact that Kerry and McCain disagree is the whole point of their running together. They would each have to give ground on issues that matter to them, for the sake of the larger issue of the country's welfare. And they would have to work out a governing formula that allowed McCain to remain a Republican and be faithful to his values while working alongside Kerry.

That logic moves McCain, but it doesn't convince him. He wonders what would happen when the country faced its first serious foreign policy crisis. Let's assume that McCain was given special responsibility for defense and national security issues as vice president. That might allow McCain to insist on his preferred policy for North Korea. But he worries that if Kerry agreed to such a power-sharing formula, he would be fundamentally weakening the office of the presidency.

McCain knows that people respect him because he says what he thinks. And since he would continue to speak out if he were vice president, he fears a Kerry White House would inevitably -- necessarily -- put him on ice. And perhaps most important, by running with a Democrat, he would lose the chance to do what he most wants, which is to help broaden and revitalize the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.

So the Arizona Republican probably means it when he says he won't run as Kerry's vice president. He rejects the idea not in principle but in practice. And he means it, too, when he says he plans to support George W. Bush and campaign for his reelection.

So, with time running out, where does this leave the Kerry folks?

The Kerry campaign thus has two options if it truly favors a national-unity strategy. It can think through the problems that McCain is worrying about and try to woo him anew with a structure that could bridge differing viewpoints without destroying the coherence of a Kerry White House. Or, it can look for another moderate Republican such as Sen. Chuck Hagel or Sen. Richard Lugar, who, like McCain, are symbols of independence and bipartisanship.

We'd also argue that with all the acclaim of Ronald Reagan he might also consider the one Democrat who had the same likeability figure, and we don't mean Howard My-Mouth-Is-My-Shepard Dean: John Edwards. But perhaps that's a pipe dream (and Kerry will thrust upon the national stage a hack for Veep like Richard Gephardt):

What makes McCain so appealing as a unity candidate came through in a speech he gave last month on fiscal discipline. "I am a proud Republican," he said. "I revere Ronald Reagan and his party of limited government. Sadly, that party is no longer. The current version of the Republican Party is engaged in an outrageous spending binge, and they're being steadied and encouraged by the Democrats."

Indeed, like him or not, McCain speaks his mind and doesn't seem to be looking at the polls or worrying about bigwigs' noses being out of joint (which is why he is not beloved in the Senate). That was one of the appealing things about Reagan, who did compromise and take a half-a-loaf if he had to: he stood steadfast for his beliefs. But in 2004 there's a sense that polls Are King in both camps, protestations to the contrary. So, who will Kerry pick? And will Bush stick with Cheney (latest rumors the past few weeks had Tom Ridge being vetted just in case, and Rudy Giuliani being perceived as a great way to energize the ticket.)??

UPDATE: The New York Times has a piece saying McCain has repeatedly refused Kerry's hints that he'd like him to run with him.

"Hints" is the word since it has not been posed as a direct question -- and the two reportedly play a kind of verbal game. But McCain has remained firm in his insistance that he is not interested, the Times reports.

Your dog is a LOT SMARTER than you think. The Moderate Voice can attest to that...and gives you the scoop on cats, too (see what you learn when you read Dean's World?)

I don't even watch organized team sports for the most part, but I'm watching the finals for the NBA championship and, as I write this, I'm stunned to note that Detroit is up 20 points on L.A. in the 4th quarter.

No one expected them to put up such a tough fight.

Well, now isn't this interesting: A New England Republican blogger notes that a recent interview with President Bush was substantially redacted for broadcasting, and the parts edited out seem to have been pretty substantial to helping the President make his case to viewers.

Fortunately, one enterprising blogger compared the video version with the transcript available ont he web site, and was able to highlight the differences, along with links where you can confirm (at least for now) the un-redacted original interview.

Interesting. Some of those cuts seem to have included quite important statements.

It's time for me to head back to my home in the Jewish ghetto, otherwise known as The Moderate Voice. Many thanks to Dean for inviting us to guest blog again (see Dean? It does pay off when you have one of Tony Soprano's cousins visit me at the office...).

