August 2004 Archives

Some readers didn't believe me when I wrote last week that John Kerry is getting desperate, but maybe they'll believe someone with more insider knowledge.

Dispirited Democrats -- prominent senators, top fundraisers, even a few Kerry confidants -- have told the candidate, who is in Nantucket, that high-level changes are imperative. A few very well-connected Democrats report something will occur in the next few days. One person who might assume more control is Joe Lockhart, a former press secretary to Bill Clinton and a respected public-relations figure, but one who has almost no experience in the high-stakes world of presidential campaigns. Another possibility: veteran Democratic politico John Sasso, currently at the Democratic National Committee.

If there is a change -- Sen. Kerry privately is said to be "bouncing off the walls" in frustration -- it has to be imminent as the eight-week campaign is in full swing by Labor Day. "We have 48 hours," acknowledges an insider.

Further, it appears that lack of network coverage (as opposed to cable news coverage) is reducing the conventions' visibility (as I suggested):

The decision by the major television networks to trim their convention coverage is sharply reducing the number of viewers who see these political events, Harvard's Shorenstein Center reports. A survey during the Democratic convention noted that millions of potential viewers were lost, and the same is likely this week.

None of the three biggest networks, for example, aired any of last night's coverage.

In 1976, each network carried more than 20 hours of convention coverage for both parties, but that has steadily declined to about three hours this year.

ABC, CBS and NBC argue the former comprehensive coverage isn't necessary because cable TV fills that void. But the Shorenstein Center points out one-fifth of households don't have cable. And particularly critical is that "inadvertent" viewers -- those who channel surf -- do so much more on broadcast networks than cable channels. Even many cable viewers, the study found "habitually monitor the network channels but do routinely check to see what's being telecast on CNN, Fox or MSNBC."

Yeah so, I sometimes know what I'm talking about.

(HT: kf.)

Although I think it's mean and pointless to hurt a helpless creature, I don't really care what people do to their own animals. There shouldn't be any criminal punishment for hurting an animal you own, and if you hurt someone else's animal you should be prosecuted similarly to any other form of property crime.

An 11-year-old Indianapolis girl faces legal trouble after witnesses told Indianapolis police she intentionally mistreated a kitten Saturday night by swinging it in the air with a cord tied around its neck.

The girl was arrested on a Class A misdemeanor charge of torturing or killing a vertebrate animal. Animal Care and Control officials said in a report that the animal had to be euthanized because of injuries to its neck and its poor health.

The incident happened in the 2300 block of North Moreland Avenue around 6:30 p.m. An Indianapolis police officer who arrived to investigate also reported seeing the girl slam the kitten onto a wagon and heard the kitten cry out, according to a report.

The story doesn't indicate if the child owned the animal or not, but it's pretty absurd to criminally charge an 11-year-old.

My real concern in cases like these is that torturing small animals is part of the terrible triad of childhood behaviors, along with pyromania and bedwetting, that are common among psychopaths and sociopaths. According to Mindhunter author and former FBI agent John E. Douglas, something like 80% of serial killers displayed two or three of these behaviors by age 12. Certainly not everyone who does these things will become a serial killer, but there are other dangers associated with such mental pathologies; this girl should probably be put under psychiatric monitoring for a while, and her parents should be taught to look for other signs of future trouble.

Based on the awesome transcripts I've perused of the RNC convention speeches so far, I'm not surprised they weren't carried on television. Had they been, everyone would now be a Republican. Check out Rudy's:

I don't believe we're right about everything and Democrats are wrong about everything.

Neither party has a monopoly on virtue.

But I do believe that there are times in our history when our ideas are more necessary and important for what we are facing.

There are times when leadership is the most important.

On September 11, this city and our nation faced the worst attack in our history.

On that day, we had to confront reality. For me, standing below the north tower and looking up and seeing the flames of hell and then realizing that I was actually seeing a man a human being jumping from the 101st or 102nd floor drove home to me that we were facing something beyond anything we had ever faced before.

We had to concentrate all of our energy, faith and hope to get through those first hours and days.

And I will always remember that moment as we escaped the building we were trapped in at 75 Barclay Street and realized that things outside might be even worse than they were inside the building.

We did the best we could to communicate a message of calm and hope, as we stood on the pavement seeing a massive cloud rushing through the cavernous streets of lower Manhattan.

Our people were so brave in their response.

At the time, we believed we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, "Thank God George Bush is our President."

And I say it again tonight, "Thank God George Bush is our President."

On September 11, George W. Bush had been President less than eight months. This new President, Vice President, and new administration were faced with the worst crisis in our history.

President Bush's response in keeping us unified and in turning the ship of state around from being solely on defense against terrorism to being on offense as well and for his holding us together.

For that and then his determined effort to defeat global terrorism, no matter what happens in this election, President George W. Bush already has earned a place in our history as a great American President.

Imagine any Democrat (ok, just about any) being even half as conciliatory towards Republicans.

And Senator McCain's:

My friends, we are again met on the field of political competition with our fellow countrymen. It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis we have these contests, and engage in spirited disagreement over the shape and course of our government.

We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, and promote the general welfare. But it should remain an argument among friends who share an unshaken belief in our great cause, and in the goodness of each other.

We are Americans first, Americans last, Americans always. Let us argue our differences.

