Has the BBC ever met a dictator it doesn’t like? Check out this account of a recent speech by Mugabe. Here’s the conclusion:

”Opposition leaders in Zimbabwe may condemn Mr Mugabe for acting oppressively at home; but here in Geneva, many delegates - whether they agreed with him or not - were impressed by a lively speech.”

I think I’m going to throw up.

If smokers were to switch to chewing tobacco and snuff, an impressively large number of lives would be saved. So what does the EU do? It bans most of these products.

Just another reminder that the tobacco jihad is about control, not public health.

Here’s another success for the drug warriors:

”Italy's Mafia gangs have earned £32 billion and killed almost 700 people in the past four years, a report by the Eurispes research study unit says. It contradicts claims that the crime syndicates have been all but defeated. The most recent figures show that drug trafficking accounted for more than £18 billion, or more than half of total gangland turnover.”

Thanks, guys!

No apologies for returning to this topic (it’s important, folks!), so here’s a dismal story surrounding Diebold, one of the leading suppliers of e-voting equipment. If there is a way of making these systems acceptable it will involve paper receipts, but…:

”ANNAPOLIS -- An e-mail found in a collection of files stolen from Diebold Elections Systems' internal database recommends charging Maryland "out the yin-yang" if the state requires Diebold to add paper printouts to the $73 million voting system it purchased.

”The e-mail from "Ken," dated Jan. 3, 2003, discusses a (Baltimore) Sun article about a University of Maryland study of the Diebold system:

"There is an important point that seems to be missed by all these articles: they already bought the system. At this point they are just closing the barn door. Let's just hope that as a company we are smart enough to charge out the yin if they try to change the rules now and legislate voter receipts."

"Ken" later clarifies that he meant "out the yin-yang," adding, "any after-sale changes should be prohibitively expensive."

”The e-mail has been cited by advocates of voter-verified receipts, who say estimates of the cost of adding printers -- as much as $20 million statewide -- have been bloated.”

Of course, the source is only two e-mails, and stolen ones at that (and there's no word on what "Barbie" thinks), but, if accurate, this tawdry tale is yet another reminder that the ham-fisted rush (if a rush can be ham-fisted) to electronic voting is proving very messy indeed.

Balko nails it:

”Think about what has just happened. The Supreme Court has just ruled that political speech, the most important, and in theory most protected, kind of speech, can be banned in the days leading up to an election, the very time it's most needed, most valuable, and most beneficial.

”Incumbents in Congress have just insured that concerned citizens can't reach a mass audience with criticism of them in the months leading up to the day when the public determines whether or not they deserve to be rehired for another term. They've just given themselves job security.

”And lest we get too down on the Supreme Court that upheld this dreck, or the Congress that passed it, keep in mind that our president signed it into law, despite expressing his belief that it was unconstitutional, thus violating his oath of office.”

Reason’s Julian Sanchez, meanwhile, has a modest proposal:

“We must close the First Amendment loophole once and for all, and recognize that constitutional protection of "free expression" should be reserved for copies of Hustler, as the Founders intended, not extended to such dangerous frivolities as the expression of political views.”

Nurse Bloomberg, scourge of ashtrays and destroyer of jobs, can now point to another consequence of his smoking ban – it’s become a moneymaking opportunity for criminal gangs and, possibly, terrorists. Worse still, as blogger Radley Balko points out, this was something that the Bloomberg ‘administration’ anticipated ahead of the introduction of its ridiculous and, it seems, quite literally lethal law and yet it still went ahead with it.

To Balko, this is proof that the ban was not about public health, but money. He’s half right. It was never about public health, but the motive wasn’t money. It was a power trip, pure and simple.

If Bloomberg had a shred of decency he would resign. But as he doesn’t, he won’t.

I know it's asking for trouble, but could you get The Derb to please explain what the big deal is about discovering the largest prime number? I didn't hear him on Hugh Hewitt where he probably did explain this. It just seems to fall under the category of "Yeah...so?"

Asked about comments by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder that international law must apply to awarding of contracts, Bush said: "International law? I better call my lawyer."

Bush's comments were wonderfully sensible and straightforward. Would it be too undiplomatic to add that the French, Germans and Russians already made their billions on Iraqi contracts -- when they were pumping goods and services into the country during Saddam's rule in defiance of the UN sanctions?

Thought you might find this interesting........

I work in a department of about 150 people for the University of California, Davis. We have been told that we can't even call it a "Holiday" party any longer. One sole kook decided that the word "holiday" implies religion and whined to our dean that the word offended her because of that. The dean promptly caved and told us that our party was now being called the "Annual" party.

I would love to hear anyone who can top that. This has to rank pretty high on the ridiculousness meter.

Many thanks to Jack O’Toole, who has pointed out on his blog that I made an error in a recent article for the New Republic. I wrote, “In 2001, Democrats kept hoping that some Bush initiative--his pro-life executive orders, his review of arsenic regulations, his tax cut--would be the early stumble that gays in the military was for Bill Clinton. But Clinton got in trouble in 1993 because his initiatives had not been vetted during the campaign: Bush père hadn't challenged him on the military gay ban, and Clinton hadn't talked about raising taxes. In 2000, on the other hand, W.'s policies on abortion, taxes, and the environment were extensively debated.” O’Toole points out, in a post I just ran across, that Clinton had in fact talked about raising taxes on families with incomes above $200,000.

