The New Yorker's cover depicting Barack Obama as an Islamic terrorist is a disaster. It is an unmitigated disaster on its own terms. It will function as wildly successful propaganda for its publication's ideological enemies. It will humiliate its authors and their friends. And the ensuing debate will demean all parties involved.

The bomb in the turban of this cartoon is about to explode. So what happened? What were they thinking?

It's simple; the cartoon was born in a closed society of intellectuals, vetted by that closed society of intellectuals, and never allowed to escape its native context -- its "bubble," if you will -- until the die had been cast. It is a defiant assertion of intellectual self-awareness and proper contextualization.

It is the ultimate glass jaw of self-defeating propaganda, and nobody even bothered to tap lightly upon it before sending it into the ring.

More below the fold.

I'm a Massachusetts voter, and I think it's pretty easy to explain Deval Patrick's huge gains in recent polls and Chris Gabrieli's matching kamikaze dive. That's because I wasn't planning to vote in the primary two weeks ago. Now I am, for Deval Patrick.

It's this simple: Patrick's campaign is running advertisements in which Patrick touts progressive Democratic concerns. On the other hand, Gabrieli has been running ads that argue, "It shouldn't matter whether an idea is Democratic or Republican, as long as it works."

That clears things up well enough for me!

Know what it means when a Bush Administration official resigns abruptly and without explanation on a Friday? That's right! The official's criminal, immoral, or incompetent dealings are revealed for the world to see on Monday. (At which time he's universally labeled a "former Bush Administration official," as if he resigned sometime back in 2001.)

So let's all stay tuned to find out just why Mr. Crawford has been voted off Fraud Island. Is anyone out there clever enough to figure out the exact nature of Lester's transgressions? I've seen one hint that he failed to disclose financials during his confirmation, but nothing else.

Anything that raises the public's awareness of the filthy games Bush's cronies at the FDA have been playing with Plan B, Vioxx and other drugs has got to be good for Democrats.

The Justice Department has shocked all observers of the government's civil racketeering case against Big Tobacco by abruptly reducing its demanded penalty from $130b to $10b, without even providing a hint of a reason for doing so. Here's the Washington Post:

Of course, if you believe the tobacco companies were really surprised, you don't know how much they contributed to Bush's reelection campaign. More below the cut.

For the same reason we don't need a special "White History Month," don't you think we could just skip "Terrorize The Gay Kids Day?" They already kill themselves often enough, wouldn't you think?

NEW YORK (AP) -- Irked by the success of the nationwide Day of Silence, which seeks to combat anti-gay bias in schools, conservative activists are launching a counter-event this week called the Day of Truth aimed at mobilizing students who believe homosexuality is sinful.

Participating students are being offered T-shirts with the slogan "The Truth Cannot be Silenced" and cards to pass out to classmates Thursday -- the day following the Day of Silence -- declaring their unwillingness to condone "detrimental personal and social behavior."

Source: AP via Wired. More below the cut.

In honor of Tom DeLay's impending fall from power and the subsequent collapse of the corrupt Republican House, I've mutilated some William Butler Yeats for your enjoyment.

American government achieved two great victories in the twentieth century: the Marshall Plan and the New Deal. Here's hoping we still retain the courage of our forefathers.

Nothing like waking up on a cold Monday morning to find an editorial by Interior Secretary Gale Norton in the New York Times, praising -- you guessed it! -- drilling in ANWR. I love the way you can't tell the difference between an editorial page and a billboard anymore.

It's the same trash that the oil companies have been pushing for ages. Nothing new here, just the same tired excuses for a short-term development windfall at the expense of our last untouched frontiers.

Of course, the difference is that Republicans now have the votes to make all their nasty fantasies come true. I only hope they pay for every shameful act of corruption with a lost Congressional seat in 2006.

Guess what? Bush doesn't oppose all tax increases -- heavens forbid! No, he opposes tax rate increases. On that point Our Leader shall never waver. But if increasing the cap on payroll taxes beyond $90,000 is what it takes to make Social Security solvent... well... as long as the rate doesn't change, he's all clear, see?

(Guess what else? Bush doesn't oppose all flip-flopping -- heaven forbid! No, no, he opposes flipping -- he has made that perfectly clear. But if flopping is what it takes to make his positions coherent... well...)

Who wants America to fight a war with Iran? Yes, that's correct, Donald Rumsfeld. We all get gold stars for the obvious answer. But... what about Iran? Are we being led into an ambush, military or otherwise?