But please visit us at our own blog which you can visit by clicking here and here and here and here. Of course, all of those get you to the same place, which is here. And any number of clicks are worth it, if it doesn't get you HERE.

Even so, we hope you'll include The Moderate Voice on your daily web surfing schedule and leave comments for us as we constantly update our relatively young blog. A million thanks for your thoughtful comments on our posts here again.

Very sad news this morning and the way it was released is clearly to prepare the American public for the eventual news: 93-year-old former President Ronald Reagan is failing very fast.

The Moderate Voice worked in newspapers for many years and he knows when the media is doing what's called a "Death Watch" and it has officially begun on Ronald Reagan with this short story, carried in varying forms by different agencies. This one from CNN:

Former President Ronald Reagan's health is deteriorating, according to a White House spokesman on Air Force One.

The 93-year-old former president had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease about a decade ago and he began to retreat from public view.

According to sources familiar with the situation, the White House has been told Reagan's death could happen in "weeks or months."

The sources said they were told: "Don't be surprised if....the time is getting close."

Alzheimer's is a progressive, irreversible neurological disorder.
These kinds of short advisories -- often carried on show biz luminaries as well -- are a kind of tip to newspaper editors to get their big obits ready. There were similar short updates on Frank Sinatra, Bob Hope, Hubert Humphrey, etc -- figures who had lingering illnesses or who lived to ripe old ages but took a turn for the worse.

UPDATE: Despite a comment from one of the former President's staffers downplaying him taking a turn for the worse, Reagan's family is reportedly gathering by his bedside.

A certain somebody is baaaack...and he's coming soon to a bookstore near YOU as he promotes a book that may qualify as a lethal weapon if it's thrown at you. He's begun a Magical Mystery Tour of bookstores. We won't tell you who he is except he is a former president who once had a famous intern working on his staff....and he creates possible problems for a 21st Century politician with the initials JFK.

UPDATE: In the ultimate example of phoney, manufactured journalism, CNN, in a piece on John Kerry's choices for Vice President, lists Bill Clinton. This kind of "analysis" deameans serioius journalism. There has not been one shred of evidence that Bill Clinton is on anyone's list for Vice President on a Kerry ticket, except someone trying to create news where there is none. Drudge links to this truly idiotic piece on his website. After The Moderate Voice read it, he was puzzled. He thought Brothers Grimm died years ago.

John Cole has a special note about recent prominent example of hate speech that's quite worth contemplating.

Looks like the religiophobes have stuck again, and this time they're after Los Angeles.

Utterly asinine. The sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave at being taken so insanely out of context.

Not long ago we heard that the Democrats would be giving special privileges to webloggers to attend and report on their conviention. I recently got a forwarded email from a friend saying that Republicans are now doing the same thing.

Has anyone heard anything about this? Anything that would look like official confirmation?

If so I must say I'm envious of those webloggers who can make it. I'd do both conventions if I could. But it's big news if both major parties are allowing it, regardless.

* Update * Ah, looks like I wasn't the only one to see that email.

Yes, Virginia, there is an economic recovery...with a slight hitch, so it's not a slam-dunk (with apologies to George Tenet for using his phrase) politically for President George Bush.
The AP says this:

U.S. employers added almost a quarter million workers in May, extending a nine-month hiring spree and accommodating enough new jobseekers to hold the unemployment rate steady at 5.6 percent.

Payrolls swelled by almost 1 million in the last three months alone, the Labor Department said Friday. Employment figures for March and April were revised up to reflect the addition of 353,000 and 346,000 jobs respectively.

But because tens of thousands of jobless are renewing their search for work in the wake of an improving labor market, the overall, seasonally adjusted civilian unemployment rate did not improve from April’s 5.6 percent figure.

Non-partisan political Scientist Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia, who has a good prediction track record, recently pointed to the improving economy as example of an item handled by the press in a way that should rightly irk the GOP and its supporters.