But remember we are not enemies, but comrades in a war against a real enemy, and take courage from the knowledge that our military superiority is matched only by the superiority of our ideals, and our unconquerable love for them.

Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity.

We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong.

Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight.

We're Americans.

We're Americans, and we'll never surrender.

They will.

These were some powerful exhortations, and it's sad that very few people got to see them.

Reuters "news" editor Todd Eastham responded by email to a National Right to Life Committee press release:

Eastham's email read as follows: "What's your plan for parenting & educating all the unwanted children you people want to bring into the world? Who will pay for policing our streets & maintaining the prisons needed to contain them when you, their parents & the system fail them? Oh, sorry. All that money has been earmarked to pay off the Bush deficit. Give me a frigging break, will you?"

How obliviously evil! The parents "don't want" the children, therefore the children should be killed. With that logic and morality the strong can justify killing just about anyone we want, right?

Douglas Johnson, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative director, called it "sad but revealing to see an editor for a major news service so casually and gratuitously express such blatant hostility to both the Bush administration and to the right to life of unborn children.

"Apparently, Mr. Eastham feels strongly that abortion is necessary to prevent the birth of children who will otherwise snatch some bread from his mouth," said Johnson. "We can only wonder at how such vehement opinions may color Mr. Eastham's reporting or editing on subjects such as abortion and the Bush administration."

Nah, I'm sure his twisted morality and idiocy don't affect how he edits "news" stories or selects stories for publication.

Anyway, on the plus side, I really like the concept of "oblivious evil" and I think I'm going to use it more frequently.

Maybe the existence of this perspective is common knowledge -- maybe it's even widely held -- but it's new to me. Prompted by Alessandra's musings on the barbarity of our society's approach to "hate" speech I've realized that there is a large swath of society that acts (even if it won't admit it) as if there's nothing wrong with mental illness, obsession, dependence, manipulation, violence, harassment, and so forth. Many -- particularly among the people who act in these ways -- pay lip-service to "mental health" (according to their conception of it), but with little justification.

For example, who can say that a violently abusive relationship is "bad"? If the woman tolerates it, what gives society a right to object -- to impose external morality onto her relationship? Why would anyone think there's something wrong with stalking? Or co-dependent relationships? Pedophilia? (Dare I ask,) homosexuality? Even rape? Sure, many people find these things distasteful, but so what? How can any of them be objectively wrong? Even more weakly, how can any of them be "unhealthy"?

From a humanist perspective, anything that promotes the continuance of the species is "natural" and therefore healthy, and therefore good. Rape? Big deal. Women are biologically capable of bearing children, and it's only natural that they do so. Whichever man is strongest should pass along his genes at will. That's how every other species works, and we're just animals, right? All other sexual perversions can be rationalized with the same arguments. Whatever your genes incline you to do, do. If your genes are good, you'll win. Otherwise, you'll lose. Either way, the "problem" -- if there is one -- is self-correcting, and "health" will emerge spontaneously.

(HT: Clayton Cramer.)

The end of an era.

I love the short story format because just about any tale worth telling can be told well in 10,000 words or less. Sure, some sagas can be told in greater detail over thousands of pages, but the key components can always be collected and conveyed in a short story.

Even looking back to humanity before writing, oral histories were generally just verbal short stories. I'm not aware of any culture that passed down novel-length stories orally. For one thing, that wouldn't really be possible, and for another there just isn't any point. Even if a story started out that long it would get abridged and cut down quickly. The short story is the elemental structure of human culture.

John Kerry should take note of President Bush's finesse.

TROY, Ohio — President Bush said opponent John Kerry's (search) service was "more heroic" than his during Vietnam, in an interview shown Saturday on NBC News.

"I think him going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets," said Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard (search). "He was in harm's way and I wasn't. On the other hand, I served my country. Had my unit been called up, I would have gone."

Is there any better possible position to take? Of course, flying fighter jets is pretty dangerous, and Bush's unit was actively fighting in Vietnam when he signed up even though it wasn't by the time he began flying.

Not just thugs but morons, too. Here's the text of the letter in the photo (which is courtesy of Ryan Sager at Miscellaneous Objections).

A LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ

We want to express our heartfelt apology and deep sorrow over our government's invasion and continued occupation of your country. We are painfully aware of the enormous suffering it has caused - the killing, wounding, and harassment of so many Iraqi children and adults; the deaths and injuries to combatants on all sides; and the destruction of Iraqi infrastructures leaving millions without adequate water or power, homes or food.

Please know that we who have signed this letter and countless other Americans are deeply opposed to this aggression that has been carried out in our names.

We understand that words of sorrow and apology are not enough, and that as people of the United States we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to peacefully pressure our government to stop this war, end the occupation, make full reparations, and work in cooperation with the Iraqi people to repair the terrible damage that the war and occupation have caused. We pledge to you that we will make every effort to live up to this responsibility.

Finally, we want you to know that it is our sincere desire to live in peace with the people of Iraq. We believe it is possible for relations between our two countries to be based on honest and respectful dialog, a willingness to resolve our conflicts by nonviolent means, and a shared commitment to our common humanity and the sacredness of all life.

[Idiotically yours,
The American Left

P.S., Once John Kerry gets elected we'll be sure to have Saddam released and back in power ASAP.]

