THE DEATH OF ARAFAT
The scourge of the late 20th century and early 21st, leader of a death cult, Nobel Peace Prize winner who consistently worked against peace and the best interests of his "people," Yasser Arafat, has died during a season of Survivor where one tribe was called Yasur. The sad thing is, he dispatched from this island Earth the way he sent many to their deaths. Young and strapped with bombs or murdered in the streets just for his faith.

I envision a scene. Dead Arafat in the afterlife surrounded by thousands of his victims. And Arafat muttering a simple "Uh oh".

May God have mercy on his soul and may Arafat finally understand his true legacy.

And now, finally, let there by hope.

IDENTIFICATION PLEASE
A Russian MP and international election observer, Aleksei Ostrovsky, gets it.

The parliamentarian noted that primarily he was shocked by the fact that U.S. citizens do not produce any ID as they come to polling stations. “It is enough to say ’I am Mr. Smith,’ and he is allowed to vote; the same person can exit one polling station and go to another and vote again using the same procedure,” the Russian MP said.

Reform starts with the basics.

UNSOLICITED ADVICE
I'm rather uncomfortable with the raft of Republicans currently telling the Democrats what beliefs they have to change in order to have a chance to win national (and Senate) elections in the future, and my discomfort doesn't derive from a desire to step aside as our opponents destroy themselves. The primary advice I'd offer to the chorus is to say what you believe and believe what you say. If you still lose, well, that's democracy. Other good advice is to believe in something and learn how to clearly articulate it. But telling Democrats to adopt the rhetoric of the religious right is akin to telling Democrats who don't believe in their issues to find some way to obfuscate that fact. Democrats shouldn't be expected to change their beliefs just to win elections. Hasn't that been the centerpiece of our complaints about Kerry?

No, the Democrats owe it to themselves and our republic to hold to their beliefs, change them only if their conscience dictates that their prior beliefs are wrong, and articulate those beliefs so that the public can be well informed come election time. That's not so hard.

A corollary to this advice, is that Democrats should endeavor to understand the arguments of their opponents - just as Republicans should try to understand the Democrats. It's not enough to write-off ideological competitors as ignorant, superstitious, bigoted or marxist. And it doesn't serve democracy to attack the perceived motives of your opponents rather than addressing the substance of their ideas.

Jonah Goldberg touches on some of this in National Review Online, including a dive into the deep end of the raging debate over religion and anti-religion currently spreading through the blogosphere and op-ed pages. He sums up with the following advice to his adversaries:

But for those of you who think your grief and disappointment justify your pious nastiness and blame-shifting for your own failures: Do keep in mind that it is precisely such self-indulgence and arrogance that costs you elections.

You may disagree with the conclusion, but advising Democrats about image is much better than advising them to abandon their deeply held beliefs.

MANDATES: THEN AND NOW

Then (1992): Time magazine's cover declares Bill Clinton's forty-three percent of the vote a "Mandate for Change".

Now (2004): The media struggles to convince us that George W. Bush's nearly four million vote margin of victory is no mandate.

In other words, a clear majority, fifty one percent, counts for less than a minority, forty-three percent.

Must be some more of that "fuzzy math."