Undiplomatic

13 October 2008 Charles J. Brown
10:47 pm

Nightly Election Thread

I’m changing tactics. Oh wait, I’m going to change them again. Hmm. Maybe a third time.

Never mind.

Talk amongst yourselves

Get Down Here

I’m down at the Arlington Obama headquarters and I don’t know if it’s a good game tonight or what, but bottom line, hardly anyone is here.

Complacency kills, people. If you’re not volunteering, Obama won’t win. Ignore the polls. The ground game is the key, and could add 2 percent to Obama’s bottom line. That could make the difference.

So please, come on down here (4350 Fairfax Drive in Arlington, two blocks from the Ballston metro), or get down to whatever office is closest to you.

We have three weeks. We either do all that it takes to win or we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Blog Day Afternoon

Molly and I are going to enjoy the rest of the day. See you later tonight.

Once again, I have to give props to the North Koreans. Kim Jong “License to” Il and friends may represent the worst dictatorship in the world, but when it comes to propaganda, few can rival them. We’ve already taken a look at their propaganda posters; today, we’ll look at their mass display card rallies.

If you thought the opening and closing ceremonies at the Beijing Olympics were scarily impressive, wait until you see what the North Koreans can do. There’s a reason Chinese director Zhang Yimou mindlessly worships their precision. The only problem, of course, is that it comes at a small cost: a destroyed country, mass starvation, torture, cruelty, and a bats**t crazy supreme leader.

A few weeks ago, I ran across the work of freelance photographer Eric Lafforgue, who recently traveled to North Korea to document conditions there. Eric has kindly allowed me to reproduce some of his work here. Please keep in mind, however, that all these photos are ©Eric Lafforgue, and should not be reproduced without his permission.

The following photos all examples of something called “mass games” or “mass gymnastics.” From Wikipedia:

Mass games or mass gymnastics are a form of performing arts or gymnastics in which large numbers of performers take part in a highly regimented performance that emphasizes group dynamics rather than individual prowess. Because of the vast scale of the performance, with often tens of thousands of performers, mass games are performed in stadiums, often accompanied by a background of card-turners occupying the seats on the opposite side from the viewers. Mass games are typically used to emphasize themes of political propaganda. . . .

Today, mass games are regularly performed only in North Korea, where they take place to celebrate national holidays such as the birthdays of rulers Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. In recent years, they have been the main attraction of the Arirang Festival in Pyongyang.

The following images are from this year’s Ariang Festival, which took place on September 12, 2008. Keep in mind that those little black dots in each photo are actually the kids’ heads.

Eric: “Food crisis? What food crisis?”

Eric: “Legend says that Kim Il Sung, using the two pistols inherited from his father, founded the Anti-Japanese People’s Guerrilla Army (AJPGA), the first of its kind in Korean history, in April Juche 21 (1932). So if you visit North Korea, you will see many images of these two pistols.”

Eric: “The photo shows 100,000 people performing a choreographed dancing and gymnastics routine on the pitch of Pyongyang’s May Day stadium. In the background, 20,000 performers flip colored cards to form detailed pictures. . . .This picture is supposed to be Pyongyang at night, which is funny because Pyongyang at night is dark.”

Thanks once again to Eric for giving me permission to reproduce his amazing photos. Please remember that all photos are ©Eric Lafforgue. Be sure to check out Eric’s entire photostream — it’s pretty remarkable. You can find the North Korea photos here.

You Have the Right

Please watch, share, and blog about this amazing, wonderful short animated film.

I found this extraordinarily moving. I’ve spent much of my career trying to convince governments to respect the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other documents. Our own government could do a lot worse than adhering to the principles outlined therein.

When I was in the Clinton Administration, I conceived and got the President to sign an executive order creating the Eleanor Roosevelt Award, which honored Americans who had made outstanding contributions to the cause of human rights. (For those who don’t know, Eleanor Roosevelt played a central role in the drafting of the UDHR.) The award was established in December 1998, as part of the Administration’s commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration. In the three years I helped put the event together, honorees included John Lewis, Fred Cuny, Bette Bao Lord, and Dorothy Thomas, among others.

It probably would not surprise you that the Bush Administration stopped giving it out. It would be fitting for the next Administration to restart it. The first awards should go to those who, over the past eight years, have fought so valiantly to try to keep this administration from shredding our rights and defacing the UDHR.