My core thought was that the political ground had not been prepared for Clinton’s 1993 tax proposals. I had in mind the energy tax (which Congress pared down to a gas-tax hike) and the failure to cut middle-class tax rates. But the sentence I wrote was false and, as O'Toole notes, pretty obviously so. My apologies to the New Republic and its readers.

That Instapundit was one of the good guys on this. But the Spoons experience says otherwise:

You criticize the blogosphere for being silent about the Court's decision, but then praise the "exceptions" of Volokh and Instapundit. One problem: Instapundit hasn't said word one about the decision! Meanwhile, many other bloggers have, including myself . In fact, I have several posts on the subject, including a link to a roundup of what bloggers are saying. -Chris "Spoons" Kanis

Is up.

“I’ve seen a candidate who has what it takes to reach out to the independent, mainstream Americans who will make the difference ... particularly in the South,” Gore declared upon endorsing the Democratic contender. “He’s going to send George Bush packing and bring the Democratic Party home.”

Alas, the contender in question was Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Accepting the endorsement, Dukakis replied, “We aren’t going to concede one single state in this country . . . and that includes the states of the South.”

I guess sometimes saying it doesn't really make it so.

All from MSNBC.com

At the risk of being a total technical weenie, Steve is sort of right, but not completely. There are people out there who say we should not extend the press exemption to the contribution and expenditure limits to corporations that fail some "bona fide" test. But, the Commission doesn't use that requirement in the analysis. What [is looked at is] whether the newspaper, periodical or whatever is bona fide. That is, you can't print one big campaign related magazine and get a pass on that being regulated as an expenditure. But - non media companies can benefit, and have been excluded from the expenditure regulations when as a part of their ongoing activities they publish a magazine - Sam's Club most recently, for an article they ran on Elizabeth Dole. I also know that an in-flight magazine published by an airline was exempted (someone complained about a puff piece on a Senator that appeared there).

So, NR can say whatever it wants about politicians in its magazine. If it operated a TV station, it could incorporate whatever it wanted to say into its news, opinion and commentary - tho I think the FCC has other requirements of licensees that relate in this area. It is a closer question whether NR can buy a TV ad to promote the magazine, in which it bashes Dean.

Ralph Nader, a guest of presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, stood outside the press room of Tuesday’s debate telling reporters he’ll make a decision whether to enter his own name in the race for the White House early next year. Nader explained that he is waiting for the Democratic and Republican National Committees to formally respond to a 25-page agenda that he proposed to them in recent weeks. He will make the agenda public when he gets a response, he said. Nader said he is expecting a reply from both organizations sometime in mid-December. “I’m going to get a response,” he said. “The question is: what’s the quality.”

Cosmo! get away from the computer!

Derb/Boris....We live in suburbia these days too. Cosmo goes to the park every day. But please don't make fun of the cone. He hates it so much. Last night when we put it back on him, he sat with his back to us for ten minutes, sighing every minute or two just to remind us he's miserable.

I got an email from Robert Moran, vice president of Republican consulting firm Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates:

"Good piece.

"My only disagreement with it is that I think Dean could cost the Democrats
seats in the House - even in a tight race.

"What few realize is how much the House battleground leans our way after
re-districting.

"There are a number of Democratic House members in strong Bush or lean Bush
seats. There are something like 28 Democrat House seats that were won by
Bush with 51% of the vote or more.

"A Dean debacle would almost certainly sink folks like Jim Matheson (UT-2),
Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL), Rodney Alexander (LA-5), Baron Hill (IN-9), John
Spratt (SC-5), Rick Boucher (VA-9), Dennis Moore (KS-3), Jim Marshall (GA-3)
and a raft of redistricted Texas Democrats.

"To make matters worse for these Dem incumbents, they reside in deeply red
states that simply will not see much, if any, Democratic advertising or
turnout operations at the Presidential level. They may have a double
problem - a loser at the top of the ticket pulling them down and a solid,
pro-Bush turnout.

"In fact, throw in the money disparities between the two parties in the House
and a likely Texas redistricting victory, and House Republicans could have a
very, very good night, even if Dean keeps it close.

"If I were the Bush team, I would hit Dean hard on TV in these districts,
even though the states are a lock in the electoral college."

The scenario Moran lays out could happen, but it would depend on Republicans' recruitment of strong candidates. Also, I'm sure Moran would want Bush to follow his advice only if he's very comfortable that he'll win his own race. And remember that the Bush team was saying it was three-five points ahead right before the 2000 election.

From a reader re today's G-File:

Jonah - he of the smirky grin - seems desparate through most of this messy piece to reassure the reader that he's no prudish square, before settling down in the last two paragraphs to say something worth reading.

I was left with the impression, however, that he smugly views racism and sexism from a safe distance as little more than pretexts for exposing liberal failings than as the serious social wrongs that they are. Let's imagine for a moment that it was not sexism but anti-semitism that "porn" was making sexy. Funny?

Alan Dershowitz, brave defender of pornography as "standing up for the freedom of speech that we hate," fought to deny anti-semitic Cardinal Glemp access to the lecture platform in the United States.

Justice Scalia, in his opinion, writes, "This is a sad day for freedom of speech." He then adds, "Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography...tobacco advertising...dissemination of illegally intercepted communications...and sexually explicit cable programming...would smile with favor upon a law that cut to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government."