He wrote that Bush & Co. have a "legitimate beef" in not getting enough credit for an economy that "has clearly started to roar. New jobs are being created by the hundreds of thousands each month, almost every economic statistic is improving beautifully, and interest rates remain at historically low levels. "

Sabato believes this fact isn't filtering down to the public in large part due to
the news media, especially the major TV networks which have an attitude he describes as , "bad news is news; good news isn't news." He points to how the media helped Bill Clinton by writing cheery economic stories about him in 1996, a stark contrast to the attitude on Bush. And he writes:

Can the media understand why so many conservatives see an anti-Republican double standard at work, especially on the network TV evening news programs? (The Crystal Ball fully acknowledges that neither the Clinton package of '93 nor the Bush package of '01 may have had anything to do with economic recovery in '96 and '04. But viewers and readers have a right to expect consistency and fairness, regardless of the media's partisan and ideological leanings.)

There are definite positive trends. People may differ on interpretation -- but even when it comes to interpretation the first step is getting the hard data out. For all of the praise aimed its way, this White House seems to have a communications problem (will we seen newly-returned Bush aide Karen Hughes assume an even bigger profile in months to come?)

As usual one of our favorite bloggers, Lt. Smash, beautifully summarizes President George Bush's strategy for victory -- this time focusing on Bush's graduation address at the US Air Force Academy. You can read his summary of the speech here and quickly get the key points.

And, as usual, Smash asks the key question:"Many people in the United States and around the world view President Bush with fear and suspicion. No doubt they will find faults with this plan, and attack it with vigor. For them, I have but one question: What is your alternative strategy?"

It sounds like it stands for Biased Broadcasting Corporation, according to what Jeff Jarvis posts here.

And this publication tells you this is the real, no-joke reason why....

You've seen a lot of coverage here of various issues involving obesity and overeating in general.

So it wouldn't shock or outrage you to know that many schools are transitioning to heatlhier diets -- healthier foods and in many cases banning soda/pop (pick your word depending on where you live).

But now a Masschusetts school has fired a new salvo in the war against fat: a war against cupcakes at parties.

According to the Boston Globe, the Chandler School in Duxbury, MA, has banned cupcakes at student birthday parties:

Concerned that the children are eating too much junk food, the Chandler School Council and the Parent Teacher Association are forbidding parents from bringing sweets to their child's classroom birthday party.

"We love birthdays, but we decided to shift the focus onto the child and not the food," said principal Deborah Zetterberg, who is also cochairwoman of the school council. "What we proposed was to have a birthday package, as we're calling it."

The package includes a special birthday chair cover that will be placed on the back of the student's chair, Zetterberg said. The birthday boy or girl can also wear a sash. They get a special pencil and a sticker with the school's mascot, the Happy Dragon, she said. Preschool and kindergarten students also get to wear a birthday crown, she said.

A letter was sent home to parents this week alerting them to the sweets ban. Zetterberg said most parents have been supportive of the issue, but some have been bothered by the decision to curtail a childhood tradition.

So what is all is all the fuss about? The Moderate Voice remembers how he was a kid and a good chunk of his job is to do programs for kids. He is SURE any kid would much rather get a sash, a special pencil, and sticker with the Happy Dragon mascot instead of a dumb old, sweet, mouthwatering, scrumptious cupcake that won't notably impact their weight if it's only eat once at a single-event birthday party. We have to show we're firm and demand Zero Tolerance.

And he knows that a special birthday cover on the back of a kid's chair will completely replace the tradition of a cupcake or God forbid SWEET BIRTHDAY CAKE with FIRE HAZARD CANDLES and that criminal frosting slathered on top of it.

One solution for the school and its council of adults who have so much time to focus thinking about cupcakes rather than school budget cuts or curriculum is this: maybe they can press for a carrot cake without sugar with real carrot on top, or a nice spinach pie. That would also add to the festivies that are sure to be enhanced by the sash, chair cover, pencil and sticker.

