No news is good news...?

Hello. Been a couple of days...ok more like a week. But who's counting? Still don't have a lot.

Couple of things. Condi's now the Secretary of State. She's black and the 'she' part should give away that she's also a women. A Republican made it happen. Deal with it. I guess it's "possible" this is all just a ruse to hide the "obvious" fact that Republicans are racist. But would that not be the greatest example of cutting off your nose to spite your face ever? "We hate blacks, therefore we will appoint a black to the top foreign relation post in the land. Sure, they will be the face of the country to the rest of the world, but that means the racsism goes unnoticed a little longer." Make sense? To the liberal mind, sometimes it does.

Two. There is stuff swirling around about the French in the Ivory Coast. Apparently French soldiers decided to engage in a debate with chanting locals by means of bullets. There are different stories out there (HT - LGF). What does seem to be certain. There was a large crowd of Ivory Coast citizens protesting in front of a hotel that French troops with full weaponry and tanks were protecting. Shots were fired. People ended up dead, somewhere between 7 and 60. You can go here to see a video taken at the event. (You'll have to scroll down a bit.) It's rather long and not of very good quality. I'll give you a brief summary of what I saw when I viewed it. Large group chanting and singing. Some are shouting, pointing, even mooning the French soldiers, but classifying them as violent or threatening would be a gross overstatement from what I witnessed. They are separated by a street, at least one (maybe two) retaining wall(s) and about 75-125ft (my estimation). The troops mainly appear to be lazily lounging on the tanks and/or other light armored vehicles. More chanting/singing. Then a sound which I can't imagine would be anything other than gun shots. The crowd mostly hits the ground. Though the video quality is poor, I think smoke rising above the troops can be seen. Chaos. Women screaming. People running. Then you see people being carried. Various wounds, some which are rather benign, others I think can only be gun shot wounds. Skip to the end where you come to a scene of a group surrounding a body on the ground. The head of the body is a bloody mess. Not distiguishable. Some have described it as headless. I couldn't really disagree with that assessment.

The question. Where's the media? Where's Amnesty International? Where's the outrage? Something definitely happened here. Possibly even opening fire on people peaceably expressing their views. If it was news worthy in Tiananmen Square, why not here?

Finally, some people are displeased with the Target Corporation. Seems they told the Salvation Army to take their kettles and head on down the road. Lileks has one opinion. Hewitt has another. Can I agree with both? No? Ok, let me first say that I do find the kettles annoying. The bells, the forlorn look when I choose not to empty my pockets, the omnipresence during the Yuletide season. Yet, they are an organization that does good, or at least more good than harm. They are part of the holiday scene. And I think Hewitt's point that Target seems to be rather uncharitable during a season of charity which allows them to stay in business has some merit. The big question seems to be why. And the longer they wait, the likelihood of Target having a valid answer wanes. And the likelihood of Target being further down my list of shopping choices rises.

Who needs Comedy Central...

...when you've got reality? (HT - Drudge)

And no, this is not a parody site. It's for real.

The Greater Good

Each year, around this time, my interest in football, especially the collegiate variety, is almost overwhelming. I focus my rooting interests on one thing. Not my favorite team (Hook'em), but for "BCS chaos." You see. I feel that the current system by which a champion is selected is quite flawed and ridiculous. I will not focus on all the argument for or against. I will just lay out my simple play for a playoff system and I think once anyone sees the potential, the argument for anything other than a playoff will be seen as silly.