(Oops, almost forgot to HT Glenn... like he needs it... when's the last time he linked to me, eh? Only when I whore myself out for his benefit... he's lucky I'm too lazy to hit the backspace key a few times.)

You people disgust me. Grow up. You claim to be about peace and equality, but then you gleefully pull these kinds of shenanigans? If Bush really were Hitler you would've faced soldiers with machine guns, not cops with plastic handcuffs and Polaroid cameras. You're pathetic brutes. You're nothing more than thugs masquerading "patriotic dissidents". Your ideas are morally bankrupt and you know you can't win through honest debate so you resort to vandalism and intimidation. You're going to lose, and I'm going to love it.

One of the most entertaining aspects of working with engineers is that whenever anything breaks -- no matter how mundane -- dozens of people will circle around to offer advice on how to fix it. If a door hinge wobbles or a swivel chair lever bends everyone will stop doing their real work until someone comes up with a good way to do the repair. Only a few people will stick around to implement whatever solution is agreed to, however, because thinking of the plan is the fun part. I like to be the guy who actually does the fix.

I'm not intimately familiar with former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, but I know he's a potential Secretary of State for the potential President Kerry. I know he was in favor of overthrowing Saddam but skeptical of our policy of preemption. I know he predicted an easy military victory and a difficult after-war scenario. Today he's claiming that the situation in Iraq is not going well that the administration "simply has no plan for Iraq any more".

I don't think that's true, but I think Richard Holbrooke is a pretty smart guy. So let's go back to 2002 -- before the war -- and look at some of the dire predictions for what Iraq-after-Saddam might be like. These quotes are from a debate moderated by Mr. Holbrooke; he doesn't necessarily agree with all these speakers, but their predictions indicate just how much worse Iraq could be than it is.

Mr. Holbrooke himself feared:

I think Saddam has to be dealt with, and I would support an international coalition willing to deal with it. But the talk of unilateralism and the talk of preëmption have gravely weakened our case....

Well, we did get an international coalition with dozens of countries. He also asked:

But, the last time out, Saddam launched thirty-five or forty Scud missiles against Tel Aviv; the Israelis did not respond, because the elder President Bush begged and convinced them not to. They've said that this time around they will respond. Now, if our military cannot destroy and degrade Iraq's ability to do that at the outset, and the Israelis do respond, what will the Arab states do? Will it metastasize from a U.S.-Iraqi war into an Arab-Israeli war, or will the other Arab countries sit it out? Particularly Egypt, Syria, and Iran—what will they do?

Iraq did launch a couple of missiles into Israel this time around -- if I remember correctly (?) -- but nothing much came of it. They were shot down before hitting the ground, I believe. Israel stayed uninvolved, and this disaster scenario was avoided; I'd say that's a big success. The debate discussed this possibility for quite a while, and their fear appeared significant.

Mr. Holbrooke then asked:

Several critics of the Administration's policies, including Senator Kennedy and former Vice-President Gore, have said this week that this is a diversion from our efforts on terror, our efforts in Afghanistan. Musharraf himself, who was here in New York two weeks ago, said that he would not want Pakistan to participate in any action against Iraq. He's already (a) the indispensable leader for the American effort in Afghanistan, and (b) on a very tight rope himself. How would a war in Iraq affect the situation in Pakistan, if at all?

But the fighting in Iraq didn't hinder our activities in Afghanistan very much. We could do more there, certainly, if we were willing to spend more money (which maybe we should), but our weak engagement isn't the result of the war in Iraq. Furthermore, Musharraf wasn't thrown out of power and Pakistan is still mostly cooperative.

On the topic, Isabel Hilton said:

Once the war in Afghanistan began, for instance, Kashmir became much more volatile and tense, and since then we have nearly had the world's first nuclear war twice. Now, those are not separate narratives, nor will this be. You can say, "What does it matter to Pakistan if America invades Iraq?" Well, what matters is that it generates another huge distraction in which more trouble can be made. And there is a great deal of trouble waiting to be made.

There's been no nuclear war between Pakistan and India. She continues:

Once the doctrine of preëmptive war is out there, then, first India, clearly, but many other people, could say that this is ideal, thank you. All these conditions are met. And all the conditions that the Administration has listed, as far as Iraq is concerned, can be met in several other situations. These cases can be made.

Neither India nor Pakistan has invaded the other. In fact, the idea that America's preemption somehow motivates or encourages other countries to be preemptive is absurd. Countries don't rely on justifications or precedence like that to make decisions. They do what's in their best interests and go as far as they think they can successfully. No country has ever withheld its hand against its national interest just because they lacked a precedent.

Leslie Gelb predicts some potential good results from the war, but warns that it's a huge gamble.

At the same time, it is a terrible roll of the dice. And it could unleash a terrible anti-Americanism, and a fanaticism, an active fanaticism, even beyond what we've seen. So I'm in favor of doing it, for all the reasons you've heard time and again, but this is, I think, potentially the most momentous decision of our adult lifetime.

It is/was a large risk, but no terrible anti-Americanism has been unleashed. Nothing more terrible than we've seen in the past, anyway, what with Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9/11 anyway.

Lawrence Wright says that we don't just have to show strength in the Arab world, we need to encourage liberty, which he doubted we'd do.

