Perhaps you think the new voting machines are a plot by evil corporate overlords to destroy democracy. Perhaps you think the complaints about them are a plot by anarchosyndicalist elements of the Weather Underground remnant to destroy the capitalist system. Either way, some of these are quite clever. (Hat tip: the irrepressible Roy Scherer.)

It’s right there in “Oedipus Rex.“ Go read it for yourself.

That seems to be the reasoning among supporters of George Allen who are buying into his campaign’s latest attack, aimed at passages in Jim Webb’s fiction.

For once, liberals might enjoy reading (at least part of) Michelle Malkin’s views. (Hat tip: Say Anything.)

Excerpt:

Are the passages in Webb’s “Lost Soldiers” bizarre and perverted? Yes. But they are no more proof of Webb’s immorality and unfitness for office than the passages in “Sisters” are proof that Lynne Cheney hates men or that the passages in “The Apprentice” are proof that Scooter Libby endorses sex between children and bears.

p.s.—Also, Tennyson endorsed adultery. Dostoyevsky endorsed murder. Mary Shelley endorsed stitching cadavers together to make monsters. . .

p.p.s.—Didn’t Allen take to the air earlier this month to implore everyone to pay attention to real issues, not personal attacks? (Hint—yes: “Virginians expect to hear us address the real issues you care about. . . .But the negative personal attacks and baseless allegations have also pulled us away from what you expect and deserve. . . .“)

p.p.p.s. —We might as well obey Godwin’s Law and get it over with by bringing up the inevitable comparison: “Schindler’s List” shows Nazis killing Jews, but that doesn’t mean Steven Spielberg endorses the practice. . . .

Former Old Dominion University president James Koch is asking a question some find uncomfortable: Why should taxpayers hundreds or thousands of miles from Virginia Beach have to shell out big bucks for sand replenishment there?

A new report analyzes the economics of the issue. It finds that the beach is an economic asset to the community, that people are willing to pay higher prices for homes near beaches, and that beach replenishment pays for itself.

The obvious question, then, is: Why shouldn’t Virginia Beach pay for beach replenishment all by itself, through a combination of funding from (a) the real-estate taxes on locals whose property value derives from the beach’s vicinity and (b) hotel, meal, and other taxes on tourists who come to frolic in the sand? By what right should Virginia Beach take money for beach replenishment from a New Mexico waitress who never sets foot outside of Albuquerque?

p.s.—Oh, c’mon. Would you really take as much interest in the economics of beach replenishment without the picture of the blond in the bikini? Would you rather have a picture of Koch? Absolutely splendid gentleman, to be sure. But still!

That’s the description by one Muslim cleric of women who appear in public without a veil. Let’s make perfectly clear: one Muslim cleric. But also a quite senior one. He is, literally, arguing that women who are gang-raped are asking for it: 

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it . . . whose fault is it - the cats’ or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.

The article says a “large number” of Muslims condemned the remark (though it doesn’t quote any). Let’s hope so.

For those who want more information about the subject of the earlier post on Google-bombing, here is a New York Times article on the topic.

Is the obesity epidemic just another excuse for elites to tell the proles how to live? Is it even an epidemic, in the public-health sense? These questions form the subject of today’s column.

The editors of The Weekly Standard seem to think they have caught columnist George Will in a contradiction, or at least a change of heart. Will recently criticized the newly passed ban on Internet gambling as “Prohibition II,“ a “mother-hen” attempt “to purify Americans’ behavior.“ But 13 years ago, the Standard points out, Will was lamenting the “social costs” from “the rapid spread of legalized gambing”: “We are gambling with our national character, forgetting that character is destiny,“ he wrote back then.

But surely, from the notion that gambling has many social costs, it does not follow that government must prohibit gambling. Many things that are utterly deplorable also ought to be legal because they flow from the exercise of individual rights. (White-supremacist tracts and misogynistic rap lyrics come immediately to mind.)

