why dave bergman is neat

i've been away.

huh.

anyway, my favorite gameshow host weighs in on the communal silence of hollywood regarding the brutal murder of theo van gogh. here is the beginning:

Picture this:

Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the Hollywood community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It’s a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified.

So I’m trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.

(LvM.)

U.N. CORRUPTION WATCH: where's the outrage? kofi pleads the excuse that was unacceptable to many in the abu ghraib scandal:

Annan said the allegations concerned a small number of U.N. personnel and promised to hold those involved accountable.

but thankfully,

"I have long made it clear that my attitude to sexual exploitation and abuse is one of zero tolerance, without exception, and I am determined to implement this policy in the most transparent manner," Annan said.

too bad he doesn't have that 'zero tolerance' policy for financial corruption. anyway, i am waiting with bated breath for calls across the board to go straight up the chain of command with this one.

ok, i had to exhale. i was starting to turn blue in the face.

(Lv M.)

wait a minute--i thought it was supposed to be the red states that were full of ignorant racists, not civilized and sophisticated states like new york.

(LvM.)

it looks like D and i might be reviving the campus a little bit if anyone is interested. no promises, though--only as our flights of fancy carry us.

for anyone intersted in the philosophy of science, there is an interesting post here about the differences between logical positivism and naturalism. this is unfamiliar territory to me and i found this helpful.

UPDATE: i queried sam about some dudes like karl popper and thomas kuhn, about whose influence on contemporary scientific enterprise and the philosophizing thereof i was curious, and he wrote another helpful little ditty.

it's about time: UN employees reported to be preparing to issue a vote of no confidence in corruption-general kofi annan. (LvM.)

here is an article in the NYT about studies on the political composition of academia. i was struck by a statement in the first paragraph:

BERKELEY, Calif. - At the birthplace of the free speech movement, campus radicals have a new target: the faculty that came of age in the 60's. They say their professors have been preaching multiculturalism and diversity while creating a political monoculture on campus.

the 'birthplace' of the free speech 'movement'? forgive me for thinking so, but i believe that started on the east coast over 200 years ago.

this was my favorite passage:

One theory for the scarcity of Republican professors is that conservatives are simply not that interested in academic careers. A Democrat on the Berkeley faculty, George P. Lakoff, who teaches linguistics and is the author of "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think," said that liberals choose academic fields that fit their world views. "Unlike conservatives," he said, "they believe in working for the public good and social justice, as well as knowledge and art for their own sake, which are what the humanities and social sciences are about."

so only liberals care about the public good and social justice, as well as knowledge and art 'for their own sake' (a claim of which i am highly skeptical--in a highly politicized environment, scientia et ars gratia artis et scientiae amantur numquam). come on, folks. seriously. are these incredibly broad generalizations even helpful? am i really to believe that the situation is that simple?

guess what? someone googled '7-11 pumpkin spice coffee' yesterday, and found the dave. ahh, yes...a soul searching for guidance while grappling through the fog of flavored coffees, a kindred spirit, perhaps, of dre beer. i only hope that my hardline approach to pumpkin spice was not so brutal that it drove away a coffee lover for whom there was still hope...

FASCISM WATCH UPDATE: apparently linda ronstandt is still in the business of opening her mouth to do something other than sing:

Don't get her started on the recent presidential election. "People don't realize that by voting Republican, they voted against themselves," she says. Of Iraq in particular, she adds, "I worry that some people are entertained by the idea of this war. They don't know anything about the Iraqis, but they're angry and frustrated in their own lives. It's like Germany, before Hitler took over. The economy was bad and people felt kicked around. They looked for a scapegoat. Now we've got a new bunch of Hitlers."

got that? is she comparing republicans to hitler?

remember when you dedicated 'desperado' to michael moore?

well, i'd like to dedicate a rendition of 'i can't tell you why' to you, because i have NO IDEA what you're talking about. and then i'd like to follow it up with 'take it easy' so that you can get a 'peaceful easy feeling'. if you follow my advice, then perhaps in 'the long run' you won't have so much 'wasted time' on your mind from all those occasions on which you indulged your 'lyin' eyes' via your mouth , which i suppose is how one attempts to resurrect a career 'after the thrill is gone'. so the next time you want to have recourse to 'the last resort' of saying silly things, maybe, o 'witchy woman', you should just 'get over it' instead.


(LvM.)

formerly a hillsdale college student, now a first lieutanant in the army, kirby jones has been awarded a bronze star. read about it here. one excerpt:

Yet, for Jones, his bronze medal signifies a life-the life, and death, of 20-year-old SPC Allen Vandayburg, "who [made] the ultimate sacrifice and who deserves the real credit," Jones said. SPC Vandayburg was killed at the battle in Buhriz.