It's not just because we didn't beat the hell out of them enough the first time and the second time and the third time. We simply don't trust those people to elect their own governments and follow our example. We're afraid of the people. And until we arrange ourselves in that part of the world in a friendly way and understand what they're after and explain to them what we stand for and show them that we stand for it by encouraging civil society and democratic governments in their own countries, we're never going to have friends—real friends—in that area. We'll only have tyrants that we pay for.

But that prediction hasn't come true either. Sure, Iraq's democracy is still young, but we didn't just install a new strongman in Saddam's place.

Isabel Harris was afraid of how the war itself would play out:

Nor is it clear to me where this war will be fought. The last one was fought in the western desert; will this one be fought in the cities? If it's fought in population centers, is there a limit to the number of Iraqi civilian casualties that this war will produce?

There was city fighting, but casualties were pretty low.

There are, as I'm sure you know, various projections for how Iraq should or might go in a post-Saddam world. The one that appears to be favored by the Administration is, as it were, a new version, but a cleaner and more friendly version, of the strongman: another general.

Nope.

One of them says five hundred thousand American troops and five years to stabilize, eighteen months before the constitutional convention and the election. Well, I can't see that happening. If that's the price, I can't see it being paid.

Nope again. Only about 150,000 troops, some from other countries, and the democratic experiment is proceeding according to plan. Maybe more troops would have been useful, but we didn't go that route.

If Saddam is to be overthrown in order for there to be a similar set of arrangements with a different man, then I think that many of the consequences that we have laid out in our Jeremiah-like way are more likely. If you forget a democratic, stable Iraq, which we would all clearly like, financed by renewed oil flows and so on and so forth. It's a question for me still as to whether the American Administration really wants that.

Apparently it did.

Jeffrey Goldberg then lays out some potential difficulties with the Turks and the Kurds.

So let me put it this way. One very smart Kurdish leader I spoke to in Washington a couple of weeks ago said this: "If we're smart, we'll march to Baghdad. If we're dumb, we'll march to Kirkuk." Kirkuk, of course, is the oil center in the north that the Turks are very keen on having. If they march on Kirkuk, the Turks are going to see that as a signal; the Turks will come in, and then it'll be a bloodbath.

R.H.: We need to underscore that for all of you. If the Kurds do anything in the line that Jeff's suggesting, the Turks, and this has not been reported in the papers here, but it's quite clear that the Turks will send troops into the northern part of Iraq, there's no question about it.

I'm not sure if the Kurds met the criteria for this prediction -- whether they marched on Kirkuk or not -- but either way, here's another bad thing that didn't happen. There were some reports of Turkish troops in northern Iraq, but not very many, and they're not there now.

Leslie Gelb goes on:

Iraq really could turn into a bloodbath. The scenario that the Shiites could decide to take vengeance against the ruling Sunnis is not at all far-fetched. And, if that happens, that triggers terrible things throughout that region. That's big business. You've got to think about the deals you want to try to make with the different factions in Iraq now, and begin to think of how you're going to try to apportion power, and begin to prepare Americans and other countries for the postwar commitment. It's a big deal if you want to avoid the most negative kinds of consequences. And this has not been done.

There was no Shi'ite massacre of Sunnis, and America has dealt with the various factions very well.

Here at home, we'd have to assume that what we do in Iraq could well trigger more terrorist attacks against us. I pray it doesn't happen, but responsible policy demands that we plan for it. Nothing has happened on that front.

As if there were terrorists who just weren't sufficiently motivated to attack us, but would have been once we invaded Iraq. Anyway, there haven't been any successful attacks at home since we invaded Iraq, although I do agree that the Department of Homeland Security is pretty pathetic and a lot more could be done.

Lawrence Wright must be happy that this prediction was wrong:

Well, the view from the Middle East is that we go in and knock off Saddam—our history is we bang somebody on the head and then we go home. And the Administration is trying to sell this "Marshall Plan" idea. Oh, come on. You know, nobody believes it. ... Our history gives nobody any confidence that we are going to stay there and clean up the mess that we're going to create. And we will create a huge mess, because Iraq is a fractious country of five thousand years of contending ethnic groups.

People believe it now. We're staying, and we're working on the mess.

I think that the Iranians are going to take advantage of the chaos. I think that the Turks are naturally going to try to protect their interests, and this whole entity will be pulled apart, and there will be this chaotic vacuum that we will then be responsible for.

Well, the Iranians are making trouble, no question, but they haven't pulled Iraq apart yet. There's no chaotic vacuum, except in a few isolated towns.

Jeffrey Goldberg concludes the debate with this fear:

I mean, we're feckless, and we're cheap, and we have the attention span of fleas when it comes to rebuilding countries we invade or countries we try to aid. But I don't know the answer to that. I mean, that's up to Congress, that's up to the Administration, that's up to the people there as well. It is a tough one. It is a tough one; but it is not a reason to not act for our own national security.

Weak, cheap, fickle... that's how the world saw us too. But hopefully not anymore.

Both President Bush and Senator Kerry -- and every other politician I know of -- claims that there's a health care crisis. Setting aside the fact that everything is a "crisis" to whatever politicians stand to gain by trying to fix it, is health care in America really so bad? According to the National Center of Policy Analysis, Americans have more health insurance than ever, and those without insurance are generally uninsured by choice.

The NCPA analysis found that households earning $50,000 a year or more account for about 90 percent of the increase in the number of uninsured over the past 10 years. And almost two-thirds of that has occurred among households earning more than $75,000 per year.