More importantly, we must demand that our government be the leader on human rights — the government as envisioned by Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy, and many others — and not among the world’s worst abusers.

We have that right.

You can find out more about the campaign here and the video here.

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan

Thought of the Morning

Why isn’t John McCain (or Barack Obama or anyone else for that matter) demanding that President Bush fire Henry “Captain Crisismaker” Paulson? Or for the resignation of Ben “Wingman” Bernanke?

Christopher Cox may have been culpable in helping create the conditions for this mess, but given the fact that we’re facing a crisis of confidence in liquidity, not liquidity, most of the blame falls on the Bailout Twins.

The Great Crash: Truth and Consequences

If you haven’t seen it yet, take the time to watch this extraordinarily sobering report on the impact of foreclosures on one part of Southern California.

Snark of the Day: Palinex

Weekend Open Thread

I voted today. Had to wait about 10-15 minutes in line. I encourage you to do the same if you are somewhere that permits early or absentee voting (and you have a legitimate reason to vote absentee).

And when you get back, talk amongst yourselves. Molly and I are having an all-Greta weekend.

See you Monday.

Nightly Election Thread

It’s the weekend. Try to be players, not player-haters like John and Sarah.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Another Thought of the Day

Anyone else surprised that the Troopergate report was released on a Friday evening?

You have learned well, young Palinwan Padawan. But you still have much to learn.

Now release your anger and destroy me!

Help us Obama-kenobe, you’re our only hope!

Okay, I’ll stop now.

Thought of the Day

Would the last conservative intellectual despondently leaving the glorious city on the hill in the hands of the torch-bearing mobs please leave the keys at the front desk?

It’s like these guys don’t see their own culpability in the rise of conservative anti-intellectualism/anti-intellectual conservativism.

My Favorite Republican

No, that’s not an oxymoron. We’ve all had favorites over the years — individuals with whom we may not agree on everything, but whom we regarded as thoughtful, honorable, well-intentioned. Jim Leach is one example that comes to mind; Chuck Hagel is another. For many, it used to be John McCain.

It therefore is no small irony that many of the Republicans who I and others have respected the most are either endorsing Obama (Leach, Lincoln Chaffee) or refusing to endorse McCain (Hagel, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell).

The same is now true of another, now largely forgotten, Republican I’ve long admired: William Milliken, who served as Governor of Michigan from 1969 to 1983. He was extremely capable and was very much in the tradition of moderate Republicans like Eisenhower and Rockefeller.

He’s also a pragmatist. In 2004, he endorsed Kerry. This year, he supported McCain in the primaries. But today, he backed away, basically unendorsing McCain:

“He is not the McCain I endorsed,” said Milliken, reached at his Traverse City home Thursday. “He keeps saying, ‘Who is Barack Obama?’ I would ask the question, ‘Who is John McCain?’ because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me.

“I’m disappointed in the tenor and the personal attacks on the part of the McCain campaign, when he ought to be talking about the issues.” . . . Milliken stopped short of saying he will vote for Obama, but said he differs with McCain on the Iraq war and his choice of Palin.

“I know John McCain is 72. In my book, that’s quite young,” said Milliken, 86, Michigan’s longest-serving governor. But he added, “What if [Palin] were to become president of the United States? The idea, to me, is quite disturbing, if not appalling. Increasingly, the party is moving toward rigidity, and I don’t like that. I think Gerald Ford would hold generally the same view I’m holding on the direction of the Republican Party.”

The McCain ship is sinking, and the sane people are jumping off. The rats, however, are actually trying to board.

Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan

Worst? Candidate? Ever. . . ?

After my earlier post on Bush ranking among the worst Presidents ever (and yes, Franklin Pierce does deserve to be on the list), I started wondering whether John McCain is the worst candidate ever. The purpose of my post is not to outline why I think he might be among the worst if not the worst — McCain is doing a more than adequate job of demonstrating that himself. Rather, I merely want to consider who is his competition.

The criteria I’m using is different from that I would use to evaluate the worst President ever. Good candidates do not make good Presidents, and vice versa.

James Buchanan, for example, was a horrible President, but arguably was the most experienced candidate for the Presidency: Member of the House of Representatives for ten years; Ambassador to Russia; Senator for another ten years (back when they were appointed by the States); and Secretary of State. Those, my friends, are pretty good qualification. Too bad he turned out to be either the worst or second worst president in history.