"All I ask of people at home is to realize that whether or not they agree with the foreign policies that landed us in Iraq in the first place, remain humble in the face of the sacrifices that are being made here everyday," Jones said.

"There are 19 and 20-year-old men who sleep in holes, never quit, and who learn brutally how costly freedom from tyranny can be."

thanks go out to him and to everyone else serving honorably there.

(LvVanceNation.)

well, it looks like the UN was paying palestinian homicide bombers.

(LvM.)

well, i'm afraid i found the answer my question about the seeg. apparently, bob didn't end up playing, but the article makes it sound as though he was slated to. segerbob, however, has found no evidence that bob endorsed either political candidate.

(Lvthenuge, who, i am fairly certain, did not vote for change.)

DMac over at classical values sent me the following dave-friendly quote about the recent election:

"In time of war, if you go through a bad neighborhood, I don't want a
little French poodle, I want a rottweiler on my hands."

-- KISS frontman GENE SIMMONS, on why he voted for U.S. President GEORGE
W. BUSH over JOHN KERRY.

listen to him. men with unnaturally long tongues and a penchant for swallowing fire know politics.

now if only we could find out what bob seger thinks about all this...

for what it's worth (LvM):

French consider naming streets after Arafat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Zlotowski, THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 13, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several French municipalities governed by communist and left-wing majorities are considering naming a street or a square after Yasser Arafat.

The French police intelligence service, Renseignements Generaux, reportedly warned the Ministry of Interior that such initiatives might trigger heated polemics and tensions between Jews and Muslims, especially neighborhoods ridden by ethnic violence.

In several suburban cities near Paris and Lyons governed by communist mayors, large Muslim and Jewish populations live side by side.

MARRIAGE ADVICE FROM KIDS: a friend sent me this, and it's too HILARIOUS not to post.

HOW DOES ONE DECIDE WHOM TO MARRY?

You got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. Like, if you like
sports, she should like it that you like sports, and she should keep the
chips and dip coming.
--Alan, age 10

No person really decides before they grow up who they're going to marry.
God decides it all way before, and you get to find out later who you're
stuck with.
--Kirsten, age 10

WHAT IS THE RIGHT AGE TO GET MARRIED?

Twenty-three is the best age because you know the person FOREVER by
then.
--Camille, age 10

No age is good to get married at. You Got to be a fool to get married.
--Freddie, age 6

HOW CAN A STRANGER TELL IF TWO PEOPLE ARE MARRIED?

You might have to guess, based on Whether they seem to be yelling at the
same kids.
--Derrick, age 8

WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR MOM AND DAD HAVE IN COMMON?

Both don't want any more kids.
--Lori, age 8

WHAT DO MOST PEOPLE DO ON A DATE?

Dates are for having fun, and people should use them to get to know each
other. Even boys have something to say if you listen long enough.
--Lynnette, age 8

On the first date, they just tell each other lies, and that usually gets
them interested enough to go for a second date.
--Martin, age 10

WHAT WOULD YOU DO ON A FIRST DATE THAT WAS TURNING SOUR?

I'd run home and play dead. The next day I would call all the newspapers
and make sure they wrote about me in all the dead columns.
--Craig, age 9

WHEN IS IT OKAY TO KISS SOMEONE?

When they're rich. --Pam, age 7

The law says you have to be eighteen, so I wouldn't want to mess with
that.
--Curt, age 7

The rule goes like this: If you kiss someone, then you should marry them
and have kids with them. It's the right thing to do.
--Howard, age 8

IS IT BETTER TO BE SINGLE OR MARRIED?

I don't know which is better, but I'll tell you one thing. I'm never
going to have sex with my wife. I don't want to be all grossed out.
--Theodore, age 8

It's better for girls to be single but not for boys. Boys need someone
to clean up after them.
--Anita, age 9

HOW WOULD THE WORLD BE DIFFERENT IF PEOPLE DIDN'T GET MARRIED?

There sure would be a lot of kids to explain, wouldn't there?
--Kelvin, age 8

HOW WOULD YOU MAKE A MARRIAGE WORK?