The NCPA was reacting to a Census Bureau report released Thursday, which said the number of people with health insurance increased by 1 million to 243.3 million between 2002 and 2003, while the number of people without health insurance increased by 1.4 million to 45 million.

So of that 1.4 million increase, a majority can afford health insurance and simply choose not to buy it.

Since 1993, the number of uninsured in households with annual incomes above $75,000 increased by almost 128 percent. By contrast, the number of uninsured with annual incomes below $25,000 fell by an estimated 15 percent.

"Being uninsured in America is often a matter of choice," said Herrick. "Most uninsured people either can afford health insurance or qualify for government-sponsored health care programs; they just choose not to enroll."

That doesn't sound like a crisis to me. This isn't a tragedy, and the "crisis" is based largely on the assumption that everyone should have and should want to have health insurance, when those assuptions are clearly false. There probably are some people who genuinely can't afford insurance and don't qualify for existing programs, but they're probably a tiny part of the total number of uninsured. (And many of them are probably illegal immigrants.)

(HT: Link via Roger Hedgecock... but I check CNSNews daily anyway....)

Last week was incredibly strange, and only now do I have the time (ha!), focus, and perspective to do justice to this bizarre tale.

It all started last Monday. I was showered, dressed, and just about ready to step out the door and go to work when I heard noises coming from the library near the back of the house. I glanced down the hall and saw that the door was closed, which was unusual enough even if it hadn't been muffling the sound of someone talking to himself and, to the best of my ability to discern, packing his suitcase.

There was a final zip as I approached the library door, and as I reached down to open it the door swung open away from me. Behind it was a short, stocky fellow with a cowboy moustache, a newsboy hat, blue jeans, and a nondescript brown overcoat. Trailing behind him in his left hand he pulled a small, wheeled, leather case, and he held a sheaf of papers in the crook of his left arm.

"Good morning!", he said, and sneezed. "Good-byes are the most awkward part of this, let me tell ya."

"Who are you?" I asked, backing away as the stranger emerged from my now-disheveled library into the hall. "How did you get in here?"

"You invited me, of course," he said, walking quickly towards the front door while I stood fixed in place, stunned. He turned his head and looked over his shoulder. "Don't worry," he said with familiar intonation, as if he'd had this conversation before. "Everything will make much more sense tomorrow. For now, I've got a plane to catch."

The stranger opened my front door and started down the steps and I ran towards him to watch his departure. A taxi was waiting in front of my house and the stranger dragged his case towards it and handed it over to the driver. In my bare feet I followed him down my driveway and grabbed his shoulder, but he shrugged me off before turning around. "What's going on?" I asked.

The man sniffled and sneezed again, covering his mouth with his hand and then reaching out to shake mine. I took it instinctively and he laughed. "The name's Sherman," he said, and then glanced down at our grasping hands. "And that serves you right." He sniffled again and ducked into the cab. As the car was pulling away he lowered the window. "I was suppose to remind you of something, but I can't remember what. Huh. Anyway. see you tomorrow! Thanks for the money!"

I stood in front of my house for a while, trying to figure out what it all meant, but there was nothing for it. I returned to the house, checked my cache of emergency money and found everything in place, and then headed off to work. I briefly considered calling the police, but the man was gone, so what was the point? That night I double-checked all the doors and windows and placed chairs in front of all the entrances. No one could get in without making enough noise to wake me up, especially not a fat old man. Nevertheless, I slept with my contacts in.

Tuesday morning I sprang out of bed and looked down the hall to the library: the door to which which was, again, closed. The chairs were still in place in front of the doors, and the windows were closed, so I was pretty sure a draft hadn't blow the library door shut. I strode over to it and grasped the knob, took a deep breath, and flung it open. Sherman was back, lying on a cot in the center of the floor.

"Hey, you, Sherman!" I said, "Get up!"

The figure rolled over a couple of times and then sat up and stared at me. "Oh, hi Michael. I guess it's just about time for me to leave."

I laughed. "Oh no, you rushed out yesterday, but I want to know exactly what's going on now before you 'catch another plane'," I said. "How'd you get back in? I blocked all the doors."

Sherman rubbed his eyes and squinted a few times before answering. "Yesterday, eh? Well it looks like you beat me up today, anyway. I didn't think you were such an early bird."

By now I was getting pissed and I gripped the doorknob to keep from waving my arms. With great deliberateness I asked, "What is going on?"

Sherman sniffled a few times and rubbed his nose before answering. "Explanations are the most awkward part of this," he started, but I cut him off.

"I thought good-byes were the most awkward part."

He looked at me for a few seconds before replying. "Nah, good-byes are easy, I just run out the door and disappear. Anyway, ask your questions. Oh, and I'm gonna need some money apparently."

I scowled. "Apparently I already gave you money," I said, but he shook his head.

"Yeah, today, you probably will. I don't like to steal if I can avoid it," he said.

"So who are you?" I asked. "And why are you in my house?"

"I'm Sherman, as I must've told you yesterday, and I'm staying here because you invited me."

Now it was my turn to shake my head. "I never did."

He smiled, "Not yet you haven't, but you haven't given me any money yet, either."

"Why should I do either?" I asked.

"As for the second, because I have something priceless to sell you. As for the first, well, because I'll answer your questions, satisfy your curiosity, and leave you always wanting more," he said with a grin, and sneezed. "As for why I'm here, in the grand scheme of things, well, I'm an applied historian."