Similarly, George Bush wasn’t that bad a candidate. Now before you go nuts, keep in mind I am not speaking in ideological terms here. Rather, I’m talking about what the candidate does and says, and how he (and his surrogates) manage the campaign. In that context Bush (and Rove) were actually quite good campaigners, even if we were unhappy with the results.

Remember, we’re talking not about ideology or politics here, but rather about who ran the worst campaign. Let’s also limit it to people who survived the primary process. Here are my nominees, in reverse chronological order:

John McCain, 2008
Ralph Nader, 2000, 2004, 2008 (two words: President Bush — so did he heighten the contradictions enough for you Ralphie?)
Ross Perot, 1992, 1996 (managed to do everything possible to lose an election he likely would have won had he not dropped out in the middle of it)
Michael Dukakis, 1988 (the tank photo-op by itself is enough to merit inclusion)
Walter Mondale, 1984 (promising to raise taxes killed his chances before he really started)
George McGovern, 1972 (Eagleton alone puts him on the list)
George Wallace, 1968 (many sins, but Curtis LeMay’s comments about nukes would still put him on the list even if he hadn’t been a racist and a hater)
Thomas Dewey, 1948 (responsible for teaching all future candidates that you never relax, no matter how big the lead)
William Jennings Bryan, 1896, 1900, 1908 (one of only two individuals to have run three times and lost)
Henry Clay, 1824, 1832, 1844 (the other three-time loser; author of the “corrupt bargain” that gave JQ Adams the presidency in 1824)
Aaron Burr, 1800 (was the VP candidate, but when there was a tie with Jefferson in the electoral college, he tried to steal the election — his actions led directly to the passage of the Twelfth Amendment)

I’ve excluded sitting Presidents from the list; if they were included, I think you’d have to add George H.W. Bush (1992), Jimmy Carter (1980), Herbert Hoover (1932), and William Howard Taft (1912).

Certainly McCain is a contender. It is, however, going to be pretty difficult for him to beat Nader 2000, Perot 1992, and Dewey 1948. The first one got Bush elected and the last two managed to lose races that they should have won.

One more thing: who was the best candidate ever? My money would be on either Lincoln in 1860 or Truman in 1948.

Worst. President. Ever. (Part Two)

Thanks for the comments on my earlier post on the worst Presidents ever. I agree that Franklin Pierce probably belongs on the list. We also forgot about Andrew Johnson, who according to some accounts, spent his entire presidency drunk.

Although I acknowledge that Hoover did many good things before his Presidency, I would argue that they are no more relevant to the question at hand than Jimmy Carter’s post-Presidential public service.

But it did get me thinking about one aspect of this question: who is the worst two-term President ever, other than Bush?

Buchanan, Pierce, Harding, and Hoover all served only one term (in the case of Harding, less than one term). Has there ever been anyone who served two terms who comes even remotely close to Bush?

Until recently, U.S. Grant frequently made the bottom five of worst presidents ever, and I can remember lists where he actually was at the bottom of the barrel. More recently, historians have given him more of the benefit of the doubt, and he’s inched up a bit to the upper half of the bottom ten.

This is probably an easier question than I’m making it. In the 19th Century, no President between Jackson and Lincoln served more than one term, in large part because the post was viewed as a plum to be rotated among party worthies and in part because they largely were irrelevancies.

For the sake of the argument, let’s define two-term presidents as anyone who served more than one term. This includes Nixon, Johnson, TR, Lincoln, Coolidge, and Truman (and FDR, for that matter). So who would you pick?

I think this is a contest among Grant, Cleveland, Coolidge and Nixon. I’m leaning towards Coolidge, with Nixon a close second.

Of course, all of them combined don’t compare to our current officeholder, who is so bad, that every time he makes a statement on the economy, the markets fall by 5 percent.

The Nobel Committee Chickens Out

With all due respect to Martti Ahtisaari, who has played an outstanding role over the years in mediating conflicts, I cannot believe that he was the best choice for the Nobel Peace Prize, especially given the speculation that the Nobel Committee was considering giving it to Hu Jia and/or other Chinese activists.