MY PLAN

There are currently 11 Division I football conferences. This includes the lowly Sun Belt, which I will currently exclude from my plan, but who's inclusion, I think, wouldn't cause a huge problem. The playoff would consist of 16 teams. It could start the second or third week of December and be done by the 2nd week of January. The plan would be to include any champion of a conference. If you exclude the Sun Belt, which I think would be almost certainly excluded, that would leave 6 at large bids. That means you are guaranteed that the top six ranked teams would be included in the playoffs. I guess it also means that the 7th ranked team could be excluded but I think that is highly unlikely. We would still use some system similar to the BCS rankings to rate the teams. I think I would add a rule that a conference could have no more than 3 teams. This would seem to alleviate any issue that might arise from a mystery guest winning a conference title game. So, if your conference is really that good, it will at least have it's two best teams in. Some will say that you'll still have lots of debate about that 16th team. I would say that I would rather debate about #16 than #2. Now, a layout of the plan and the first round match-ups. For these purposes I will assume that the favorite or team currently leading the conference would win it. So...
Conference Champions (BCS ranking)
Big 12 Oklahoma (2)
Pac 10 USC (1)
SEC Auburn (3)
Big 10 Michigan (7)
ACC Virginia Tech (15)
Big East Boston College (21)
C-USA Louisville (10)
MAC Bowling Green? (25)
Mt. West Utah (6)
WAC Boise St. (9)
...So the next 6 left in the BCS would be:
Pac 10 California(4)
Big 12 Texas (5)
ACC Fla. St. (8)
SEC Georgia (11)
ACC Miami, Fl (12)
Big 10 Wisconsin (13)

So in this case the team crying foul would be Arizona State with 2 losses. I can handle that a lot better than the possibility of someone going undefeated and winning the SEC and not have a chance to play for the championship. So, based on their rankings check out the first round match-ups. We'll give the league champion a higher seed than any other conference member even if they have a lower ranking.

#1 USC (1)
#16 Bowling Green (25)

#8 Virginia Tech (15)
#9 Fla. St. (8)

#4 California (4)
#13 Miami, Fl. (12)

#5 Texas (5)
#12 Georgia (11)

#3 Auburn (3)
#14 Wisconsin (13)

#6 Utah (6)
#11 Louisville (10)

#7 Michigan (7)
#10 Boise St. (9)

#2 Oklahoma (2)
#15 Boston College (21)

Now really. How many of those games are you gonna miss? Now go ahead and imagine all the first round favorites win. Those next four games are too delicious to believe. Have fun with it. If only...

Veterans Day

God Bless them all...

There are, it may be, many months of fiery trial and sacrifice ahead of us. It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance. But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts -- for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other.
- from Woodrow Wilson's War Message, 1917 (HT - Polipundit)

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing is worth dying for, when did this begin...? Should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots of Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain!
-Ronald Reagan

If we wish to be free; if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms, and to the God of hosts, is all that is left us.
-Patrick Henry, 1775

These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of
man and woman.
-Thomas Paine

I told you I don't like resolutions

Well, with the election streaming into the distance, I feel as if a daily dose of me may be over medicating a bit. Therefore, while I will still post regularly, it will not necessarily be daily.

For today? Another possible "moment of truth found in unexpected places." The place? The season finale of "Six Feet Under". Yes, it ended months ago but the greatness of PVR/DVR/Tivo, whatever you want to call it, allowed me to view the series on my own terms with it's conclusion coming last night. This is a conversation in the final scene with one of the main characters (David) having a "conversation" with his dead father (Nate Sr.). Yes, it involves a "ghost", but what do expect from a show called "Six Feet Under?"

Nate Sr: You hang on to your pain like it means something. Like it's worth something. Well let me tell ya, it's not worth sh**. Let it go. [Talking to the air] Infinite possibilities and all he can do is whine.

David: Well what am I supposed to do?

Nate Sr: What do ya think? You can do anything ya lucky bastard, you're alive! What's a little pain compared to that?

David: [Sigh] It can't be so simple.

Nate Sr: What if it is?

Ah, what if it is...

Take it or leave it...

I started out the day by spraying liquid coffee creamer all over the break-room here at work and, of course, myself. So yes, today is going swimmingly.

Two quick things.

A liberal gives solid reasons to why I asked the question, "How could anyone vote for Kerry?", and found no sensible answers.

Fallujah is not a fun place to be right now. Pray for our troops. For some good analysis go here.

Now that's what I call quick....OUT!

Me 0, Big Bag...

Well, I've got nothin today. Ok, maybe not nothing. But probably nothing in which you're interested.