"That's an oxymoron," I said, almost smiling despite myself, and Sherman laughed.

"Yeah, I'm glad you appreciate it, that's probably why I decided to stay with you. Really though, I'm a time traveler."

"Oh, of course, that's excellent," I said. I'd always wanted to meet a time traveler.

"I saw on your blog that you've always wanted to meet a time traveler, so I figured I could stay with you for a few days while I'm passing through," he explained. "You said you saw me leave yesterday, which means my stay is almost done -- from my perspective, anyway. But don't worry, you get plenty in return from me over the next few days."

"If you're a time traveler, where's your time machine?" I asked.

Sherman rolled towards his leather case and rummaged for a few seconds before pulling out a device about the size of a cell phone. He glanced at it and then handed it over to me. "It's charging," he said.

It looked like a cell phone, but the number pad was different and there were a few other controls whose uses weren't immediately obvious. I pushed a few buttons and symbols flashed across the screen, but they didn't mean anything to me. Before I could experiment more Sherman reached up from his cot and swiped it out of my hands. "It's charging, but it could still send you back several hours and that would screw up my schedule."

I squinted at him. "Why do you need a schedule if you've got a time machine?" I asked.

Sherman sighed. "It's broken," he said. "It won't hold a full charge. I can only travel two days at a time and then I need to stay put for a day."

"Two steps forward and one step back," I said.

He replied, "Two steps back and one step forward, but yeah, same general idea. Anyway, I'm not entirely stranded, but this does make my mission more difficult. I originally got stuck ten years in the future from now and I've been inching my way backwards ever since."

"Where -- or when -- are you going?" I asked.

He smiled. "Everyone asks that, but then everyone guesses. If you had a time machine and were on a mission to the past, what would you be going to do?"

"That's easy, I'd be going to kill Hitler."

He nodded. "Sure, sounds pretty easy, right? Anyway, something like that. I already explained all this to you tomorrow, so for now can you just give me a few thousand dollars so I can start looking for flights?"

I considered. "Flights leaving yesterday?" He nodded. I continued, "I have some emergency cash, but I thought you were going to sell me something. Have you got something super-cool from the future, like a laser gun or a robot?"

"Actually, I had all sorts of neato stuff when I came back, but I've given most of it away already. What I sell now, mostly, is newspapers," he said and pulled one free from the sheaf of papers by his case. "Here's the Wall Street Journal from this coming Friday, if you're interested."

I glanced at the paper he was waving and rubbed my jaw in thought. "How much do you want for it?"

He shrugged. "How much have you got? It's hard for me to make money because I can't deposit it in a bank in the future and have it accessible in the past. Plus, currency goes reverse out-of-date pretty quick if people pay attention to the printing dates and signatures and stuff. So, a few thousand ought to be enough to get me a plane ticket yesterday and to cover my expenses for a bit."

"Anyway, it'll pay for itself, right? I'll just need to move some money around and buy some stocks...." I mused.

"Sure, sure, that's up to you. It shouldn't be hard to make money with a newspaper from three days in the future."

So I fetched my wad of cash from the bedroom and bought the paper before calling in sick to work. Sherman said he couldn't spend all day talking because he had to do some final repairs on his time machine before leaving the previous day, so I spent my time researching and trading and trying to make the most of my speculative opportunity.

He didn't come out all afternoon, or most of the evening, but before I went to bed I knocked on the library door. The flickering blue light that leaked beneath it stopped and Sherman peeked through. "I'm kinda busy, what is it?" he asked.

"Well, since tonight is your last night here, by your reckoning, I figured I should say good-bye and that I hope you enjoyed your stay." I said.

He sniffed and rubbed his nose before responding. "I suppose so, thanks. Yes, it was quite nice. Very comfortable. Don't worry though, we've met before, in your future and my past. Although, based on your surprise, I take it I'll never see you again, even though you'll see me."

I slept in later Wednesday morning and checked on my trades before considering whether or not to mention this all on my blog. I could write up a lot of juicy stories with my future-news, but where to begin? And should I mention Sherman at all?

Before I could decide, the man in question was up and wandering around the house. He saw me sitting at the computer and held up his hands as if to ward me off. "Don't say anything! This is right around when people start telling me about my future, and I don't want to know yet! You didn't come banging down my door, so I gather I'm not leaving for a little while, so just let me get some caffeine in me. I've got to remember to tell you to get some coffee; diet soda is a poor substitute."

"You're going to forget," I told him, and followed him into the kitchen.

He nodded, "Of course I will, otherwise there'd be coffee, wouldn't there? And there isn't any." He gestured around the room before grabbing a soda from the fridge and popping it open. "Time travel takes a lot out of you Michael, that's for sure. I can't survive without my Vitamin C, eh?"

I smiled, "You got that from me, didn't you?"

"And you got it from the Simpsons, but for Homer it was Vitamin G, for 'gas'."

I took a soda for myself and asked him, "So what else are we going to talk about? How uh, long have you been staying with me, anyway? Maybe I could get some coffee today...."

He chugged the soda and then said, "Why should we waste time having a meta-discussion about discussions we'll have in your future, when we could instead be talking about things of actual substance?"