Yes, I've read my Seymour Hersh. I know the Bush Administration is eager to trigger a war with Iran. I know Selective Service is ready to propose a 'limited draft of non-combat professionals,' concocted to subvert resistance to forced combat service, raise the draft age, and end the impartial lottery. I know what our pathetic non-strategists have planned for the next four years, and I know they still don't have a strategy for winning the peace. Any peace.

But are we, like our lousy president, too ignorant of forces beyond Rumsfeld's myopic view? Are the Iranians cowering in terror of American aggression -- or are they quietly preparing a game plan? One whose goal isn't America's humiliation, but Iran's ascension as a regional superpower?

No, I don't trust Arnold. Not as far as I could throw him, and I couldn't throw him at all. But I just stopped thinking of the guy as a joke, and here's why.

In Schwarzenegger's last State of the State address, he proposed a drastic change in the way California's congressional and state legislative districts are drawn. Instead of being drawn up by the state legislature itself - a cynical system that results in 80% of the seats in the House of Representatives being "safe" every election - Schwarzenegger proposes that a panel of three retired judges be given authority over the redistricting process. This could be very dangerous, or it could be the greatest opportunity for reform that we'll see in our lifetimes.

Look, I don't agree with everything written in The New Republic's pages. I know they have their biases. But I consider them a good rag, and I pay to read their shit.

So what's this great big sidebar banner I read at the side of my story page blaring, "WILL KERRY SUPPORT SECURITY FOR ISRAEL? WHO KNOWS? NOT EVEN KERRY."

(request for advice beneath the cut)

Even though everyone save Bush himself agrees that Bush's performance in the first debate was pathetic and content-free, Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle is staying the course. Since she's one of the only pundits recently stupid enough to proclaim a Bush victory, she's hit the #1 spot on Google News, of course. Lots of demand for that brand of stupidity, surprisingly short supply.

Apparently, although the challenger won the debate on style (oh, that slickster Kerry!), Bush won on substance. What substance? I'm not sure. But Saunders' mantra is: "So why did Kerry vote for the war resolution?"

(Vehement response and too many italics below the cut.)

Voters learned two very important things by watching last night's debate:

• Kerry is not a caricature. He is a statesman with strong beliefs about how things should have been done differently in Bush's term, and clear, simple plans for starting to repair Bush's mistakes in Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

• When Bush talks about facts instead of ideas like "freedom" and "determination," he's utterly lost. He knows what he believes, but he has no clue how to achieve his goals. Surprisingly, his plan really is "more of the same."

(More below the cut...)

Although I'm concerned about Porter Goss, I have to add my voice to those who think Senate Democrats were right not to oppose his confirmation.

Normally, I don't object to Reuters as a news source. However, this article stinks of partisanship:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=6285015

Don't get me wrong. I agree that the Electoral College is an ancient and crusty institution that breeds opportunities for corruption and disenfranchises the vast majority of Americans. I lean towards thinking that it'd be a great thing to get rid of, if only it were plausible to amend the Constitution for procedural reasons, which it's not.

But... consider how campaigns would change if it were abolished, and why this half-assed institution was created in the first place.

All the whining about how "Kerry should have responded more forcefully!" to the Swift Boat attacks ignores the fact that Kerry's campaign had to start spending its "home stretch" federal funds three weeks ago, while Bush's only started doing so last Thursday. (As every dutiful dKos citizen knows, parties must begin spending their limited federal funds after their candidate accepts the nomination.)

For the past three weeks, Kerry's spending options have been severely limited. And Karl Rove has been trying his damnedest to get Kerry to break that discipline, knowing that federal dollars spent in October will be immeasurably more effective than federal dollars spent in August.

Karl Rove would have LOVED to see Kerry wasting irreplaceable federal funds trying to counter phantom money spent by a 527. Talk about something for nothing! Of course we're all spoiling for a fight -- that was the point of Kerry's midnight rally last Thursday, wasn't it? But Kerry is an experienced and patient campaigner, and he knows better than anyone -- except maybe Howard Dean -- about the perils of burning out early.

The Republican convention will actually be interesting. So far, the Bush campaign has been utterly helpless to articulate a vision for his second term. But they have some of the lowest, sneakiest liars in the world on their team, they've started to comprehend the disaster of the stealthily successful Democratic convention, and they'll have been working night and day to plot a new strategy for the convention. Will they make a sally from the Slime and Defend trenches, or stay hunkered down and pray for a Major News Event?