Tell your wife that she looks pretty, even if she looks like a truck.
--Ricky, age 10

ELECTION CAUSES BASEBALL BAT AND PADLOCK BEATING AMOND TEENAGERS: what a weird, weird state of affairs obtains in this here world (Lvclassical values).

here's another piece of profoundly asinine writing (LvMM!):

It's time to doff the veil. The United States isn't immune to the fundamentalist El Nino circling the globe. Iran has its mullahs. Afghanistan has its Taliban. Saudi Arabia has its Wahhabites. We have evangelicals, whose world view is different from those doctrinaire brigades in dress only.

wondering whence his inspiration comes?
that's right! he's read garry wills!

What they all have in common is the subordination of private and public conduct to God's law as they understand it and the rejection of the secular values of the Enlightenment on which America's constitutional principles were founded, what historian Garry Wills sums up as "critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences."

yes, it sure would be nice if guys like robert p. george and, oh, say, augustine knew how to exercise a little 'critical intelligence' (click on that button, and then on the 'introduction' button, to find out why mr. wills should have known better). believe it or not, folks, all good things did not originate in the enlightenment, and, again, believe it or not, the overly simple binary opposition of 'reason vs. faith' is outmoded, wrongheaded, and useless as a description of the actual experience of most evangelicals and, indeed, the matrix through which that experience is filtered.

but don't tell that to mr. tristam:

Evangelicals have taken advantage of that immunity to invade the public sphere unchecked. Now that their theology has become an engine of public policy and national purpose, it's fair to return to the basics of Enlightenment strategies, to tackle theology head-on, to ridicule its political presumptions and condemn its public grabs, where necessary, and to demolish its doctrinaire assumptions when appropriate. To treat it, in sum, on the equal footing it claims to be with all matters public and political. We could start with a debate about every evangelical's blind spot: free will.

i fear that mr. 'i love the enlightenment and rational argument' tristam may not have gotten the memo: ridicule is not reasoned debate, nor is condemnation. i may not be engaging in reasoned debate here, either--but, hey, i'm not the one patting myself on my enlightened back.

anyway, i warmly invite mr. tristam to treat evangelical Christianity 'on the equal footing it claims to be with all matters public and political'. he may be surprised with what he finds, and with what he doesn't.

but before he begins that dialogue, i would advise that he spend a little more time studying and a lot less time spouting, given the deep ignorance revealed by his last sentence:

We could start with a debate about every evangelical's blind spot: free will.

generalizations such as this are silly, and it is impossible that he could have reached this absurd conclusion even through the most generous application of inductive reasoning, crown jewel of the enlightenment. perhaps he's unaware of how broad a range of groups the word 'evangelicalism' covers, and how divergent are evangelicals' opinions on the issue of free will--both what it is and how it works. at any rate, a little reading on the subject ought to correct his misconception. he could start here, perhaps go here, and maybe see here. debated it may be, but a 'blind spot' for 'every evangelical' it most certainly is not.

christopher hitchens has a new column. i am unpersuaded and underwhelmed by unsubstantiated rhetorical flourishes such as the following (LvM):

As far as I know, all religions and all churches are equally demented in their belief in divine intervention, divine intercession, or even the existence of the divine in the first place.

but i thought that the following paragraph hit a number of points on the money and was worth passing along:

So here is what I want to say on the absolutely crucial matter of secularism. Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn't want to impose his principles on me (which our Constitution forbids him to do).

sick. (link via drudge.)

so much for michael moore's 'minutemen':

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?

that was mons. moore himself, political luminary extraordinaire, on 14 april 2004.

but here's what iraqis say, according to a survey cited in arthur chrenkoff's opinion journal column today (link via memeorandum):

Powerline blog, via one of its readers, brings to our attention the results of an opinion poll that is not getting any publicity outside Iraq. "[The] poll taken in Baghdad, Mosul and Dehok and published in Iraq on October 25. The poll probably over-sampled Sunnis, which makes its results even more striking":

63% of Iraqis say that the withdrawal of American and allied forces will not be in the best interest of Iraq, it will undermine the work towards security and control of the country. 27% say that it would be in the best interest of Iraq. 9% had no opinion.

58% say that terrorists do the kidnappings and assassination of police and soldiers.
9% say that patriots fighting for Iraq carry them out. 32% say ignorant Iraqis who have been brain washed & misled carry them out.

89% said that the terrorism, kidnapping, beheadings and assassination of police and security forces do not help the freeing of Iraq and the building of a stable country. 6% said that it would help free Iraq and build stability. 4% had no opinion.

