Sunday, October 31, 2004

on account of that giant freezer in the driveway

P.S. Then, just for fun. If you plan on voting for Bush, but still despise the chuckle-head, click here. If Kerry is your man, but you hate his freaking guts, click here. If you're voting for someone else, or not voting at all (like Mark Noll from Weaton College), good luck with that. Here's to hoping you're not an idiot.


Saturday, October 30, 2004

michael moore, just be glad you're not an evangelical

I love this country so much I want to throw up. And I’m tired of wanting to throw up. But I think I'm going to feel like this for four more years, and maybe longer, until this country gives me a presidential candidate worth voting for.

Today, being Friday, I don’t feel much like casting a vote. I can’t picture myself actually voting. This ugly scenario played out in 2000, when I failed to send in my absentee ballot while at school. Bush/Gore was just a colossal waste of money, time, and manpower. A two-headed beast beholden to corporate interests and the Washington elite, both of which seemed so sickeningly centrist at the time that it seemed like we were voting for a Clinton the II, only with higher personal morals.

Oops. I was wrong. But in the here and now, even though I know reams and cartons more than I did last Nov 2 after the Summer Games, it still doesn't’t make it any easier to vote. I just want to puke -- again and again and again. And then hope it’s January, and I’ll have missed the whole thing.

The thing about casting a vote is that no “average joe” really knows the candidates. All we can do is trust the judgment of their rich, white friends, the intuition of the journalistic elite, and the spin from their campaign staff of political whores. What a great trifecta. We have this glossy, sometimes scarred image, crafted and re-crafted by (or through) the media. We have videos and editorials and “non-partisan” action groups. Teachers unions and General Electric. Ted Nugent and Ashton Kutcher. These are the sorts of people, places and things that inform our decision to vote. God help us all.

And there He is (God, not Ashton Kutcher, though I do tend to capitalize pronouns when referring to either one of them). I had a pastor friend come by last week who told me, “In the end, it’s up to God; though I truly believe that if Kerry is elected, it'll be God’s way of judging this country.”

Bullshit. This country is already being judged. We've been judged for every election since we adopted political parties. Our electoral college, our Congress, our judicial system and our Constitution were never built for it.

Crazy thing about being a free will theist, I have the unorthodox (read:heretical) belief that we decide our elections, and not God. Much like we chose to follow Christ. Imbued with grace that goes before us, granted by the Holy Spirit to Christians and non-Christians alike, we make a decision to seek after the one, true God through his mediator Jesus Christ (or to forgo that search) -- and we choose who we want for president, as a nation, because (last time I checked), we were a democratic republic, and not a theocracy. God does not elect our leaders any more than he elects who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. It’s our choice, to screw up or choose righteousness. Only problem is, we ain't got no righteous candidates to choose from.

(And, to correct other problems with that deterministic way of thinking -- say Kerry was elected. That would mean it was God’s will. But that wouldn't ipso facto mean that he was put there by God to punish America. Because God works in mysterious ways, perhaps he would have over-riding purposes in a plan to elect Kerry, ones we wouldn't’t know for centuries to come, but in eschatological hindsight, would hit ourselves over the head, crying “Of course!” In fact, no matter who is declared winner Nov 2 (fingers crossed), we should have the same enthusiasm in church that very next Sunday, rejoicing in the fact that God’s will cannot be thwarted; that God’s guy is where he is supposed to be; and that God will make everything clear in his time. If my Calvinist pastor friend is not dancing in the streets after a Kerry victory, well I might just have to conclude that my pastor friend isn’t much of a Calvinist.)

My parents are voting for Bush. Their entire argument rests on the fact that Bush is pro-life. (Never mind the fact that abortion rates have risen since Bush took office.) But I refuse to vote for a candidate based on one, singular issue. It’s tantamount to choosing a faith or religion based on who has the most followers -- not an inherently bad one, but still not the greatest way to pick a faith. I can’t get past the fact that Bush has abused "Just War" doctrine to lead us into Iraq. Or that Kerry can’t seem to nail down where he stands on said war, as he tries to appease pacifists and war-mongers alike. Or that Bush has all but left his Compassionate Conservatism in the dust of his over-whelmingly top-heavy tax cuts. Or that Kerry is ethically peachy-keen about aborting unwanted fetuses (even against his personal convictions), or embryonic stem-cell research that could have the potential to kill millions of future Americans in order to make life better for those that had the privilege of being born. Or that Bush has appointed many of his cash-happy drinking buddies from his first election run to ambassadorships around the globe, staffed his administration with corporate cronies in the departments of Labor, Energy and the EPA, and surrounded himself with incompetent foppish neocons who merely pay lip-service to the religious right. (phew!)