Honoring another European bureaucrat-politician at a time when China’s human rights activists labor in anonymity, largely forgotten around the world (or worse, willfully ignored in order to appease the ChiComs) is both a travesty and a farce.

I once heard a story, perhaps apocryphal, that upon learning that he had been nominated for the Peace prize, Vaclav Havel urged the committee to consider instead a then-little-known human rights and democracy activist from the other side of the world. The result was the awarding of the Prize in 1991 to Aung San Suu Kyi, an act that has helped maintain public awareness of and support for the cause of human rights and democracy in Burma.

It is a shame that Mr. Ahtisaari did not do the same when he was nominated.

B-H-H-B

Not a chemical formula. Merely the first initials of arguably the four worst Presidents in history.

Buchanan

Harding

Hoover

Bush

Light blogging over the balance of the afternoon.

Bush Agonistes

Psst. Don’t tell anybody — Barack Obama is. . .wait for it. . .a liberal. I know, I know. Who’da thunk?

From a post yesterday by Rich “Starburst” Lowry:

If Obama is elected, won’t we have our most left-wing government ever? Obama is to the left of FDR and LBJ, Democrats who existed in a different world, prior to the cultural revolution in the Democratic party. Carter and Clinton both ran as, and had records as, Southern moderates. …on the face of it this would be the most left-wing government ever, no? Am I missing something?

I want some of what he’s smoking. Looks like it makes you paranoid, though. Fortunately, Andrew Sullivan is on the case:

Only the last eight years. Have you seen the deficit? Have you seen the nationalization of the financial sector? The occupation of foreign lands in order to democratize them? The Medicare prescription drug entitlement? Have you checked government spending? Have you seen the growth of earmarks? Yes: Obama is prepared to tolerate legal abortion and doesn’t want to strip gay couples of all rights - as in every other developed country in the West. But under Bush, the abortion regime remained in place and gay couples got legally married in Massachusetts and California - and in several countries around the world.

The reality is that George W. Bush has exceeded even the wingnuts’ fever dreams of what a Democratic administration would bring: he’s destroyed the military, nationalized the economy, stolen civil liberties, isolated America in the world, and amassed the worst deficits ever.

Oh. My. God. I get it now.

George Bush is the nightmare liberal leftist Democrat that the conservatives have been warning us about for the past fifty years. I wonder why we haven’t seen any emails describing him as the Anti-Christ?

Well thank God we got that out of the way. Now maybe we can elect a President who can fix all those disastrous policies. Unfortunately, at least for the conservanauts, it’s Barack Obama. But shhhhh. Don’t tell Lowry and company. They are, as Hilzoy noted, too busy frolicking in their own cognitive dissonance to care.

This is delusional. It would be interesting to ask, for instance, why so few of Obama’s law students have come forward to talk about his attempt to transform them into Maoist cadres, or why the lawyers in his firm have not mentioned his commitment to cultural revolution, or how he has managed to conceal his desire to nationalize the means of production from, well, everyone. Was he secretly plotting to get asked, unexpectedly, to speak at the Democratic Convention, take a chance on running for President, and succeed, back when he was on the Harvard Law Review? That, plus absolutely iron self-control, might explain why no one caught a glimpse of Obama’s secret radicalism: he has been concealing it for decades, the better to bore away at our bourgeois institutions.

There’s only one problem with that hypothesis: if Obama were as stealthy as that, if he had lived a secret life for decades, completely concealing his inner Maoist, he would never, ever have blown his cover by getting on a board with William Ayers.

Maybe The Corner should be renamed The Cargo Cult Corner.

That, My Friends Is Change That Salvador Dali Could Believe In

I’m not even going to try to explain this one.

Hat tip: Slog

Maverick!

Heh.

Best. Drinking. Game. Word. Ever.

Morning Buzz: Joe Biden’s Favorite Video

Because, and I mean literally, it’s literal. A revisioning of the A-Ha uh, classic.

Nightly Election Thread

I once served on a board with a known heterosexual and masticator whose sister is a thespian. But then again, I’m a shameless extrovert who practiced celibacy before marriage.

(Florida politics FTW)

Talk amongst yourselves

Quote of the Day

I’m not a big fan of Kathleen Parker, but she appears to be drinking less of the Palin-McCain McCain-Palin kool-aid these days:

Neither McCain nor Palin would dare mention Obama’s middle name, Hussein, but they can play up Obama’s past associations and let others connect the dots. Terrorist. Muslim. Dangerous. Other.

