My answer to Mickey Kaus’s crazy assertion that it’s “obvious” Bush will create more new terrorists than Kerry would is up.

Soxblog has an explanation of why he’s not talking up the Kerry-was-dishonorably-discharged story:

Let’s be clear–it’s a great thing that Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg and Bill Maher have freedom of speech and expression. Well maybe not Bill Maher. But the fact that they use this freedom in irresponsible ways is not to be admired. And the fact that their expressions give comfort to those who wish our streets to run with blood should come as no surprise.

So if John Kerry wins, we who might well be his critics must behave properly. We should bear in mind that whatever we do our enemies will be watching. And we should refrain from slash and burn campaign tactics.

Has anyone seen this sort of sensible sentiment from the anti-Bush left? Not that I’m questioning their patriotism, mind you. I would never do that.

Galley Friend R.D. sends along a link to a new letter just released by The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics.

The mechanics of how stem-research became a mini-major issue in this campaign is pretty interesting. Few people understand what it is and fewer understand the difference between adult and embryonic stem-cell research. So why have stem cells become such a hot-button? Because they’re code for “religion.”

My colleague Terry Eastland contends that the 2004 election has turned in large part around questions of faith and the role of religion in public life. Stem-cell research has become part of that dialectic. It’s no longer really about the science of the issue (which seems to hold pretty clearly that adult stem cells are promising and embryonic stem cells are less so): it’s a clash between secular and faith-based world views.

We’ve all heard about NIMBYs (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) and their plight to stop sprawl. What with the worsening traffic congestion, I can see their point. But don’t think for once the NIMBYs are just found in the outer reaches of bucolic suburbia. For even in the worst parts of Washington, D.C., the NIMBY lurks. And lately, according to Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post, it’s the threat of a new baseball stadium along the dilapidated Anacostia waterfront that has many worried.

One unfortunate businessman in particular lamented, “I’m in a great state of depression…. I feel like a flyswatter is coming down on me–and I can’t run anywhere.” His name is Robert Siegel and his business is porn. He owns a few gay nightclubs and at least one adult theater and a pornshop. Sadly, a new stadium would probably shut Siegel down–or at least move him elsewhere. And though there are other businesses in the area, including cab companies and recycling centers, Siegel figures prominently in the story. Achenbach is quite critical of city planners, saying that “For some people, a neighborhood is blighted if it doesn’t have a Starbucks.”

So the skineplex is preferable to the coffee shop? Now if they were able to serve Starbucks at the movie theater…

Watched the 1966 version of Alfie starring Michael Caine recently. Fascinating in light of reports that the Jude Law version that opens this weekend makes the title character into a nicer, post-feminist, lady’s man. Also, the abortion scene in the new Alfie is apprently very different.

The original Alfie is a close, unsympathetic study of a cad and a misogynist. He addresses a woman as “Girl,” and, in his many soliloquies on the pursuit of pleasure, refers to a woman as “it.” Also, he has no scruples about punching a lady should she get above herself. His cruelty extends even to his male friends, like one who is fixed up in the hospital while Alfie seduces and impregnates his wife. A fascinating abortion scene comes next, during which the grave doctor, played by Denholm Elliott, gives a little speech about what a terrible thing an abortion is.

Not only is it a violation of the law to abort a pregnancy under the circumstances, says the abortionist, but “it’s a crime against the unborn child. It’s a course never to be undertaken lightly. Have you given the matter your fullest consideration?”

The original Alfie is a rough, judgmental movie—and by today’s standards, very conservative.

The comparison should make for a terrific barometer of changing attitudes. After all, in 1966, a man who introduced his girlfriend to the abortionist was a horrible person. Today he is a feminist and charming.

You may have caught the Law & Order: SVU episode about this case a couple weeks ago. Even the fictionalized version doesn’t prepare you for how creepy this BTK killer is. (“BTK” stands for “bind, torture, kill,” and is the moniker he goes by.

BTK was a serial killer working out of the Midwest in the ’70s He dropped off the radar after 1986, but resurfaced in June, 2004 when he sent two letters to police. Then last week he sent in a third letter.

Scary stuff.

Bill Kristol has an item up about the bin Laden tape. He points to the MEMRI translation and observes that it’s pretty clear that bin Laden is (a) trying to interfere in the election and (b) influence people against Bush. The bin Laden offer seems to be, if your state goes for Kerry, you’re safe; if it goes for Bush, you’re not safe. A few observations.

(1) Bin Laden’s offer is almost certainly disingenuous. Taken at face value, it would mean that New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. are all going to be removed from the al Qaeda target list. Fat chance.

(2) Bin Laden’s appeal displays an impressive–and worrisome–amount of political sophistication about American politics. Just 25 years ago, Islamist terrorists weren’t capable of telling the difference between France and America, let alone Reagan and Carter. We were all the same Great Satan, so far as they were concerned. Today, they’re smart enough to understand that they should kill preemptive-strike hawks second, global-test multilateralists third, and U.N.-style appeasers fourth. The Jews, for course, come first. Don’t they always.

(3) There is a considerable silver lining to the bin Laden tape: proof of life. Lot’s of people have speculated over bin Laden’s status during the last few years and one prevailing line of thought was that he was dead in a cave somewhere, buried under tons of rock, unbeknownst to his followers, and with no possibility of ever recovering his remains. In a certain way, we should be relieved that this is not the case.

If bin Laden had died quietly, we would have had to deal with his ghost for the next 40 years. Without proof of his death, the Islamists would have used his specter whenever possible to take credit for attacks, recruit new terrorists, rally the faithful, and worse–distract American intelligence. An unprovably-dead bin Laden would have forced us to waste massive financial and intelligence resources hunting for someone who wasn’t there.

Now that we know bin Laden is alive, hopefully whoever is president on January 20 will redouble our efforts to bring him in–dead, or not alive.

Since 1936, whenever the Redskins won the last game before a presidential election, the incumbent remained in power. When they lost, so did the president. This has been accurate for the last 17 elections. (Yes, I know, in 1936 the Skins were still in Boston, but I’ll get to that implication in a moment.) So yesterday’s results were by no means comforting to the GOP, considering the Redskins lost to the Packers, 28-14. Washington’s offense, led by the hapless Mark Brunell, was unable to make touchdowns even when their defense–perhaps the best in the entire league–brought them deep into Packers territory.

So does this mean Bush is doomed? Not quite. With 2 minutes and 43 seconds left in the 4th quarter, Brunell managed to connect with Clinton Portis who ran for a 43-yard touchdown. This would have ultimately put Washington in the lead, 21-20. But chaos ensued as a flag was thrown, ostensibly because of an illegal motion–first on Clinton Portis and later on Fred Smoot. It still remains unclear exactly who committed what penalty. Both staff and players were left wondering what happened–and officials have yet to give a full-explanation.

In other words, Washington should have won this game. Put the asterisk next to this loss. (Also, as one commentator pointed out, if the Red Sox were able to finally break the curse this year, so too, perhaps, with the Redskins–another team with Boston roots.)