I hate these morons because they aren’t fit to call themselves disciples of Jesus. And there’s the rub. They’re not running for "Christian of the Year," they’re running for president.

And I have to vote for one of them. Because I can’t sit out again. The Holy Spirit won’t let me. But dammit, he won’t won’t tell me who to vote for neither. So I go at it alone in a sense. We all do. Knowing that we’ve got to live with our mistake, whether his name is Bush or Kerry. And then, just get on with our lives.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

missing explosives (a rundown)

I've spent more than 10 hours researching and putting together this little post, so please, be patient with it. If you've been under a rock the past few days, you might not have heard that nearly 400 tons of high-grade explosives went missing from an Iraqi facility, al-Qaqaa, sometime around the beginning of the war in Iraq. [Read the initial NY Times piece here; or go to BBC News for a shorter and non-registration required summary]

Because there have been so many conflicting accounts in the news media, I set out to put together a little "tick-tock" of events. It proved more difficult than I imagined, with Netscape inexplicably crashing twice in the process. I took that as a sign that I wasn't supposed to give up, because I'm such a superstitious little bastard.

I'll try to keep this updated for a bit, so if you see in factual errors or omissions, let me know (also, if any of the links fail, give me a buzz as well). The NY Times pieces require registration; all other links should take you right to the original source. Many thanks to Josh Marshall at, where he's been meticulously following this thing, giving me plenty of leads to follow all across the net. Give him a visit.

al-Qaqaa Timeline

1991-2003 - In conjunction with UN sanctions put onto Iraq after the First Gulf War, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspects weapons facility at al-Qaqaa numerous times. Included at the facility are High Explosive (HE) weapons called HMX and RDX, which while conventional explosives, were under the review of the IAEA because they can be used to detonate nuclear weapons. (AP)

January 2003 - The last time IAEA inspectors cataloged and inventoried weapons at al-Qaqaa. They left seals on the HE munitions in order to keep the Iraqis from tampering with them. (AP)

March 2003 - IAEA returns to site for its final inspection at al-Qaqaa, not for another inventory, but to check the seals they had left. All seals remained intact. (AP)

April 4th- 3rd Infantry Division stops at al-Qaqaa, searches parts of compound, and finds many weapons still intact. Among them, white powders, that while assumed to be chemical weapons, are later identified as explosives. (Note: HMX and RDX are white powders.) Division does not find sealed weapons, not do they find facilities with broken seals. Leaves facility unsecured. (AP &

April 5th - Military experts say that because the al-Qaqaa site is so large, the search done by the 3rd Infantry Division was not thorough enough, and that further searches need to be done. (Washington Post)

April 9th - Earliest date the Iraqis have given for theft of the HE munitions. Date coincides with the fall of Baghdad, so presumably, this is the Iraqis way of blaming the U.S. occupying forces. They have given no facts to support this date, other than the materials went missing "due to lack of security." (White House Press Gaggle & CNN)

April 10th - NBC news reporters embedded with 101st Airborne found no signs of the HE munitions as they stopped at al-Qaqaa on their way to Baghdad. They searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings [out of 1000 structures, divided into 10 or more factories]. Leave the next day; site unsecured. (Washington Post & Washington Times)

Early April 2003 - Iraqi witnesses claim that the al-Qaqaa facility is the scene of rampant looting, after U.S. forces have come through. (NY Times)

May 2003 - J. Paul Bremer (head of U.S. occupation forces) informed of looting at al-Qaqaa weapons facility. (NY Times)

May 27th, 2003 - According to Pentagon sources, U.S. troops and Iraqis inspect al-Qaqaa site, and find no HE munitions or IAEA sealed weapons. (MSNBC via TPM)

Somewhere in between - Unconfirmed rumors that the DOD (U.S. Department of Defense) pressured the Iraqis to keep quiet about the missing HE munitions. (The Nelson Report via TPM; note: As far as I've been able to tell, no major news source has picked up on this, let alone confirmed it.)