It seems that insurgents are failing not only to win popular support but also to slow the march toward democracy. Iraq's Shia religious establishment has now thrown its weight and moral authority behind the election:

Ahmed Al Safi, a senior aide of Ayatollah Sistani announced . . . that "Those who don't participate in the elections will end up in hell" and he added in his speech "We must bear the responsibility and we must all participate in the elections because it's a patriotic duty and not doing so is like treason." He also denied the news that spread about Sistani preparing or supporting a particular list of candidates.

i think that the ayatollah's pronouncement of eternal damnation as a penalty for not voting might be a bit of a stretch, but you get the point.

michael moore, as usual, does not.

this, from part of a column in which john tierney is talking about the winners in the recent election, goes out to dre 'pumpkin spice' beer:

Family Circle Readers. In the magazine's First Lady Cookie Cook-Off, readers voted for Laura Bush's chocolate chunk recipe over Teresa Heinz Kerry's pumpkin cookies, the fourth straight time they have picked the election winner since the contest began in 1992 (when Hillary Rodham Clinton baked cookies to atone for a disparaging remark about housewives).

Mrs. Heinz Kerry tried - in vain, apparently - to distance herself from the pumpkin recipe, which she said she had never seen, let alone tested. It was submitted by a staff member after Mrs. Heinz Kerry's original entry, an oatmeal-coconut cookie, was rejected by the magazine because it contained an ingredient, Lyle's Golden Syrup, not readily available in supermarkets.

The what-if's will doubtless haunt Kerry campaign officials for years to come.

(link via memeorandum.)

FASCISM UPDATE--apparently it's not just the leftist fringe that is disgorging remarks about the fascism afoot in this country, perpetrated chiefly by karl rove!

If Karl the Terminator would pause long enough to turn his head a little to either side he would notice that in the movie of real life the victims scattered all over the highway are not just the Democrats but democracy itself. An electorate distracted by dirty tricks is less able to vote to protect the public interest, which is the whole purpose of democracy. A distracted, deceived and fearful electorate is the precursor of fascism.

Far better than any of his old friends, Karl truly has achieved his dream job. Unfortunately for the rest of us it's become our nightmare.

in some sense, i can't help but think of how pathetic this all is. it reminds me of bickering children. you know what i mean--when you lose, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault. i guess if they want to act like children, they should be treated as such; therefore, i propose that we find some sort of catch-all soccer mom who can give these people a time out, a loss of tv privileges, and perhaps a good spanking.

UPDATE: i just noticed something funny in mr. moench's words when glancing back at this. 'the movie of real life'? isn't that a bit of a contradiction? which will it be, mr. moench? which are you talking about? screen drama, or something with a bit more of an anchor in our spatio-temporal existence? yet another piece of evidence that those claiming to live in the 'reality-based community' are in fact anywhere but there.

mark steyn's latest:

Believe it or not, it wasn't just rednecks who voted for Bush
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 07/11/2004)

The big question after Tuesday was: will it just be more of the same in George W Bush's second term, or will there be a change of tone? And apparently it's the latter. The great European thinkers have decided that instead of doing another four years of lame Bush-is-a-moron cracks they're going to do four years of lame Americans-are-morons cracks. Inaugurating the new second-term outreach was Brian Reade in the Daily Mirror, who attributed the President's victory to: "The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport-ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong'."

Well, that's certainly why I supported Bush, but I'm not sure it entirely accounts for the other 59,459,765. Forty five per cent of Hispanics voted for the President, as did 25 per cent of Jews, and 23 per cent of gays. And this coalition of common-or-garden rednecks, Hispanic rednecks, sinister Zionist rednecks, and lesbian rednecks who enjoy hitting on their gay-loathin' sisters expanded its share of the vote across the entire country - not just in the Bush states but in the Kerry states, too.

In all but six states, the Republican vote went up: the urinating rednecks have increased their number not just in Texas and Mississippi but in Massachusetts and California, both of which have Republican governors. You can drive from coast to coast across the middle of the country and never pass through a single county that voted for John Kerry: it's one continuous cascade of self-righteous urine from sea to shining sea. States that were swing states in 2000 - West Virginia, Arkansas - are now solidly Republican, and once solidly Democrat states - Iowa, Wisconsin - are now swingers. The redneck states push hard up against the Canadian border, where if your neck's red it's frostbite. Bush's incontinent rednecks are everywhere: they're so numerous they're running out of sisters to bunk up with.

Who exactly is being self-righteous here? In Britain and Europe, there seem to be two principal strains of Bush-loathing. First, the guys who say, if you disagree with me, you must be an idiot - as in the Mirror headline "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?" Second, the guys who say, if you disagree with me, you must be a Nazi - as in Oliver James, who told The Guardian: "I was too depressed to even speak this morning. I thought of my late mother, who read Mein Kampf when it came out in the 1930s [sic] and thought, 'Why doesn't anyone see where this is leading?' "

Mr James is a clinical psychologist.