Quick hitables...

#1. Question. Is James Dobson a bit unhinged? Before scurrying off to church Sunday morning, I caught "This Week" with George Snuffaluffagus. He was interviewing Dr. Dobson on Sen. Arlen Spector's comments about judiciary appointments earlier in the week. At one point, George questioned him on a statement he made about Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont. The quote?

"Patrick Leahy is a 'God's people' hater," Dobson said.
"I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people."

Hmmm. George then went on to ask if Dobson would be retracting/apologizing for the remark. None coming. He also asked whether these were the sort of remarks that should be coming from a "Christian leader" (I'm paraphrasing here, I can find no sort of transcript) and Big James responded by asking if George was the one who should be lecturing him on Christianity. Ok.

Personally, even though I may risk my membership in the "Christian Conservative" movement (Gasp!), I think Dr. Dobson crossed the line on both accounts. One, I can understand that if someone continually seems to side in opposition to anything that might be construed as positive for American Christians that someone else might tag them a "'God's people' hater". But...BUT, I don't think anyone should use that tag in public while someone with a pen/laptop and cell phone with a news organization on the other end is standing there. Maybe at night, you can mention it to your wife while lying in bed, "Honey, that Ted Kennedy is one heck of a 'God's people' hater!" It might even be true. But as a general rule, incendiary remarks are not beneficial for public political discourse, especially when they come from people who claim to speak for a religion that's purportedly in the business of loving one another. Two, you're probably not going to get that ranking on the top-ten most reasonable by challenging someone's moral authority when they question a statement you made in public...in a newspaper. Especially when it starts to look like you think you do have moral authority. Know your audience is what I've always been told. And rarely is your audience comprised of those who can't wait to hear how they don't live up to God's standard. I think that's why the Bible is pretty heavy on that whole love your neighbor tip. Meet people's needs, physically, emotionally, whatever. Maybe even some longings, but show me the guy who's got "be labeled a Christian hater" on his Christmas list. All I'm saying is this might not be your key demographic to go after when you've been given a national stage where you can spread the "Good News." We should always speak the truth, and, like I said, he might be a 'God's people' hater. But there's only like 2 guys that know that for sure, and since Dr. James' surname isn't Leahy or Christ, he probably isn't 100% sure.

#2 (That 1st one was terribly un-quick) Hook'em. Quick picture painting. Your team has just given up a touchdown with 1:16 left in the FIRST HALF to go down 28 points. You alternate between shaking your head, holding it in your hands, and just grumbling to yourself. But then, they use that last minute or so of the half to score as the tight end uses all his strength to hold off two defenders and get the tip of the ball over the line. Only down 21. Hope holds a faint light. And before the 3rd quarter can end, the lead has been demolished. By the end of the game, so has the other team. Forty-nine unanswered points. A 28 point deficit has turned into a 21 point victory. Never believe them when they tell you it's over...or when they try to convince you that men can't fly.

Time to stand down...

Mark Davis, of WBAP fame, said today (I'm paraphrasing), "When the battle ends, it's time to put the weapons away." I hope that's true, but I know where I'd put my money if I had to. These people obviously didn't get the memo. (*Warning* Not for the faint of heart. HT - Instapundit)

(Today's "Insane Update")
As if the above link didn't qualify...Folk matriarch Joan Baez is nutso. (HT - Instapundit) Oh and so is Tuh-ree-za, but that's not really news. (Note: you really should check out that Joan Baez story. When you get to the part that makes your eyes go wide, consider the ramifications if, oh, say...Kid Rock pulled the same stunt. Hint: Media maelstrom)

Next, check out this article. Some people who get paid for their words and ideas do agree with me.

Finally, in the past I've mentioned that there are many who just don't get Christians. Typically, I base that more on simple ignorance of the issue than actual animosity. But this is different. It's mean. You should read it. Really. I will provide a few examples:
In explaining the "red states" thinking, author Jane Smiley states...

"Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it."

Enlightening. Complex thought = Satan. Moving on...