FOOTNOTE: Adults. Be sure to give a pen, a silk sash, a nylon chaircover, and a laminated sticker to your spouse for his/her birthday this year. These vital habits must be carried into adulthood to set a good example for kids. We are sure they will be delighted as you stress the importance of the Birthday Person and de-emphasize something as unhealthy as food.

Weblogger Matt Rosenberg has published a piece in the conservative but respectable National Review Bill Cosby and the press. It's interesting reading, as he also points out that, once again, webloggers were responsible for driving a story the mainstream press was ignoring.

The latest House of Ketchup is now available.

I particularly enjoyed these thoughts on former New York Times editor Howell Raines' recent screen in The Guardian from someone who used to work for the guy. These updates, too.

It's all part and parcel with an elitism and a condescension I've mentioned many times before. It all goes like this: "We're liberals. This means we're broad-minded and have a tradition of being thoughtful. Thus the only explanation for people in disagreement with us on any important issue is that they are stupid, dishonest, or evil."

Which is why I often say that many--not all, but many--of the people we wrongly label "liberals" today should most properly be thought of as today's reactionary class. As John Stuart Mill would say, they don't have ideas so much as irritable mental gestures that vaguely seek to resemble ideas. And their arguments almost inexhorably degenerate into ad hominem attacks and assumptions about others' motives. Everything becomes about what the other guy is "really" saying (i.e. he has a Secret Agenda), what he is "really" trying to do (i.e. he has a Secret Plan).

It's kind of sad. In more ways than one.

The very right-wing Newsmax reports that John Kerry recently flipped off a fellow Vietnam veteran. Of course, you had to read three paragraphs in to find out that this veteran was Ted Sampley, a rather shameful man who publishes a bizarre hate site full of debunked half-truths about the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Which leads to my disappointment with Kerry: why didn't he punch Sampley in the mouth and then kick him in the nuts?

Well, I suppose it's to his credit.

Ted Sampley's just an asshole. He's an unpatriotic asshole. You don't publish falsehoods about your fellow combat veterans, publish one-sided, lopsided accounts of their service, or treat them as traitors simply for having disagreed with you. Mind you, criticizing Kerry for being over-the-top in his criticisms of the war 30 years ago? Fair game. But calling a decorated combat veteran a traitor, and spreading documented lies about him?

John Kerry is the nominee of one of our two greatest and most venerable political institutions and a possible future President of the United States. He may well be the next man to lead us in a war we are in the middle of fighting, and all that being the case, no patriot should behave in that fashion toward him. If you can't prove--prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, in a way that would stand up in a court of law--that the man you're accusing of treason was really a traitor, then you shut up and you treat this man with with the respect he deserves.

If you're any kind of real patriot, I mean.

As we noted in the post here below on airport security, the Homeland Security Department expressed surprise over the dramatic press conference Wednesday by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller in which they warned that a terrorist attack was increasingly likely in the coming months.

The surprise was such that it set off a mini-firestorm in Washington today, leading to the inevitable denial of any problem and a revealing Newsweek analysis by Eleanor Clift that seems to explain some of what unfolded this week.

Warning the public of a monster attack is proving to be a double edged sword. There are all kinds of political pitfalls after the Madrid train bombing. We dealt with this issue in this post here on The Moderate Voice.

But a key issue is: the terrorists timed their bombing in Spain right before the elections since there was a huge gap between the ruling Popular Party and the Socialist party on combating internal terrorism and especially on whether to stay in Iraq. There are some differences between Democrats and Republicans here, but NOT along the lines of what existed in Spain.

Indeed, in his most recent speech Kerry vowed to "destroy the terrorists" and work on an international force to speed up withdrawal of U.S. troops. He also says he wants to bring the troops home "as fast as possible" but that the U.S. can't afford to lose in Iraq. And he called for an increase in U.S. troop strength by 40,000, probably for a decade.

Glenn Reynolds, AKA InstaPundit, quoted Kerry on terrorism and wrote:"More like this, please."