If smug Europeans are going to coast on moron-Fascist sneers indefinitely, they'll be dooming themselves to ever more depressing mornings-after in the 2006 midterms, the 2008 presidential election, 2010, and beyond: America's resistance to the conventional wisdom of the rest of the developed world is likely to intensify in the years ahead. This widening gap is already a point of pride to the likes of B J Kelly of Killiney, who made the following observation on Friday's letters page in The Irish Times: "Here in the EU we objected recently to high office for a man who professed the belief that abortion and gay marriages are essentially evil. Over in the US such an outlook could have won him the presidency."

I'm not sure who he means by "we". As with most decisions taken in the corridors of Europower, the views of Killiney and Knokke and Krakow didn't come into it one way or the other. B J Kelly is referring to Rocco Buttiglione, the mooted European commissioner whose views on homosexuality, single parenthood, etc would have been utterly unremarkable for an Italian Catholic 30 years ago. Now Europe's secular elite has decided they're beyond the pale and such a man should have no place in public life. And B J Kelly sees this as evidence of how much more enlightened Europe is than America.

That's fine. But what happens if the European elite should decide a whole lot of other stuff is beyond the pale, too, some of it that B J Kelly is quite partial to? In affirming the traditional definition of marriage in 11 state referenda, from darkest Mississippi to progressive enlightened Kerry-supporting Oregon, the American people were not expressing their "gay-loathin' ", so much as declining to go the Kelly route and have their betters tell them what they can think. They're not going to have marriage redefined by four Massachusetts judges and a couple of activist mayors. That doesn't make them Bush theo-zombies marching in lockstep to the gay lynching, just freeborn citizens asserting their right to dissent from today's established church - the stifling coercive theology of political correctness enforced by a secular episcopate.

As Americans were voting on marriage and marijuana and other matters, the Rotterdam police were destroying a mural by Chris Ripke that he'd created to express his disgust at the murder of Theo van Gogh by Islamist crazies. Ripke's painting showed an angel and the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Unfortunately, his workshop is next to a mosque, and the imam complained that the mural was "racist", so the cops arrived, destroyed it, arrested the television journalists filming it and wiped their tape. Maybe that would ring a bell with Oliver James's mum.

The restrictions on expression that B J Kelly sees as evidence of European enlightenment are regarded as profoundly unhealthy by most Americans. When one examines Brian Reade's anatomy of redneck disfigurements - "gun-totin', military-lovin', abortion-hatin' " - most of them are about the will to survive, as individuals and as a society. Americans tote guns because they're assertive citizens, not docile subjects of a permanent governing class. They love their military because they think there's something contemptible about Europeans preening and posing as a great power when they can't even stop some nickel'n'dime Balkan genital-severers piling up hundreds of thousands of corpses on their borders.

And, if Americans do "hate abortion", is Mr Reade saying he loves it? It's at least partially responsible for the collapsed birthrates of post-Christian Europe. However superior the EU is to the US, it will only last as long as Mr Reade's generation: the design flaw of the radical secular welfare state is that it depends on a traditionally religious society birthrate to sustain it. True, you can't be a redneck in Spain or Italy: when the birthrates are 1.1 and 1.2 children per couple, there are no sisters to shag.

What was revealing about this election campaign was how little the condescending Europeans understand even about the side in American politics they purport to agree with - witness The Guardian's disastrous intervention in Clark County. Simon Schama last week week defined the Bush/Kerry divide as "Godly America" and "Worldly America", hailing the latter as "pragmatic, practical, rational and sceptical". That's exactly the wrong way round: it's Godly America that is rational and sceptical - especially of Euro-delusions. Uncowed by Islamists, undeferential to government, unshrivelled in its birthrates, Bush's redneck America is a more reliable long-term bet. Europe's media would do their readers a service if they stopped condescending to it.

david brooks has the goods on the sundry inanities that have been spouting forth in recent days from liberal talking-heads, self-proclaimed 'intellectuals' and members of the 'sophisticated' class who will one day lead the rest of us up from the darkness of the cave (yes, paul krugman, that means you and many of your friends):

The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS

very election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror.

The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.

The red and blue maps that have been popping up in the papers again this week are certainly striking, but they conceal as much as they reveal. I've spent the past four years traveling to 36 states and writing millions of words trying to understand this values divide, and I can tell you there is no one explanation. It's ridiculous to say, as some liberals have this week, that we are perpetually refighting the Scopes trial, with the metro forces of enlightenment and reason arrayed against the retro forces of dogma and reaction.