That is a libertarian argument for allowing behavior that carries social costs; there is also a conservative argument for doing so. It might go something like this: A virtue that is imposed from above ceases to be virtuous; only when someone is free to choose is he to be commended for choosing well. It is courageous to run into a burning building to save a child—unless someone with a gun is threatening to shoot you if you don’t. Indeed, the purpose of moral education is to teach people to do the right thing even when no one is watching. A society seeking to encourage virtue must therefore rely on persuasion rather than coercion.

People ought to be free to gamble, to proclaim white supremacy, and to call women degrading names—and noble enough to refrain from all three.

A few days ago the post, “What Is Conservatism?“ asked whether it was (a) merely agreeing with anything President Bush says, or (b) upholding a set of principles and time-tested practices.

Turns out the answer is (c).

Today’s editorial taking Rush Limbaugh to task for his boorish behavior draws a rebuke from a reader who writes:

Your attack on Rush Limbaugh in the editorial comment today made me mad and I now feel you are truly and thoroughly an extreme liberal and unbalanced news medium.

Evidently conservatism consists of swallowing anything Limbaugh says, whole.

Duly noted—with a sigh.

There are many reasons to object to the new prohibition against online gambling. The implication for poker playoffs is just one of them. Radley Balko explores another, more fascinating, potential outcome.

Kevin Drum:

Conservatives have been lecturing liberals for the past few years about the fact that George Bush will be our president for the next few years whether we like it or not, so for the good of the country we ought to be supporting him instead of gleefully hoping for a failure that just hurts all of us. The stakes are high, war of civilizations, madmen with nuclear bombs, etc. etc.

So if Democrats win control of Congress this year, I expect we’ll see plenty of sober, thoughtful support for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from conservatives, right?

p.s.—Drum titles his post, “Just Asking.“ Looks like someone’s been reading the Times-Dispatch editorial page under the covers at night!

Underscoring the point of the previous post is this piece from USA Today.

Excerpt:

[T]he program encourages development in areas subject to flooding — not just in New Orleans, but everywhere — by offering insurance at bargain rates in areas where private insurers fear to tread. That increases the population in vulnerable areas, leading to more costly disasters.

Free-marketeers sometimes act as though the private sector’s superiority to the public sector were something like an immutable law of physics, applying in every time, place, and instance. Of course, that is not the case. As countless examples have demonstrated, ineptitude and corruption are human failings—so as long as private enterprise is run by humans, private enterprise will be plagued with ineptitude and corruption as well.

The virtue of the private sector is not that superior individuals go into business while inferior individuals go into government. The virtue of free enterprise is that it usually confines ineptitude and corruption to isolated institutions. Norm recently linked to an interesting essay alluding to this point. (By contrast, a government policy subjects everyone to the consequences of folly. One of the most frequent complaints about Virginia’s Standards of Learning is that they impose a “one-size-fits-all” regime on schools, classes, teachers, and students that are not all one size. Those making that complaint never seemed to ponder its broader implications relating to school choice.)

It takes government to socialize the costs of bad decisions by private entities. Classic examples: federally subsidized flood insurance and corporate bailouts. In the short term they look like compassion. In the long term they erode the barriers that confine failure and the incentives to avoid it.

. . . and those are just some of the words recently passed along to linguaphiles who subscribe to the free word-a-day e-mail service from Wordsmith.Org. If you’re a word person, you might want to sign up, too.

For those with a little more time, there’s also much to be gained from Knowledge New’s e-mail service. The daily dispatches explain, in a clear encyclopedia-like fashion, subjects such as Ramadan, how North Korea went nuclear, and the history of the swimsuit. Often keyed to news events, they give valuable background and context—without any ax-grinding.

The first President Bush famously made himself seem out of touch when he appeared surprised by a grocery store’s UPC scanner. The current one recently did so when he explained one of the things he uses “on the Google.“ (Hat tip: Waldo Jaquith.)

p.s.—Perhaps it’s unfair to needle the Commander-in-Chief for not keeping up with the latest technology. It’s not as though he doesn’t have enough on his plate already—like this.

Newsweek is absolutely right to point out that just because it was spectacularly wrong about global cooling three decades ago does not mean scientists are now wrong about global warming. A lospided scientific consensus holds that the rise in global temperatures since the middle of the past century has at least some anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) impetus. Newsweek’s past embarrassment doesn’t change the current facts on the ground.

Nevertheless, there’s just no graceful way for the magazine to argue, as it now does, that having its own past environmental alarmism debunked only proves how much more intently people should heed its alarmism now.

Yesterday’s post on new voting machines speculated that fears about technical glitches might help avert technical glitches.

So much for that theory. The Washington Post reports that “James Webb’s last name has been cut off on part of the electronic ballot used by voters in Alexandria, Falls Church and Charlottesville because of a computer glitch. . . .“

Can transportation departments learn anything from phone companies? As Marge Gunderson would say in “Fargo,“ you betcha. Today’s column explores the issue.

Occasionally letter-writers ask questions that require a direct response. But for every one who sends in a question, there are likely several more wondering the same thing. This venue seems an appropriate place to expand the discussion.

Today the paper received this query from a reader ticked off about Sunday’s endorsement of George Allen:

Why is it necessary for a news oganization to take a position, and moreso, why do you deem it necessary to publish it? With what purpose, to influence readers, advertisers? Did you take a vote of all your employees and associates and determine the majority favor George Allen, or is this endorsement self-serving to the executives at the Times-Dispatch?

As the personal reply to the author explained, the Allen endorsement—like our other editorials—is produced by the staff of the Editorial Department, with guidance from the publisher, who has ultimate authority over everything in the paper. That’s how The Washington Post produced its endorsement of Jim Webb, and how all other papers make their endorsements, too.

Not only newspapers, but also many other organizations—from the Virginia Education Association to the Fraternal Order of Police to the Chamber of Commerce—make endorsements. Strictly speaking, it isn’t “necessary” for them to do so, either, but we think they should have the freedom to do so if they please. Surely the paper should, too.

The endorsements are written, of course, to influence readers. We hope people find them persuasive—or, if not persuasive, at least thought-provoking. For some, Times-Dispatch editorials act as nothing more than a whetstone against which they will sharpen their own arguments. Happy to oblige: They also serve who only stand and whet. (There’s a difference, of course, between engaging the editorial’s points and reflexively disagreeing with anything the paper says, without taking the intermediate step of rational thought.)

The Editorial Department does not (thank goodness!) have to concern itself with advertising. We have been told that, occasionally, advertisers will object to an editorial (just as other advertisers would object if the editorial had taken precisely the opposition position). But smart businessmen care far less about what the newspaper says on a given subject than they do about how many people read the paper—about, that is, how many eyes will view their promotional material. It’s in a company’s economic interest to disregard what editorials say. A car dealership that yanks its own ad because it doesn’t like an editorial doesn’t achieve anything but sending customers to the competition. (If you’re still not convinced, compare advertisements in papers around the country. No matter the editorial stance, you’ll find the same advertisers again and again. Why? Because they’re buying space to communicate with readers, not to support or oppose an editorial stance.)

As the earlier post on the subject noted, an endorsement is simply a choice among available options—not a declaration of unconditional love.

For those who aren’t yet bored with this issue, the Virginian-Pilot just published an explanation of its own endorsement process. You can read it here.

As the saying goes, politics is a contact sport. Even so, this certainly seems like unsportsmanlike conduct—the political equivalent of click fraud (or vandalizing yard signs, for those who prefer).

Click fraud and vandalism are illegal; manipulating search engines is not. But it nevertheless is wrong. It is wrong for some of the same reasons it is wrong to, say, take every available copy of a free publication such as Style in order to keep others from reading it.

Free societies cannot pass laws to govern every conceivable circumstance; they depend to a huge degree on social norms, such as “Thou Shalt Not Cut in Line.“ More than perhaps most other venues, the Internet relies on social norms to facilitate the information marketplace. Wikipedia, for instance, has had to step up its policing of the communally written encyclopedia because some—again, predominantly those with partisan motives—have been treating it as a propaganda tool.