So, other issues aside, there is not the gaping philsophical divide between these two candidates that existed in Spain. Yes, it's election year, and each side wants its candidate to win...but the U.S. ain't Spain.

So Ashcroft lept onto a slippery political slope when he warned of terrorist threats in the summer and pointed to how the terrorists tried to change the verdict in Spain (and of course they did). Ashcroft said:

"The Madrid railway bombings were perceived by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to have advanced their cause....Al Qaeda may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall would lead to similar consequences."

He's actually RIGHT, in a statement of fact: they MAY perceive it. But the present context created by columnists, talking heads, and even some GOP insiders who should know better in talking to media types undercurt Ashcroft's statement:

1)Strategist Dick Morris has been widely quoted as urging GWB to heighten awareness of terrorism as an issue since polls show Americans trust him more than Kerry on terrorism. And, indeed, polls do show that (which is why Kerry is out on the hustings talking about foreign policy this week).

2)This ain't Spain. We've had Democrats and Republicans (in the same week) email us INSISTING the gap between the two parties here is the same as in Espana, but anyone with a finger who can punch a keyboard and do a Google search will see smaller differences here. Kerry is underfire in some Demmie quarters for not differentiating himself enough from Bush.

(3)If the warnings are not so grave that other departments were aware of them, then the risk is what Newsweeks' Eleanor Clift notes here, quoting an unnamed Republican Strategist: “The whole point of fighting them over there is so we wouldn’t have to fight them here,” says the GOP strategist. “Are we really safer? Ashcroft seems to be saying no.”

Newsweek also reports a longtime rivalry between the A.G. and Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge:

An aide to a Republican senator on the Armed Services Committee says, “The divisions between Homeland Security and the Justice Department are as profound as between State and Defense.” In a classic case of Washington intrigue, Ridge reportedly leaked word of the upcoming Ashcroft press conference in order to pre-empt it, then went on the morning shows to assure Americans they should go ahead with their summer plans while Ashcroft is saying the end is near.

But by late today Ashcroft and Ridge were issuing a joint statement, according to Reuters:

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Attorney General John Ashcroft took the unusual step of issuing a joint statement to say they were cooperating to review the threat of attacks by groups such as al Qaeda in the coming months.

"We are working together, and we will take all necessary actions to protect the American people, including raising the threat level or alerting the public to be on the lookout for possible terrorist suspects, whenever warranted by the information we receive," the statement by Ridge and Ashcroft said.

So the issue of issuing a major terrorism alert is a thorny one since it gets mired in politics...just like everything else in an election year.

Did you know there was a government that banned chewing gum? Now they've lifted their longtime ban...

Due to the latest government warnings and intellligence airport security is begin tightened -- a factor The (bleery eyed) Moderate Voice will personally experience tomorow morning when he hops on a jet (he never got over doing those Kangaroo imitations as a kid) to wing his way from San Diego towards the East Coast.

According to the AP:

The federal official in charge of the nation's airports said Friday security has been "stepped up a notch" in the face of renewed terror warnings this holiday weekend and said authorities are asking the public to be vigilant.

"If they see anything unusual, report it - an unattended package, something that just doesn't look right, even odd behavior in the terminal or on the aircraft," FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said on NBC's "Today" show.

She said photographs of seven suspected terrorists released Wednesday by the FBI "are everywhere" and that screeners have been redeployed to some of the busiest airports in anticipation of heavy Memorial Day holiday travel.

Our rule of thumb that we've shared with fellow travelers: leave plenty of time for check in. We've seen people miss flights who thought it was no big deal to show up an hour before their departure. Airline officials are very unsympathetic to those passengers' complaints and yelling since so much is at stake. We will arrive to 2 1/2 hours early for our flight.

UPDATE: The Homeland Security Department reportedly was surprised by Wednesday's announcement by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller that a terrorist attack was increasingly likely in the coming months.