"True," I conceded. "Like your mission? Aren't you afraid that if you tell me too much it'll change history or something?"

"Nah," he said. "I won't tell you much about the future for that very reason, but I'm going back in time, so I can tell you everything you want to know about my mission. Unless you have a time machine -- which you don't, right? -- it can't hurt anything."

We meandered into the living room and sat down. "But yesterday you told me you were going to kill Hitler, and yet, in my time line, you must've failed."

He shook his head and sneezed. "No no, I'm not going to kill Hitler, I'm going to save Hitler. We already sent someone back to kill him, and that didn't work out well at all, so I'm going back in time to prevent Jack from killing Hitler. And I'm obviously going to be successful, despite my broken time machine."

I responded, "Well, someone is going to be successful, I guess, maybe not you."

Sherman nodded.

"But what happened when Jack killed Hitler?" I asked.

Sherman rolled his eyes. "Everyone thought it would be a great idea, obviously, to kill Hitler, but as it turned out without Hitler to drive away all the scientists Germany got nuclear weapons before anyone else, and, well, you can guess how that turned out."

"Oh," I said. "But how do you know? I mean, is there an alternate history or something?"

He shook his head again. "That's not how it works. There's just one history. Time isn't exactly linear though, so, uh... in a way, the 1960s are currently screwed up due to Hitler's assassination, but the effects haven't reached you here yet, this far up the timeline."

"So the changes take... time... to propagate through uh, time?" I asked.

"Changes take meta-time to propagate, yeah. And if I don't save Hitler before the changes reach the future, there won't be any future to send me back!"

"But you are back, so you must succeed!"

"Or someone does. Or the changes just haven't caught up to me yet."

"Weird," I said.

"Yeah, I'm just an applied historian, not a temporal engineer. I don't know all the details. It's like magic to me, which is why I'm having trouble fixing my time machine."

I thought for a few seconds. "Maybe someone at UCLA could take a look at it, I'm a student there."

"No way," he said. "Even if anyone would believe I'm a time traveler do you think they'd help me fix my machine and then just let me take it? Plus, they might figure out how to build one, and the last thing we need is someone from now wandering up and down the timeline."

"Oh, well excuse us," I said. "I'm just trying to be helpful."

"I've got more repairs to do," Sherman replied and stood up. "It would be helpful if you could get me some AA batteries."

"The time machine takes batteries?"

"No, it collects and stores time directly, as I explained tomorrow, but my Discman takes AAs."

So I went to the store for coffee and batteries, but didn't see Sherman until the following morning.

I took Thursday off work and figured that this would be my last chance to talk with the man from the future; the paper he'd given me was from Friday, so that was probably when he would first arrive. I was already up when he awoke to the smell of the coffee brewing. Not really my thing, but it sure seemed to excite Sherman.

He rushed into the kitchen and waved his hands at me. "Don't say anything! Don't tell me about my future!" he said, but I cut him off.

"You already warned me about that yesterday," I said.

"Oh great, thanks, now I know something we'll talk about tomorrow! Don't tell me anything else. Since you didn't barge into my room this morning I figure I'm not leaving yet, and that's all I need to know."

"But I want to continue our conversation!" I told him and poured the coffee. "See, I even bought coffee for you, and batteries."

"Hold on!" he said. "Are you trying to tell me there's no coffee yesterday? Argh!" he groaned and rubbed his head. "I am just about out of batteries though, so thanks."

"Yeah sure," I said. "The newspaper has already paid for itself, by the way."

"Good, good," he said, gulping down the caffeinated beverage. "I can't live without my Vitamin C!"

"I know," I replied, and he shook his head with dismay.

"You can see why it's hard for me to build meaningful relationships," he said. "It's constant deja vu for someone; fortunately, I've got a bad memory."

"Maybe it would be easier if you stayed in one place longer," I suggested.

"Nah, I've tried it. People start wanting to know too much about their future and they can't keep their mouths shut about mine. At least this way I can't tell or hear about more than a few days in either direction."

"So your time machine runs off pure time?" I asked, hoping to prompt him with the knowledge he'd given me yesterday.

"That's right," he answered, surprised for a second. "It absorbs time from its surroundings. Not enough to be noticeable without sensitive meta-temporal instruments, of course, but while it's charging time does pass more slowly for several miles around it in every direction. Normally, of course, we charge them away from populated areas, but...."

"But your time machine is broken and won't hold much of a charge, so you're only able to travel two days at a time, right?" I finished for him and he nodded before pouring another cup of coffee. "So with one day's worth of charge you can travel two days through time?"

"Something like that, but they don't charge linearly."

"Time isn't linear," I said.

"Right, and if it could hold a full charge I could charge it for one year and travel 5,000, plus or minus. As it is, I don't want to wait around charging it and then have to pass through all that time one day at a time if the charge doesn't stick. I tried it before, and it was a waste of uh, time. I may try bigger jumps if I can get the flux capacitor stabilized, but, who knows."

I leaned forward and sneezed before asking, "Wait a minute, flux capacitors are real?"

Sherman laughed. "Well, by my understanding they were named after a device in a fictional movie from the mid-1980s as a sort of homage, but essentially yes. That's where the time is stored up and released to make the jump. Plus, a small amount is converted to electricity to power the display and the integrated digital camera."

"So are you ever going to return to your own time? When is that, anyway?" I asked.