Roughly 16 months pass before anything is done by either the U.S. or Iraqi officials to report the missing weapons.

Sep 30th, 2004 - Marines in Latifiyah fear Iraqi insurgents using weapons and ammunitions looted from nearby Al-Qaqaa complex (though not the type of HE munitions that went missing). (Chicago Trib)

Oct 10th, 2004 - Iraqi Interim Govt finally informs IAEA are the theft of the HE munitions. [Go straight to the PDF or IAEA website)

Oct 15th - The IAEA informs U.S. mission in Vienna, Austria of the missing munitions. (IAEA & NY Times)

Oct 15-24(?) - National Security Advisor to the president Condoeezza Rice “informed a few days” after the 15th. (CNN)

Oct 24th/25th - Bush wants to know what went wrong. (CNN)

Oct 25th - White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan claims U.S. did not know about the theft until the 15th of October -- President Bush until days later. McClellan also claims that the Pentagon has already directed the Iraqi survey group to look into the matter, and that they are currently doing as such. (White House Press Gaggle)

Oct 25th - Pentagon Spokesman Larry DiRita claims that it’s unclear when the explosives went missing (before or after the fall of Saddam). Warns that Saddam's regime had control of facility from the beginning of war until sometime in April 2003. (AFP)

Oct 25th - Anonymous Pentagon official claims explosives were intact in the aftermath of invasion, contradicting official Pentagon position and DiRita's claims. (AP)

Oct 26th - NBC news reporter embedded with army admits that 101st Airborne did not have time for exhaustive search of facility. (CNN & MSNBC via TPM)

Oct 26th - MSNBC follows up that no search was done by 101st airborne; reports that U.S. troops and Iraqi Survey group inspected al-Qaqaa site on May 27 and did not find explosives or weapons under IAEA seal. (MSNBC via TPM)

Oct 26th- CBS evening news reports that the Chief of the Iraqi Survey Group, Charlie Dulefer, has not been ordered to undergo an investigation of al-Qaqaa (conflicting with earlier reports by Press Secretary Scott McClellan who said that such an investigation was already under way). (CBS News via TPM)

Oct 27th - Iraqi official Mohammed al-Sharaa rejects White House claim that HE munitions went missing before the fall of Saddam’s regime. (AFP)

Oct 27th - Despite conflicting reports and contradictions from the White House and the Pentagon, FOX News believes that the HE munitions were gone by the time U.S. forces arrived. (FOX News)

So that's that for now. But the big issue in my mind is not when the HE munitions went missing, but why the White House is claiming ignorance until Oct 15th, 2004. If Paul Bremer and the Pentagon knew that the munitions were gone by May 2003, do you really believe they would not have informed the White House? And why did it take the Iraqis so long to report it to the IAEA? TMP sums it up:

Let's review for a moment. We have a dispute here about a window of time covering two to four weeks, say roughly from March 10th to April 10th 2003 at the longest. But it's an important few weeks because it was over this span of time that the region went from the control of Saddam's government to the US military.

If the Di Rita hypothesis rests on the claim that the first US troops that visited al Qa Qaa found that the explosives had already been stolen or looted or otherwise secreted away. (He has, in fact, already said this.) And that would mean that the US government has known the explosives were missing for some eighteen months.

The problem is that the White House has spent the entire day claiming that they knew nothing about this until ten days ago, October 15th. Scott McClellan said this repeatedly during his gaggle with reporters this morning. Indeed, he went on to say the following: "Now [i.e., after the notification on October 15th], the Pentagon, upon learning of this, directed the multinational forces and the Iraqi survey group to look into this matter, and that's what they are currently doing."

So McClellan says that the Pentagon only just learned about this. And that's why they only now assigned the Iraq Survey Group to examine what happened at al Qa Qaa.

But Di Rita says that the US government has known about it for 18 months.

So which is it?