It is legitimate to question character and dubious associations — and William Ayers is certifiably dubious. The truth is, Obama should have avoided Ayers, and his denouncement of Wright was tardy. But this is a dangerous game.

The McCain campaign knows that Obama isn’t a Muslim or a terrorist, but they’re willing to help a certain kind of voter think he is. Just the way certain South Carolinians in 2000 were allowed to think that McCain’s adopted daughter from Bangladesh was his illegitimate black child.

But words can have more serious consequences than lost votes and we’ve already had a glimpse of the Palin effect.

If she keeps this up, The Corner is going to kick her out of their magical thinkers’ club.

Light Blogging (and Heavy Phone-Banking)

I’m at the Arlington That One Obama Headquarters helping to manage the phone-bankers. If you’re in the area and have nothing better to do, come on down — the address is 4350 N. Fairfax in Ballston — a block from the Ballston metro.

Reactionary Nostalgia

My earlier post on Iowa got me thinking about the McCain’s strategy and tactics.

According to press reports, the McCain campaign has adopted a defensive stance, more intent on defending Bush-2004 states than winning over Kerry-2004 states. This is problematic because, right now, they are so far behind in a half-dozen Bush-2004 that it’s going to be hard for them to defend them all successfully. Without a significant pick-up — such as Michigan would have been or Pennsylvania still could be — McCain really has no chance of winning.

One thing this approach does explain is the campaign’s turn toward hateful rhetoric. If they think the only way they can win is by rallying the base in Bush-2004 states, then the best way to make it happen is to scare the s**t out of rally the base. The problem with this approach is that fear only works if it’s the biggest fear out there. And right now, fear of an economic meltdown is trumping fear of an African American man with an Arab name. McCain may be able to move a few voters, but I haven’t run across a single sane member of the commentariat — not even on the right — who think that three weeks of venom can win this thing for him.

So given these facts, and given the assumption that McCain still thinks he can win, what are we missing here? Occam’s Razor says that the simplest solution is usually the right one (and yes, philosphy majors, I am oversimplifying it a bit). The answer is, of course, that McCain believes this is his only path to winning.

But winning what? That’s the question no one is asking.

I think the most plausible answer is that he thinks he can win in the electoral college even if he loses the popular vote. This has him winning enough of the Bush-2004 states plus New Hampshire and/or Pennsylvania to eke out a win. This would explain both the defensive posture and the rhetoric. If he can whip up the base enough in these states (plus Pennsylvania and New Hampshire), he might be able to keep Obama from winning over the one, two, or three states he needs to secure a win.

The only other possible explanation is that McCain has decided that if he can’t win, he must do everything he can to deny Obama a mandate, even if it means worsening the divides that have made governance so difficult over the past forty years. Clearly he is absolutely convinced of his righteousness, meaning anything he says or does is merely speaking truth to terrorists power.

As I’ve said earlier, he’s moving onto very thin ice here. Another blogger — I no longer can find the post — said earlier today that McCain is moving into territory which only George Wallace has chosen to go — open appeals to racism. Rick Perlstein has pointed out, correctly, that both Goldwater and Nixon resorted to similar tactics: “This is how conservatives roll.”

I think Perlstein is right, but I think he and others miss something important here. Contrary to expectations, we once again are having a referendum on the 1960s. Except this time it’s not about Vietnam, it’s about civil rights. And it’s not the Democrats who are wallowing in hippie wish-fulfillment but rather Republicans wallowing in what can only be called reactionary nostalgia.

The fundamental problem with the Republicans fighting the 1960s over again is that most Americans don’t give a rat’s ass anymore, especially given the current economic crisis. And those that do — those that remain unhappy about the triumphs of Parks, King, Abernathy, Lewis, Young, and other heroes of the civil rights movement — decided not to vote for Obama a long time ago.

So where does that leave McCain?

He’s riling up a reactionary base (to call it racist ignores the reality that only some of these folks are racist) in such a way as to guarantee that undecideds and independents are more likely to vote for Obama. To put it another way, the more he appeals to the worst instincts in Americans, the more Americans will want to demonstrate the content of their character. At the same time, he’s leaving a residue of hatred and distrust that’s going to make it much harder for Obama to govern.