In the first place, there is an immense diversity of opinion within regions, towns and families. Second, the values divide is a complex layering of conflicting views about faith, leadership, individualism, American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart, decorum, economic opportunity, natural law, manliness, bourgeois virtues and a zillion other issues.

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.

this one goes out to dennis over at classical values. this is an example of all that 'sophistication' and 'intelligence' the left has, of which conservatives, according to the NY times et al., are sorely in need:

Starting the fight against fascism in America
by Bob Fertik on November 3, 2004 - 2:25pm.

Americans did not vote for fascism - but fascists now control all three branches of our government: the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court.

In 1935, Sinclair Lewis warned against the rise of an American fascism in It Can't Happen Here. Well, it can - and it will, unless we stop it now.

In 2000, the fascist-controlled media ordered us to "get over it" - the theft of the Presidency, that is. In 2004, the same media is ordering us to bow down before Bush's "mandate."

Like hell we will. Here at Democrats.com, we recognize that America in 2004 is like Germany in 1933, and Fascism is on the rise. In public, Bush lied once again, telling Democrats "I will need your support, and I will work to earn it." But in private, he revealed the truth as soon as woke up, long before John Kerry conceded:

Mr. Bush started calling winning Republican Senate candidates, telling Senator-elect Jim DeMint of South Carolina that he would strike quickly to move his agenda ahead. "Now is the time to get it done," he told Mr. DeMint, according to an account by Scott McClellan.

Confronted by the march of Fascism, We can't wait until the 2008 election, or even 2006. We must develop a plan to stop Fascism in America.

What exactly do Bush and the Fascists want? You won't read about Bush's true agenda in the newspapers, because the Fascists won't declare their goals openly; they know that if they did, the nation would rise up to stop them. But behind closed doors, here is Karl Rove's "architectural plan" for America and the world...

it goes on, so if you're entertained so far, click away.

and for more laughs of NYC-types making a caricature of themselves, go here (via memeorandum). two quotes i especially liked. here's the first:

Striking a characteristic New York pose near Lincoln Center yesterday, Beverly Camhe clutched three morning newspapers to her chest while balancing a large latte and talked about how disconsolate she was to realize that not only had her candidate, John Kerry, lost but that she and her city were so out of step with the rest of the country.

"Do you know how I described New York to my European friends?" she said. "New York is an island off the coast of Europe."

and the second, from a dr. joseph:

"I'm saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country - the heartland," Dr. Joseph said. "This kind of redneck, shoot-from-the-hip mentality and a very concrete interpretation of religion is prevalent in Bush country - in the heartland."

"New Yorkers are more sophisticated and at a level of consciousness where we realize we have to think of globalization, of one mankind, that what's going to injure masses of people is not good for us," he said.

just keep licking the funny-colored paper, people. and the rest of us will all try to ascend to your level of consciousness.

UPDATE: by the way--between this, garry wills, maureen down, eric alterman and others, i don't understand how anyone is going to achieve unity. these people all make it seem as though it is the president's and the conservatives' responsibility to reach across the aisle and make nice and to 'unite'. aside from the fact that i guarantee that, had the other side won, they would not be talking at all about accommodating conservative views and 'uniting' (noooooooooo--might they have had an agenda, too? would they have compromised and allowed pro-life judges on the federal bench?), it's going to be hard to achieve it now when your chief spokesmen are red-faced and foaming-at-the-mouth rabid screaming mad and telling the rest of us (who seem to form a majority right now on some of these issues) how stupid and backwards we are. if you want to bring people together, lefties, it's time to stop acting like children and to wake up and talk like grown-ups. just because you folks buckle to european condescension doesn't mean the rest of us will buckle to yours.

garry wills, who has written some very interesting things in the field of classics, has some astoundingly silly and reprehensible views in today's new york times (link via memeorandum). after the william jennings bryan/scopes set up, he goes on to talk about how ignorant those crazy superstitious religious folks are. but i think he feels pretty good, because he's got the dalai lama's backing to disestablish religion. that brings wills to a question:

Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?

the question belies a certain amount of ignorance on wills' part--especially the inclusion of the word 'still'. he implies that america was originally an 'enlightenment nation', but now has given that up to become a nation of religious fanatics. mr. wills might want to try doing a little reading in early american history, where he will find a great amount of religious faith. moreover, believing or disbelieving the theory of evolution has nothing to do with america's 'enlightenment heritage', since it was a theory developed after the enlightenment and after the establishment of the united states. could we have a little chronological consistency, please? a demonstration of the awareness of the context of the american revolution? i realize that he is using evolution sipmly as an instance of the 'non-reason' of faith, but it is still a silly point; there are many intelligent and reasonable people who hold wildly different positions on the biological creation and/or development of the human species.