This will be read at least two ways: (1)Poor interagency communication, the exact thing the Homeland Security Department was established to eliminate, (2)Proof (government critics will say) that threats are being hyped for political purposes. Choose your theory according to your world belief...

UPDATE II: Real headline in the Denver Post:"2 suspected al-Qaeda agents dropped in for meal, says Denny's manager in Avon." The Moderate Voice's sources tell him that the two were turned away with a derisive, "Sorry. We don't serve merciless terrorists in here." They threatened to sue the company and Denny's settled...

UPDATE III: Another theory is they ran out of Sarin so they were trying to buy up huge quantities of Denny's Grand Slam breakfasts...

There are often these explanations of what's going on in the news media: the news media is trying to sink the war effort (by some on the right)...the media is trying to promote the war effort (those on the far left who feel the news media, far from being a liberal media, is a big corporate conservative media).

But Glenn Reynolds, AKA InstaPundit, writing on his MSNBC site, has the best idea of all: if you truly want to UNDERSTAND what is going on in Iraq, look at some Iraqi blogs. And he offers a host of links here. Reynolds writes:

Of course, the Iraqis who write Weblogs aren't a random sample -- they're literate in English, and they have Internet access. But then, the Iraqis -- or, for that matter, the Americans -- that reporters interview for their stories aren't a random sample either. (Just ask this guy!) And there's no more guarantee that they're telling the truth than anyone else. But they've already broken some important stories that Western journalists missed, and you can learn things from these blogs you'll be hard pressed to find out otherwise.

You'll also pick up an appreciation for what life is like in Iraq, delivered in the first-person way that blogs are known for, that you're unlikely to get any other way. Take a few minutes and read what some of these Iraqi bloggers have written and I think you'll find yourself going back for more.

Indeed, people are so used to reading their usual news sources, and favorite blogs (which often but not always are the ones with which they agree anyway), that they lose sight of the fact that the brilliance of the Internet is that a simple click can instantaneously taken you to a primary source. (The Moderate Voice will be bookmarking Reynold's piece and doing a separate post on these blogs later on in the week.)

They're at it again. Pundits who use the issue of obesity to peddle flabby politically-loaded interpretations of why so many Americans are overweight. They usually take a new study or news story, then embellish it with a batch of political assertions..and no one calls them on it.

Ahhh....but these are the days when blogs are booming. So bloggers did not let it ride when Poly Toynbee, writing in England's Guardian attributed obseity in part to social factors:

The inequality/obesity link is mirrored internationally. America has by far the most unequal society and by far the fattest. Britain and Australia come next. Europe is better and the Scandinavian countries best of all. No doubt there are also social policy reasons for this: the best social democracies pick up family problems earliest and offer most support, putting people back on their feet, preventing social exclusion. But the narrower the status and income gap between high and low, the narrower the waistbands.

Oxblog's Patrick Belton runs a meaty excerpt of Scott Burgess decimating this and other knee-jerk statements that attempt to make obesity a political-social factor. And we do mean "decimate."

The biggest batch of fat is seemingly between the ears of those who try to use obesity stats to support their own political beliefs.

Cox & Forkum have the best Fahrenheit 9/11 roundup.

Terry Nichols has been convicted of 161 counts of murder.

I hope you think every day about every one of those lives you helped snuff out, Nichols.

The grieving father of Nick Berg -- the young American beheaded by Muslim terrorists in what has now become one of history's most notorious "snuff" films -- has gone political in a big way. Greg Piper (one of the Moderate Voice's favorite young bloggers) deals with this issue as well as conservatives who blame American guards' prison abuse of Iraqis on pornography.

She was. Listen to Uncle Joe...and an expert.

It can happen...and it did...

Phone mega giant SBC is on strike. And what are the people thinking about who are on the front lines? What's it like to be there? One of our favorite blogs -- a highly unusual and highly creative one -- has a post that tells you and makes you feel like you're on the picket line.

Slate asks that question in a fascinating essay on the work of the recently departed actor-comedian Tony Randall -- finding he performed in a gray zone.