Monday, October 25, 2004

well, me, I'm lying here, with nothing in my ears

I have little knowledge of Nick Cave, other than he is frequently weird, and occasionally brilliant. Today, just another anonymous Monday, I had the pleasure of picking up the Oct/Nov issue of Paste and cannot believe my ears. The first Nick Cave song I've ever heard without cringing. I don't mean to say that what I've heard before was bad; certain parts of mr. Cave and his Bad Seeds have just rubbed me the wrong way (much the way great bands like Led Zepplin, the Sex Pistols, and the Smiths fall on deaf ears when it comes to my....well, ears). But Nic Cave, how I've never known I've needed you until now.

"There She Goes My Beautiful World" is a gigantic song, inconspicously inserted as the 7th track on Paste's music sampler. It is, with little doubt, a heart-stopping, head-bopping, foot-stomping, faith-shattering (sorry) humanist/gospel explosion. It is music. And it is good.

So run, walking shall not be allowed, to your nearest Borders or Barnes & Noble and purchase Paste #12 with none other than ?uestlove of the Roots on the cover. It is $6, which is nothing. Which is a lie. Because $6 is something. But forget about that. Just consume.

(And if you need further convincing, the CD also has new tracks by the Black Keys, Elliot Smith, Ben Miller & the Blind Boys of Alabama, the Flaming Lips, and everyone's favorite little Emmylou Harris guitarist -- the man, the myth, the legend -- Mr. Buddy Miller.)

There is nothing else to say. Except that I am done.

Friday, October 22, 2004

dc talk reunion tour

The fun never lasts. I had almost forgotten we had a presidential race going on. (Or is it more like a presidential limp?) And other things going on that are about real life, but don't have a singular, central, physical location.

item one: What do all those presidential polls really mean? Not a whole lot, according to USA Today. See why the odds don't favor polling, and conclude along with me that polls mean nothing. Much like the Strokes.

item two: So it sounds like Huntington College is going down the crapper. Personally, I hold Brandon Pfeiffer responsible. Jake Sikora has some others ideas, which actually have some factual merit to them. I'm sticking to my guns though.

item three: The politics of fear. Our esteemed candidates seem to love this latest buzz phrase. With the frequency they like to pretend they're the ones who coined it, this election seems to be pulling away from reasoned, articulate argument and moving towards the realm of knee-jerk reaction -- where we vote for who scares us the least (or is it the most?). President Bush and Senator Kerry are up to it again. Hide the kids and invest in gold. Because if either one of the guys win, it's anarchy and armageddon across the board.

item postlude: I'm looking for some web building software for Mac that is cheap and simple to use (ie, nothing from those bastards at Adobe or Macromedia). Any suggestions?

item encore: Could Bertie Russell be any more boring to read? I just want to learn about philosophy the same way Bill Bryson taught me about science. Be thankful all of you, with your large libraries, and wide selection of books, that you don't have the frustration of having 13 books to choose from in your local library's philosophy section -- AND ONLY 13 BOOKS! I've seen extra value meals with more variety than this. Curse you Lake Geneva, and your stylish library facing the gorgeous lake, and all 200 of your books!

Diddy out.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

four more games...

Honestly, I didn't expect this to happen. But it did. And so go the Red Sox, into history. There is nothing better than this (well, one thing).

Last time this year, I was sitting in the computer lab where I worked at night, getting playoff updates off the PCs because I didn't have a TV and couldn't get radio worth crap. I gotta admit, cable TV can be a good thing. Go Sox. And God bless you, Derek Lowe and Johnny Damon.

Monday, October 18, 2004

The South rises Boston.

If you aren't a Boston Red Sox fan already, you should be. I could give you the whole sob-story of how I used to be a Yankees fanatic, but have come to nearly despise them, but that's really no fun.

This is.

Daivd Ortiz, you are my hero. Baseball, you are dearly loved.

Saturday, October 16, 2004

The first and last time I talk about Medicare

In the Oct issue of The Atlantic, there's a great little essay by everyone's favorite conservative funnyman P.J. O'Rourke, titled "To Hell With Lipitor!" (subtitled Medicare reform - an explanation). I would love to link to it (which I do here), but you have to be a subscriber to The Atlantic to access most content on their website. So I briefly thought about just reprinting the whole thing, but that wouldn't be right, because it's illegal. So here's the gist:

The Bush Administration's "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003" is not making much sense to the seniors is purports to support -- sense in that it's way more bureaucratic than it need be. An excerpt, which might help you understand how complicated this initiative can get:

"Tell kids they deserve a treat. Then give them 15 percent of a Snickers bar, or a little more if it's some generic candy bar. Tell them how, in two years, they can have candy free--if they pay for part of it and a bite has been taken out of the middle."