McCain only needs to look at the state of this year’s Senate races to see that this election is much more about the economy than it is about Obama or himself. The Republicans are losing ground so rapidly that pollsters are having trouble keeping up with the collapse. Although a sixty-seat majority still appears unlikely, it is more of a possibility than it was even a week ago. Should that trend continue, we be witnessing the biggest collapse of a major party in the United States since 1932.

And that, my friends, is change we can believe in. For others, like those in the video above, it is change they will never accept.

Random Thought of the Moment

When did it become snowmachining instead of snowmobiling snowmobiling? Did I miss the memo?

What is McCain Doing in Iowa?

I heard from a regular Undip reader this morning that John McCain continues to run ads in Iowa, and judging by what the reader is seeing, the McCain ads outnumber the Obama ads by a margin of about 2 to 1. The reader also said that he’s seeing about three negative McCain ads for every positive one.

By all accounts, McCain is down by double digits in Iowa and has been for at least a month. It probably is more “lost” to him than Michigan was when he pulled out. So what is he doing? Does he have internal numbers that contrast what the national polls are saying. Does he think that there’s a Bradley effect in Iowa? Or has his campaign just stopped trying to allocate resources according to reality?

Worse yet, is his campaign actually polling on the Bradley effect? You would think that that would have leaked by now, but maybe not. And it’s not stopping anytime soon — McCain is scheduled to go back to Iowa on Saturday.

This campaign gets uglier and weirder by the day.

UPDATE: Both Chris Orr at TNR and Dan Balz in The Washington Post beat me to this today (and do a better job of reportin reporting). Here’s Orr, quoting Balz:

The last time John McCain visited Iowa, all he got out of it was an embarrassing video of his testy meeting with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register and a column by former strategist Mike Murphy that derided the “stunning lack of competence in the McCain operation” and asked “Why put McCain in the wrong state, at the wrong place?”

But give McCain points for obstinance, if nothing else. As Jonathan Martin points out, he’s headed back to Iowa for a rally in Davenport on Saturday. Why? Dan Balz reports:

Asked why, if he has given up on Michigan, McCain has not given up on Iowa, a state that looks strong for Obama in public polls, [McCain Political Director Mike] DuHaime said because the campaign’s polling has Obama’s lead in the low single digits.

Hmm. There hasn’t been a ton of recent polling in Iowa, presumably because no one sees much point: Pollster.com lists it as “strong” Obama, RCP says “solid” Obama, and FiveThirtyEight gives Obama a 96 percent chance of winning there. Of the last ten polls listed on Pollster.com, only one has had the race closer than 7 points (the inaugural “Big Ten” poll, which was conducted in mid-September) and a majority have Obama’s lead in double digits. So either this visit is some kind of misplaced confidence game on McCain’s part, or his polls are, frankly, nuts.

Thought for the Afternoon

Bloomberg is going to have to update its TED spread graphic, on which the y axis only goes up to four.

They might want to replace it with one that goes to eleven.

Uncomments, Unfortunately

Well, it looks like there’s a problem with the comments section. I’ve heard from about a half-dozen folks that they’ve posted comments that haven’t shown up. Even worse, all were first-time commenters, which means that they probably were discouraged from making further comments.

I want to apologize for that, and to emphasize that it’s my policy to post all comments, even critical ones, unless they are spam, libelous, or unfairly flame another commenter.

Once I approve your first comment, you should be able to comment fairly freely. If you’re commenting for the first time, please make sure that you fill in the captcha** at the bottom of the comment — it’s the anti-spam filter that requires you to type in a few random letters. If you don’t fill it in, my blog architecture will regard it as spam.

LAS VEGAS - JANUARY 22: Actor John O'Hurley e...

That said, we’re taking a look at whether there may be a technical problem that is causing some comments not to get through. We’re also going to set up a comments RSS feed.

In the meantime, if you comment and it doesn’t go through, please drop me a line at comments_at_undiplomatic_dot_net (replacing the at and dot as you would in a normal email), and I’ll post it for you. Please make sure to tell me in your email what screen name you’d like me to use.

And for the record, I want to thank everyone who has commented, and express my appreciation for the fact that to date, no one has said anything that would require me to ban them.

**In case you were wondering (as I was) what this means, I checked Wikipedia and it stands for Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart. Who knew?

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts