[Update: Since I was unable to use my PC during my recovery, I used Blogspot instead. For those of you who missed this glorious period, go to Avedon's Other Weblog, my emergency site, for the rest of my April archives.]
This is probably the last post I'll be able to make before the surgery, and it seems unlikely I'll be able to use these pages when I get back, so look for updates at
I should be working from the laptop by Friday afternoon, probably not typing very fast but at least able to post, after a fashion, by the time surftime is available at 6:00 PM. Meanwhile, I'm sure all of those people listed at right can keep you entertained. See ya in a few days.
Over at Less is More, some suggestions to win over wavering pro-invasion types, from one of their own. (BTW, "Not punchy enough" might translate as, "Needs editing." While it's true that many of the protest sign slogans turn me and a lot of other people off, you do have to be short and punchy on a sign, and these suggestions are too long. But they're good messages to put before the public, f'sure.)
I would also like to comment (in response to your post) that if Repubs are trying to replace primaries with caucuses, it may work out in liberals' favor. As a resident of a state (Minnesota) that has both, I can say that caucuses are a fine thing and preferable to primaries in many ways. In this state the Democratic caucuses almost always select the more liberal candidates, since true believers have more energy and gumption to sit out the process. Primaries, on the other hand, can and often do become an exclusive indicator of bank balances. It's no coincidence that the MN Republican party wants to phase out caucuses altogether.
Plus, I think caucuses are just a better, more engaging system: Hashing out questions of policy face-to-face is much more truly democratic (little d) than marking a ballot in isolation and then returning home.
On the minus side, caucuses are funded by the party whereas primaries are funded by the state, so one could certainly argue that the change would be shifting costs from the public to the party, and would constitute an unfair penalty for Dems when the Repub candidate would run unopposed.
Just my 2 cents.
Something to think about, but I want to see what Max and Nathan think before I make up my mind.
And I'd like to thank Stefani and everyone else who sent their good wishes for the surgery. It's not too far away now and I'm beginning to panic, so I appreciate all of your kind thoughts.
And damn, how did I fail to notice that Seth Finklestein has been doing a weblog, Infothought, since September? Seth is one of the best free-speech guys on the Internet, maybe the best.
And I've fixed the picture page and included the photo credits.