There's so much more to this article, I can't tell you how much it's worth reading. So go down to your local library, find the October 2004 issue of The Atlantic (with a B&W picture of Bush's partial face on the cover), turn to page 56, and read this thing. There's other parts, about how Medicare cannot bargain with the drug companies for lower prices, like the Department of Veterans Affairs can. Or about how the Bill blocks Canadian imports of the same exact drugs in order to keep drug prices artificially high, and pharmaceutical companies happy.

What's funny about all this is that the Act doesn't seem to be in the spirit of George W. Bush's conservatism. It both prohibits the Govt from bargaining for lower prices, and blocks free trade with foreign countries, specifically Canada, whom we already have a free-trade agreement with in NAFTA. This is the kind of legislation that conservatives would have (and should have) cried murder over were it introduced by Bill Clinton in the 90s. It's funny to have an Act so steeped in socialism (that's right) come from a conservative administration.

And while I might not be the perfect conservative, still, very little about this Act smells good. And to top it off, no one's really sure where the money's going to come from (i.e., either we'll be paying for it as we near retirement in the form of higher taxes, and/or our kids will pick up most of the slack).

What just happened to free trade and fiscal responsibility? Did I miss something here?

Thursday, October 14, 2004

The third time's a charm

So, the debate. I worked tonight, so I actually caught the taped version, courtesy of MSNBC at 1:00am. And I was impressed with the way both candidates handled themselves tonight. They stuck to their guns, didn't make major mistakes, went after the other person's record, and ended on a high note. You can't ask for much more than that.

And it's hard for someone to say they don't know where the candidates stand after a debate like this. That's not to say that you'll find most people chomping at the bit to vote for one or the other. It just means that at last the American people can finally see the how starkly opposed the ideologies of these candidates are, even within the context of a faith based worldview. If you missed things, and didn't want to catch the "late show," BBC News has some great coverage of the race, including a recap of key quotes on important issues. It's a little odd that some of the best campaign coverage comes from England, but maybe that's the only way to be truly impartial.

It'll be interesting to see where the race goes in the next three weeks. And if I can feign excitement for that long. Only time will tell....

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

again? don't you ever shut-up?!?

Okay, since my parents stopped reading my blog after I moved back east I have officially nothing to lose. No one reads this, ergo, I don't have to wory about heresy or dignity anymore. I can harp on whatever I want, which is fun. So let's talk about again!

Something I mentioned after the first debate was a conversation with my mom about how Bush and Kerry made two contradictory claims about the Bush administration's funding of programs to find and get rid of "rogue" nuclear weapons. So the good folks at spinsanity cleared things up for us in a column they write for the Philadelphia Inquirer (unfortunately, you'll have to register to read it, but it's worth the few extra annoying minutes). See, these are good people to know.

Lately, they've taken on Kerry and Bush in separate stories: one on Bush taking Kerry's "global test" statements in the last debate totally out of context; and another about how Kerry is fudging with numbers in his latest TV ads. (Anyone remember "fuzzy math?")

These latest posts are right up on their website, and don't need registration. So swing by if you've got the time. And keep your eyes on the site over the next few days as I'm sure they'll have fallacies and inconsistencies to point out from tonight's debate. Isn't it so much fun that all politicians are liars? I can't wait to vote for one of them!

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

and the beat goes on

Choosing a president sucks. Especially if you love Jesus. I'm sure it's just as hard for the "theistically-challenged" population out there, but at least they can fall back on utilitarianism when choosing who to vote for. But I'm not afforded that, because of my reluctance to part with Biblical Truth. How can I vote for Candidate A when he is for Position X? Or Candidate B when his is opposed to Position Y? It's worse when both candidates seem to have a real faith in their lives.

Will the real man of God please stand up? No, no! Just one one of you! You can't both be the right guy for the job. Can't you follow simple instructions....

There's a verse I like from Micah, which reads (in part): "And what does Yahweh require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Simple enough, right? Now we can apply it to Kerry/Bush and see which one is seeking to do that which God requires through his public policies? Right?