"If I get my rig working, then sure. Otherwise, it's along crawl back to the future moving at only triple time."

"Two days forward, then wait a day to charge, then two more forward," I said to show I understood, and he nodded.

"I should get back to my repairs. Thanks for the coffee."

Friday morning when I woke up the house was empty. I checked everywhere, but there was no sign of my time-traveling guest. "Of course," I said to myself. "He hasn't arrived yet." I had a lot to do that day to prepare, but I wasn't feeling very well at all. First I called in sick to work again (this time for real) and then I posted a "Time Travelers Welcome" note on my blog. At least then Sherman would know where and when to go. Then I walked to the convenience store and picked up a Wall Street Journal and some diet soda to replace the stocks Sherman had depleted / would deplete. I didn't care much about the coffee, but I bought some more just in case I ever ran into more time travelers. It's important to be hospitable.

I waited around all day for some sign of him and there was finally a knock at my door while I was watching the Simpsons on my TiVo. I paused it and opened the door, and sure enough there was Sherman, moustache, cap, leather case, jeans, overcoat, and all. "Hey, come on in," I told him and swung the door wide before sneezing all over him.

"Ugh, thanks," he said and pulled his case up the steps behind him. "Where should I put my stuff?"

I led him to the library and helped him get settled. "By the way, my name's Michael," I said. "And you're Sherman."

He nodded and threw off his coat. "I know you from your blog, and we've met before. I presume I'll tell you all about myself over the last few days."

"That's right!" I said. "And all about your mission to save Hitler!"

"Yeah, yeah," he said and collapsed into the library's leather easy chair.

"Do you want some coffee?" I asked. "Gotta get your vitamin C."

"Vitamin C?" he asked.

"Caffeine," I explained. "Like Vitamin G is gasoline, from the Simpsons. Homer. Uh, that's all you need to know."

Sherman nodded. "I just want to go to sleep," he said. "I've been traveling all day and I'm pretty exhausted. How about if we save all the questions for yesterday?"

"Sure thing," I agreed. "By the way, here's a newspaper if you're interested. I'll just leave it here on the shelf."

"I know the drill," he said and rubbed his eyes. "You leave a newspaper here and I sell it back to you a few days ago for thousands of dollars. How'd that work out for ya?"

"Fantastic," I said. "I'll let you get some rest."

I moved to close the door, but then hesitated. "Since I won't see you again for a while, my time, I guess I should say good-bye."

"Good-byes are always the most awkward part of time travel," Sherman said.

"After explanations, anyway," I replied, and he smiled.

Saturday morning he was gone again and the library had regained its normal appearance. Even now, looking back, it's hard to believe this all really happened. I've still got the newspaper, but it's old already, and I remember buying it last Friday so it's easy to explain away. I guess the only way I'll ever know for sure is if I happen to meet Sherman again sometime during the next decade.

Bill Hobbs has written a lot about the small business boom, but I'm not sure how to take advantage of it. When one expects big business to do well one invests in the stock market, but how can I leverage my optimism towards small business to make money?

In general, I reject the idea that there are "men's issues" and "women's issues" -- as if some topics are off-limits to one gender or the other. Typically, modernly, it's men who are barred from topics that we can't possibly have an intelligent opinion on, but historically the discrimination has worked both ways. Actually, let me rephrase: I do believe there are certain areas of life that can best be handled by people of a certain gender, but since we're just talking about politics here and people of both genders get to vote, I don't think either gender should attempt to reserve certain domains as their own territory. Attempts at such labeling are generally intended to shut down debate by undermining the legitimacy of those with opposing views.

But let's look at some so-called "women's issues" and see how they may influence female voters.

"If President Bush or Senator Kerry wants to move more undecided women voters and bond more deeply with them, they have to start paying a little more attention to the issues that matter in these women's daily lives," said Meredith Wagner, executive vice president of public affairs at Lifetime Television.

According to Wagner, the prevention of violence against women and the promotion of equal pay and women's health are the issues likely to impact the female vote in the presidential election.

So there we have three things that are supposedly (according to this "expert") important to women, and by even naming these issues the expert entirely sidesteps the question of whether or not the government should be meddling in these areas at all.

First is "the prevention of violence against women", but is this a federal issue at all? Aren't the vast majority of violent crimes handled at the state level? Shouldn't states be concerned with preventing violence against everyone, not just women? The only real way I see for the federal government to get involved here is to more vigorously protect our Second Amendment rights, but I get the feeling that isn't what Meredith Wagner means.

Second is "the promotion of equal pay", which many would argue isn't a proper function of government at any level. Being a capitalist nation, why should the government get involved in what people are paid? As long as workers (male and female) are free to accept and reject jobs and negotiate for their wages, any action by the government will end up reducing liberty, not enhancing it.

Third is "women's health", which is generally a euphemism for abortion. Again, this may properly be an issue for the states, but if people want the federal government involved there's no guarantee that the majority (even the majority of women (except maybe old women)) would agree with those women who would use this euphemism. Those who tout "women's issues" probably wouldn't see the widespread banning of abortions-of-convenience as "women's health".

So really, what have we got? These "women's issues" look pretty irrelevant and insubstantial to me. Are these really the concepts that motivate female voters? I certainly hope not.

If anyone can think of some politlcal "men's issues" (irrelevant and insubstantial or not) I'd be very curious to see them.