wills goes on to say something else quite skewed:

America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values -critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity.

first of all, i'm not quite sure what he means by the 'first real democracy in history'. secondly, he expresses his love for the enlightenment in almost religious terms--'respect' for evidence, 'regard' for the secular sciences. i can almost envision him placing these items on his own little altar and paying them homage, and i'm sure he fully concurred in john edwards' and john kerry's 'belief' in science. but the most important thing he fails (or refuses) to recognize is that america was a product BOTH of enlightenment ideas AND of its religious heritage. their shared values were not solely linked to 'modernity', just as the shared values of many today are not solely linked to (post-)modernity.

anyway, his lament for america's tragic enlightenment loss allows him to lambaste conservatives:

Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.

crazy religious zealots!

but then he goes on to make an inexcusable move, appealing to our european superiors:

The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past.

makes me wonder where the europeans were during the 18th and 19th centuries. anyway, we've moved from religious conservatives to fundamentalists. i always nearly laugh at this move, simply because it is false and remarkably stupid. a lot of people do the same thing with pres. bush himself. someone really should get these guys a memo--pres. bush is not a fundamentalist (if people knew what they were talking about, the differences would be obvious); he is arguably not even an evangelical. but no matter--wills can now make his predictable pronouncement:

In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.

right--so now we're more like islamic fundamentalists than westerners. he goes on:

Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.

really? do europeans fear that Christians will blow themselves up on a street corner for religious ends? do they fear that Christians will fly planes full of civilians into buildings for religious ends? if he were making a reasoned argument [what was that about the enlightenment and evidence again?] instead of a rhetorical point via equivocation, it might be worth disputing at greater length. but he's not. he ends by once more referring to american Christians as jihadists:

The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.

yes, yearning back toward the enlightenment, in whose wake, to take one exapmle, people still owned other people as property, and, even after they didn't anymore, blacks were not allowed to drink out of the same drinking fountains as whites. thank goodness the theory of evolution changed all that. oh, wait--i think there were a lot of religious people involved, including a preacher named martin luther king, jr.

what was that about tolerance again?

UPDATE: see also this remark:

The reality is that, even when they were winning, the Rationalist recognized that most of the country despised them, as witness Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, written in 1963 at the height of the Intellectual epoch. Mr. Wills seems to have forgotten the most salient fact about America, Bryan won the Scopes trial.

and this comment on that post:

What they don't understand is that more than 25% of the people voting said they were concerned with moral issues. But about 75% went against gay marriage. Plenty of people who voted for Kerry voted to define marriage.

i've been reading some british letters to the editor, mostly for a chuckle at the laughably inane assumption of a lot of these chaps that they actually know something about american politics and because they're just, well, so offended at the stupidity of us ol' yankees; i think their feelings might be hurt a little bit that a lot of us don't really care to prostrate ourselves before the fount of their wisdom or to kiss the rings of their superior understanding.

here's a gem:

Sir: I wasn't enthusiastic about Kerry initially, but warmed to him through the campaign, and hoped that the American people were similarly warming to him. I dared to hope that they would turn away from selfish overconsumption, neo-conservative manipulated paranoia, and the arrogance to think their government had the right to dictate politics to the world.

That they have re-elected Bush is deeply depressing. Goodbye world peace, goodbye Kyoto protocol, goodbye polar bears and most of Bangladesh! I wore black today.

and i especially liked the arrogance of the second paragraph of this one (from an american) (sent out especially for dennis and dave)

In my earliest letter of support for Senator Kerry, I expressed grief over the loss of worldwide respect and confidence that his leadership would begin to restore that loss. In this interconnected world, to adopt an attitude of "my way or the highway" is appallingly short-sighted, dangerous and more than a little embarrassing.

Don't give up on us - even if Bush is elected, we will not be silent. It may be the Sixties all over again, only with more PhDs and law degrees leading the opposition.

and i think this patronizing nanny might still be a little upset about the american revolution, no?

Sir: There is an element of Freudian slip to the American leadership's disparaging term "Old Europe".

America is an adolescent nation, as yet unable to see the follies of its imperialistic hubris. Mature nations have moved on, wisdom is only able to shake its head disapprovingly, for fear of violence, in the face of a teenager who has the power of a man but the mentality of a child. Britain is the exception among them, and is, like so many sullied academics, in the pocket of power; lending ersatz intellectual credibility and cod-morality to the excesses of youth.