"...and most important, when life grows difficult or fearsome, they (politicians, preachers, pundits) encourage you to cling to your ignorance with even more fervor. But by this time you don't need much encouragement; you've put all your eggs into the ignorance basket, and really, some kind of miraculous fruition (preferably accompanied by the torment of your enemies, and the ignorant always have plenty of enemies) is your only hope. If you are sufficiently ignorant, you won't even know how dangerous your policies are until they have destroyed you, and then you can always blame others."

Cling to it, people. Hold on tight!

After reading the article, I'm left wondering how I made it to work. All those complex turns and all. Conservatives, "The Right", evangelical Christians -- what ever label I'm currently tagged with -- are always accused of bigotry and hate. If that article is not an example of what those words really mean, I don't know what is. Especially when book-ended with Joan Baez's shenanigans. The intro to the article by Slate states that, "Slate asked a number of wise liberals to take up the question of why Americans won't vote for the Democrats." Wise? Do wise people make such broad arguments, basically lumping anyone who lives in a "red" state together? Don't wise people know as soon as you accuse your adversary of being a knuckle dragging imbecile that their argument becomes moot because name-calling is not considered a reasoned argument? Do wise people have the ability to make the claim that their conservative family members,"...are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority..." and then not consider the fact that an entire essay on the only reason that the opposition doesn't buy into their "reasoning" is their inherit ignorance and not realize that might be seen as being superior? Seriously?

Well, if you want even a higher level of wacky entertainment, check out the comments to the article. One guy, a journalist who's written for some "reputable" news sources, actually says that Kerry won Ohio. His proof? Get this...the exit polls said so. I couldn't make this up as I tried.

Now, I will try to move away from politics...I love sports. One of those would be football. I'm also a fan of the Texas Longhorns. I have never run away from the tag of "geek". I readily admit, at times, that my emotional involvement in such things might border on unhealthy. As one more proof, I will now let you see something which made me genuinely happy, almost ebullient.

Q: How good is Frank Okam? I know he was one of the most sought-after recruits in the country last year.
Daniel Simpson, Dallas

BROWN: Let's put it this way: Okam studies film so intently that he waits until the last possible moment to get into his stance so that he can see where the tight end and receivers are lined up in addition to his keys, which are usually the running backs. Okam says he studies enough film that he can usually tell what play the offense is running based on the formations and personnel in the game. When told that Okam was looking at receivers to know the formations, co-defensive coordinator Greg Robinson said that is above and beyond the call of Okam's duty. Okam is just now learning the nuances of technique and how to split double teams. But he's already been an impact player, consistently getting into the backfield. He leads the team in sacks (two). He's going to be good. (Courtesy Inside Texas Football of DallasNews.com)

I know, I know.

Go away now, I'm done.

This is my country, land that I love...

Everybody! (I love sing-a-longs)

Anyway. I was obviously pleased and relieved with the result of the presidential election. Another result would have, honestly, confused me. Mainly, because I think most people are politically closer to me than to Michael Moore. Even if you're not socially conservative, which I only partly concede I am, you're probably economically conservative. Essentially, most people think that they can do a better job with their money than the government, and if you want to vote for someone with similar leanings, your best chance is the Republican. Especially in this election, how hard does one have to squint to find, "JOHN F. KERRY...Fiscal Conservative," believable. Much less, "JOHN F. KERRY...Social Conservative." Yes, I'm snickering, too.

Just look at the numbers from yesterday's entry. The President, the House, the Senate, most state governors, and most state legislatures; they all have one thing in common and it's not a love of the French nobility. Hewitt said it like this:

Looking back to 1968, the GOP has won seven of ten presidential campaigns. Carter triumphed only against an appointed Ford who carried the burden of a pardon, and Clinton won a three-way race, and struggled to a re-election far less persuasive than the Bush mandate Tuesday.