Wrong. The problem is that neither candidate really fits the ideal that Micah puts forth (not to mention that it's impossible to live up to that in every instance of every day because we're all fallen, selfish individuals). So I try to sort things out, and see who comes closest to the ideal. And that's where I hit the snag mentioned above. Choosing a president sucks.

The snag, in its longer and expanded form, comes down to two "seemingly" conflicting debates, which in my mind, shouldn't conflict at all.

1) It's the official position of the Republican Party to do whatever it can to protect the life of the unborn child. This extends beyond the abortion debate to issues like cloning, embryonic stem cell research and criminal penalties for murdering pregnant women. And I, being a backward religious conservative, like this. I think it's Biblical, and I think it's righteous. This is an issue where I refuse to compromise. Bush agrees with me. Kerry, a devout Catholic, agrees in his person, but not as a matter of public policy, so as to not alienate his entire liberal voting base. So score one for Bush.

2) Since the time of Kennedy and Johnson, and the Democratic Party has become synonymous with the civil rights struggle. They have spearheaded federal, state and local efforts to make sure that minorities are afforded the same opportunities as everyone else. Nevermind that this was originally a commandment for the Church, and that somewhere along the line the Church decided it was more important to save people's souls and not their lives. The State picked up the slack that Church left, and the Church let them have it. In fact, we didn't even put up a fight.

So the Dems are more actively supporting the cause of the widows and the orphans, the oppressed and the voiceless, the kind of people Jesus loved to hang out with. This isn't to say that all Republicans have given up on furthering civil rights, that would be a grave overstatement of the matter at hand. But Bush hasn't put much emphasis on his "Compassionate Conservatism" since he won Florida in 2000. And I, being a big fan of the Jesus and the minor Prophets, am more than a little peeved at him because of it. This, once again, is an issue where I refuse to compromise.

Problem. I have to compromise if I'm going to vote. I can't pick the policies I like the best, and vote for "fictitious, patchwork policy-man." I have to vote for "OT prophetic tradition, but not so much into protecting un-born babies" guy ; or "let's get the rights of those babies into the Constitution, but ignore most of the teachings and life of Jesus" fellow. And everyone else has to as well.

So which is more important to me? Neither. So who do I vote for? Both? Illegal. Neither? Morally wrong. Bush? Let's just ignore the Gospels. Kerry? Let's just ignore Life.

Not to mention there's a war going on.

The third and final debate tomorrow tonight is about these, and other, domestic issues. Finally, the country is going to see what's important to the hearts of these two individuals. But it won't make my job any easier. Because I know where they stand. And I know there's not a chance one might be persuaded to change his mind in the next 3 weeks based on overwhelming Biblical evidence to the contrary (though maybe that's a whole other issue).

I will vote in November. Hold me to that. Just don't ask me to be proud to do it.

Friday, October 01, 2004

News Flash

Wow. Tonight's debate left me with goosebumps. This is what gets me going -- not stump speech after stump speech from Ohio, Wisconsin, PA, etc. -- but real debate between two candidates! This was democracy, pure and simple.

After the debate, I was talking with my mom, and she mentioned something about how Sen. Kerry and President Bush both gave completely conflicting statements about funding for anti-proliferation of nuclear weapons (Kerry claiming there were certain cuts; Bush claiming he actually increased spending). During a debate, the key to remember is not to wholeheartedly trust either candidate, and I said as much to my mom. When you have such an awesome right such as the right to vote for president, you don't buy the line either candidate gives, you go out and find the facts for yourself. That's what an informed citizen does.

But where do you go to find these things out? After a debate, each side will try to spin the outcome so that their side appears to be the winner. If you watched Fox News, CNN, or any of the networks after the debate, you saw interviews with representatives from both camps trying to say that, in effect, their guy won. But they can't both be right. Even the "talking heads," who are supposed to be impartial observers (yeah right) are part of the process of spin.

So in addition to any of your other news sources, I'd like to (once again) steer your attention to a website I enjoy very, very much, The basic goal of the guys who run this site is to separate the truth from the spin, and get to the heart of what these candidates are saying, and how much of what they're saying is true. They back it up with facts, and keep both parties on their toes. They hate spin as much as I do, and hopefully, as much as you might, too.

And remember to catch the next debate, a week from tomorrow. This is good stuff.

Now, back to more boring stuff about science.