Where Britain ought to be taking the part of the elder brother, it is instead, exploiting the American people, through their leadership. There's an uncomfortable parallel with the rueful adult, wistfully trying to relive their own youth (empire) through an impressionable dupe. Or does it amount to Fagin-like urging - "You gotta pick a pocket or two, boy."

and, finally, this one, telling us that ignoring climate change is worse than the president's decision to invade iraq and claiming that carbon dioxide is a weapon of mass destruction:

Sir: The election of George Bush as President of the US is a black day for the world. To have chosen him once was a misfortune. To do so twice was not merely carelessness, it was an act of hostility towards the rest of the planet.

It is bad enough to have a religious fundamentalist in charge of the world's only superpower, and one who is willing to invade another country on the flimsiest of pretexts, now shown to be false. What is arguably far worse is that, even though he has access to some of the best scientific advice available, he refuses even to acknowledge that climate change is becoming a serious problem.

Carbon dioxide is a far more potent weapon of mass destruction than anything that Saddam Hussein turned out not to have. And the US produces some 25 per cent of total emissions every year. Nothing meaningful can be done to even slow down the approach of catastrophe unless the US climbs on board. But I don't doubt that the US oil industry made heavy donations to the Bush campaign, so there seems no chance that Bush will change his stance.

well, now that the election is over, we can begin to turn our attention to other pressing issues, such as rock 'n roll and coffee preferences.

as far as the latter goes: i mentioned it before, and i will say it again--i really enjoy melitta's brand of coffee, urged upon me by dennis.

(though i have yet to hear that they offer a pumpkin option.)

again, from the corner:

HOW CAN BRITS STAND IT [Michael Graham]
I'm listening to C-SPAN's simulcast of the Beeb, and in five minutes I've heard it called the "so-called War On Terror," and Americans described as "just as religious in their way as Middle Easterners are." I've heard Americans accused of killing more Iraqis than Saddam and the terrorists.

All in FIVE minutes! And you Brits pay TAXES for this?

You've got harbors. We can loan you the tea. Why don't you do something?

oh, and apparently, sen. kerry, 'W' stands for 'Wright'.

any word yet from michael moore on the election?

from the corner:

SOME GOP TALKING POINTS THIS MORNING [KJL]

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.
*** Became the first President to win a majority of the popular vote since 1988.
*** 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.

so when andrew sullivan talks about how 'narrow' and 'slim' was the victory, feel free to dismiss it out of hand.

the murder of dutch filmmaker theo van gogh (yes, related to the painter) over a film he made critical of islamic culture reminds how dangerous expressing one's opinion can be in today's world. R.I.P.

(link via memeorandum.)

according to drudge, 488 votes were found on a polling machine at one philadelphia site BEFORE THE POLLS EVEN OPENED. i won't bother so speculate on who put them there.

who do you think bob seger's voting for?

UPDATE: it now seems that almost 2000 (pre-)votes have been found on machines throughout the city.

here is tom wolfe, author of bonfire of the vanities et al., on his new book, politics, and more. (link via instapundit.)

i can't believe this is for serious. oh, wait--yes, i can. (link via the corner.)

Colo. Teacher Kicks Student for GOP Shirt

Sat Oct 30, 6:06 PM ET Strange News - AP

DURANGO, Colo. - A part-time college instructor has apologized for kicking a student because he was wearing a Republican shirt.

Fort Lewis College student Mark O'Donnell said he was showing people his College Republicans sweat shirt, which said "Work for us now ... or work for us later," when Maria Spero kicked him in the leg at an off-campus restaurant.

Spero then said "she should have kicked me harder and higher," said O'Donnell. "To physically take that out on someone because you disagree with them, that is completely wrong."

Police Sgt. Mitch Higgins said Saturday that O'Donnell wanted to press charges and a misdemeanor summons would be issued.

Spero, a visiting instructor of modern languages, apologized to O'Donnell in a letter dated Oct. 29.

"I acted entirely inappropriately by kicking you, giving vent to a thoughtless knee-jerk political reaction that should never have happened," she wrote. "Before the incident, I did not know you and that you are a Fort Lewis student."

The college also formally apologized, said David Eppich, assistant to the school's president.

O'Donnell said the apology wasn't enough and he plans to file a complaint with the college.

The only phone number listed in Durango for the surname Spero was constantly busy Saturday.

Durango police did not immediately return a call seeking comment.