It is a Republican country, but it is very hard for the left to see this because they believe so deeply in their agenda. The emerging GOP majority had also struggled because the Supreme Court's Republican nominees have not reflected the political views of their appointers, and the Senate magnifies the power of the minority. These are good checks on sudden shifts in political direction, but eventually they are eroded by solid majorities. We have reached that time, as the next Supreme Court nomination battle will underscore.

Some might query, "If the country's so Republican, why did Kerry only lose by 3.5%?" Drumroll...come on...surely you know what's coming...that's right! The media. If you don't believe me and my numerous past rants on this topic just ask the media themselves. On July 10 the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek--not even a mere writer but someone who might sit in on a meeting or two-- Evan Thomas told those watching the syndicated program Inside Washington that most reporters wanted a certain senator to win. He said:

“The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox — but they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all. There’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”

(HT - MRC)

I see. so 48% minus 15% is...ummmm....carry the one...no wait...oh...yes, it's 33%. Or maybe he just meant 15 point to the spread. In that case it's still a 40/60 split, and that ain't close. It certainly doesn't make you think "deeply divided." The media is why many believe that Bush lost 400 tons of explosives. The media is why most of the public never heard about the Swift Boat Vets, except when Chris Matthews was spewing his vitriolic invectives. The media is why more people believe that Bush quit looking for Bin Laden but know nothing about the oil-for-food scandal. I just don't think you can discount the effect that a legacy of very liberal anchors being the main distributors or news for a 50 year period. Cronkite, Rather, Brokaw, yada, yada, yada.

I also think that there are certain groups that for reasons I don't fully understand associate the Democratic party with some by-gone era. Many elderly still believe FDR's ghost keeps watch over the party of the jack-ass...oh, sorry Mom, donkey. Uh, he doesn't. Some Baby Boomers think that the most recent "J.F.K. - D" is like THE "J.F.K. - D"...he's not. I fully believe JFK would have to run on the Republican ticket today. Tax cuts and strong defense? The Black vote I'll never understand. As a group they're much more socially conservative than I am. I assume their loyalty has something to do with LBJ and the Civil Rights Bill. I wasn't alive for any of that, but did that help that much more than when Nixon helped introduce affirmative action? The loyalty seems misplaced. The Jewish vote? I've always assumed we shared more than just a religious heritage, but what do I know.

All this to say, today there should be no question. The conservative vote is no longer a special interest; it is the public mindset.

And the beat goes on...

...In so many ways.

First, President Bush has been re-elected. Kerry has conceded. He was defeated. Most of the polls were wrong. Zogby is officially nutso. (HT - Kerry Spot)

Second, this dead horse just keeps showing up at my door. The media still cannot control themselves. At the moment of this posting, CNN is still refusing to give Bush Ohio. Even though Kerry has, even though Pennsylvania (been blue since 9:30 last night) is closer than Ohio, even though the numbers just aren't there. Watching Wolf and Co. dance around because they had discovered the color green was a bit much. The fact that Florida stayed in the "Too close to call" column for so long is another sign. Five percentage points with only 4% of the vote outstanding is just too much to overcome. But they waited. How long did they wait for Pennsylvania, the state that is still closer than Ohio, which CNN still hasn't called? About 30 minutes I would guess. They waited longer for Colorado (7 point victory), Nevada (3 point victory), Florida (5 point victory), and Missouri (8 point victory).

We got to hear Dan Rather say fun stuff like, "We want to be the accuracy network." Yes, I did laugh out loud. Or Tom Brokaw say, "The President and his people feel as though they have won, fairly this time...." This time? Or the MSNBC Headline which read, "Four years later voters more deeply divided." Yeah, about that. Deeply divided? Keep these little nuggets in mind:

President Bush:
- Became the first President to be re-elected while gaining seats in the House and Senate since 1936 and the first Republican President since 1924 to be re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities.
- Received 57.4 million votes - more than any other candidate in history. He broke President Reagan's 1984 mark of 54.5 million. (96% reporting)
- Increased the popular vote by seven million votes since 2000 - more than twice Clinton's increase from 1992 to 1996.
- Improved his percentage in every state except four (MD, OR, VT and WY). This includes a four percent increase in John Kerry's home state, Massachusetts. (HT -