Search engines are designed to help people find information they want. Sometimes they fail, but the failures are not intentional. Someone looking for, say, information about People for the Ethical Treatment for Animals probably wants to visit a PETA site, or at least a site sympathetic to animal rights. She isn’t looking for a jeremiad from the Cattlemen’s Association on all the reasons PETA members are a bunch of godless commie hypocrites. Now, perhaps everything the Cattlemen say is true; perhaps they do nothing but quote news stories about PETA’s shock tactics. Nevertheless, manipulating search engines to lead people seeking info on PETA to the cattlemen’s screed is mis-leading in the most basic sense.

It is also profoundly un-democratic. There’s considerable irony inherent in a site touting “direct democracy” that doesn’t trust people to make the right decision without a hefty shove.

Buried in a recent New York Times article, “New Laws and Machines May Spell Voting Chaos,“ lies a helpful reminder from Charles Stewart, identified as the head of the political science department at MIT. According to an analysis he published this year, new voting technology helped reduce the number of mismarked ballots by roughly 1 million between 2000 and 2004. “If you think things are bad and worrisome now, they were much worse before 2000,“ he says. The difference is that, post-Florida, people are paying more attention to the issue.

Election officials are scrambling to hire people with tech experience to head off potential problems. The question, then, is whether the alarmism helps to avert a crisis. If people weren’t worried about ballot problems, ballot problems could be epidemic. But since they are worried (and doing something about it) there might not be any, so there’s nothing to worry about. Maybe.

The Washington Post isn’t nearly as left-leaning as those who don’t actually read it presume it to be. But every once in a while someone has a bad day. (It happens here, too.)

Jeffrey Smith must have been having a bad one when he wrote this gem, which has been sitting on the get-to file for a few days now: “Bush Counfounded by the ‘Unacceptable’.“

Smith is worked up by the way the President has used the word “unacceptable” with increasing frequency. And he’s gone to the trouble of combing through speeches to find examples. He starts off with the classic “at a time when”* trope: “Bush’s decision to lay down blunt new markers about the things he deems intolerable comes at an odd time, a phase of his presidency in which all manner of circumstances are not bending to his will,“ Smith writes, before proclaiming:

[T]he president’s worsening political predicament has actually stoked, rather than diminished, his desire to proclaim what he cannot abide. Some presidential scholars and psychologists describe the trend as a signpost of Bush’s rising frustration with his declining influence.

In the first nine months of this year, Bush declared more than twice as many events or outcomes “unacceptable” or “not acceptable” as he did in all of 2005, and nearly four times as many as he did in 2004. He is, in fact, at a presidential career high in denouncing events he considers intolerable.

And so on. There’s nothing factually incorrect about the piece, and it doesn’t hurl invective, aside from saying the president “hurled the term ‘unacceptable’ at actions by Iraqi insurgents,“ etc. But the piece is so dripping with contempt for Bush that it really should have come with a wet-nap.

p.s.—The article was a fine bit of writing, qua writing. It ended with this graf: “Bush’s proclamations are not the only rhetorical evidence of his mounting frustrations. One of his favorite verbal tics has long been to instruct audiences bluntly to ‘listen’ to what he is about to say, as in ‘Listen, America is respected’ (Aug. 30) or ‘Listen, this economy is good’ (May 24). This year, he made that request more often than he did in a comparable portion of 2005, a sign that he hasn’t given up hope it might work.“ Smith doesn’t conclude, “. . . even though he really should abandon that hope,“ because by the end of the piece, the reader has reached the same conclusion. Nicely done.

p.p.s.—Still, it was a nicely done column, parading as news. The Post didn’t even slap the “news analysis” fig leaf on it. Sheesh!

__________
* The rhetorical device of “comes at a time when” is a kissing cousin to “comes from the same people who,“ and sets up an implied contextual rebuff. (E.g., “The president’s upbeat speech on the economy comes at a time when food pantries and homeless shelters across the country report a sharp uptick in business. . . .“)