Or:

- The GOP has 55 senators.
- The GOP has over 230 House members.
- There are at least 28 Republican governors, including those of the 4 largest states.
- The majority of state legislators and legislatures are Republican.
- The GOP has just performed miracles, like ousting a Senate caucus leader for the first time since 1952, and getting a Republican senator elected from Louisiana for the first time ever. (HT - Polipundit)

I'll submit that there are those on the polar opposite sides of the political spectrum in this country that will cause acrimony. But do those numbers above suggest that this is a divided country, or at least more divided than during the Reagan or Clinton Administrations? Maybe in the media's wishful thinking, but the vastness of the "Big Red Middle of America" suggests something very different.

I will stop now. Tired head is reaching dangerous levels. Tonight I will sleep long and peacefully.

T minus...

Well, within the next hour or so I will leave and attempt to cast my vote for various seats, including President. Hopefully, it will be without incident. Oddly enough, even though I still feel a tinge of tension, I'm starting to gain some optimistism about the results. The polls seem to be breaking that way (except for Zogby, who will be shown to either be a genius or a nut), many Republicans are feeling good, and Democrats are...well not so much. (HT - Captains Quarters)

Also, a point that I think has some merit:

When is the last time a sitting president was rejected by the public without everyone knowing in advance that it would happen? In 1992, everyone knew Bush was going to lose. Were people surprised by Carter's 1980 loss? Ford had a late surge in 1976, but, again, everyone had to know he was going to lose. Right now, at least in the polls, most people seem to think Bush will win.

Also: When is the last time that a candidate held a decisive advantage on the issues that likely voters generally regarded as the most important ones, and still lost?

If you haven't, you should check out Daschle's melt down. A particularly entertaining blow-by-blow account by a guy in the courtroom can be found here. (HT - Hugh & Powerline)

That's all for now. Attempt to suppress my vote at your own risk.

Relief Eve

Well, tomorrow the votes will be cast. Hopefully by tomorrow night we will know who will be taking an oath in January. But it just wouldn't be my blog without a couple of these types of notes.

#1 In a shocking development. A new study released today indicates that (you're not gonna believe this) the media really hates Bush. By their own admission, most lefties don't have much of an affinity for Kerry, yet we get,"...John Kerry is getting the most favorable network news coverage of any presidential candidate in the past quarter century." More than Clinton? But everybody loved Clinton. Oh yeah, I forgot, John F. Kerry has a plan.

#2 (Also media related) Apparently, the Bin Laden tape said more than we were originally told. (HT: Powerline) Isn't this news? The fact that he didn't just say don't vote Bush, but that he said states that are tinted red on Nov. 3 should expect a visit from some "martyrs"?

#3 (Recurring theme?) I been reluctant to say anything since I heard this rumor several weeks ago, but it's getting more play. It would seem that there's now some evidence that Kerry did receive a less than honorable discharge. If the media really wanted a pre-election bombshell, that would seem to fall into the category. But it falls short on one key requirement...It must damage a Republican. We all know what CBS et al., have done with little to back up their claims about Bush's National Guard duty. How loud would they be crying if Bush then wouldn't release his military records? Which reminds me...

#4 (Maybe) NBC seems to have done some clever editing of a Kerry interview. Go here to get a quick run-down. Didn't he say in the first debate he had released all his records?

#5 (OK, trending that way, yes) Walter Cronkite is nutso...despite this moment of clarity.

#6 (Reprieve? Sorta.) If you need evidence that polling is a tad inexact just note the fact that in a poll of Wisconsin over the weekend Zogby has Kerry with a 7 point lead, Gallup has Bush with an 8 point lead. Those would both seem to be out of the margin of error. Obviously, someone is in error here. Also, in Pennsylvania, Gallup has Bush up 4, Kerry up 5. Run with that "data."

OK, I'm done, except for a possible bonus photo blog. Only one more day of pre-election tension. I'm really gonna miss it.