My God.

I just saw it.

Couldn't get the download to work yesterday. A reader sent a new link.

Eminem. Mosh. If you thought Farenheit 911 was powerful.

Watch.

And then go request it for MTV's TRL. I'll get the links when I get home. I'm late. Was late to begin with, only supposed to check out a few seconds of it. Couldn't pull my eyes away. Or my ears.

Still shuddering.

I finally started Tivoing Jeopardy, to check out this Ken guy.

I watched him top $2 million, face a little scare yesterday--meaning he went to final jeopardy in jeopardy--and I don't hate him, but I can't say I'd want to spend five minutes with him. Kind of annoys me. No big Ken fan here. Not even a little one.

Nationally, Kerry gained two in Zogby today, and lost one in Rasmussen (on top of his gain of two in last night's W Post).

Things looking better on the state front. From Slate:

Analysis Oct. 27, 11 a.m. ET: Bush holds his ground in Zogby's Ohio and Florida tracking polls, but the evidence for him remains unconvincing in Ohio and perilously thin in Florida. In Iowa, he drops to a tie. In Wisconsin, he goes from 2 points up to 2 down. Outside of Ohio, we don't see a single Kerry state in jeopardy. Iowa would get him only a tie, but he'd win with Wisconsin or Florida, both of which are at risk in the next round of polling.

That may be a bit confusing if you have not been following them or looking at the map (link above). Latest Zogby shows Bush ahead in OH and FL, but that contradicts most polls in OH, and about half of them in FL.

Slate's consensus shows FL, IA, NM and WI all iffy for Bush, OH iffy for Kerry, with FL and WI right on the tipping point to Kerry. Most polls in FL & WI show the two extremely close, with a split on who is leading. Kerry has creeped up more and more in those two states, and Slate is saying that with one more little creep, they'll call the states for Kerry.

The good news is that Bush has really gone on the defensive. There are now five states most in play, and Kerry only has to defend one of them: OH. If he can pick off one or two of Bush's four (depending which), he wins.

And of course all that is before you factor the usual incumbent rule, GOTV, etc.

Bush's people must be sweating.

From Bloomberg:

The moon will begin slipping into the Earth's shadow at about 9:14 p.m. New York time today, beginning a 3 1/2-hour event visible from Alaska to Afghanistan. ...

The eastern two-thirds of the U.S., Canada and central and South America will be able to see the full eclipse, and West Coast residents will be able to view most of the event after sunset. It will be visible in western Europe in the early morning of Oct. 28. The sun will rise about midway through the eclipse in Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia.

Into the Umbra

A lunar eclipse begins when the moon enters the penumbra, or the lighter, outer part of the Earth's shadow. It then crosses into the umbra, the darker, inner part of the shadow. An eclipse is considered total when the entire moon passes through the umbra.

The total eclipse is expected to begin at 10:23 p.m. Eastern time and last about an hour. The last total lunar eclipse took place on May 4 and was visible from Europe, Africa and central Asia.

A little more background from AP, of all places:

With the Earth passing directly between the sun and the moon, the only light hitting the full moon will be from the home planet's sunrises and sunsets, thus the orange and red hue. . . .

Ash from volcanic eruptions, for example, can make an eclipsed moon look much darker. The recent eruptions of Mount St. Helens in Washington have consisted of far more steam than ash, and therefore the moon should appear bright and coppery red on Wednesday night, NASA said. The next total eclipse of the moon will not be until March 2007.

A lot more info here.

I have held off commenting for two days, because I just don't know what to make of this.

It happened on GMA, of all places, but here's the opening of the Times' story:

In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." ABC, which broadcast part of the interview on Monday, is to broadcast the part about civil unions on Tuesday.

According to an ABC transcript, Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions.

"Well, I don't," Mr. Bush replied.

Huh.

A week before the election, my first, second and third reactions are all: What does he hope to get from this.

Appeal to those suburban voters, I guess, who supposedly think he's too mean-spirited on gays. Seems much more likely to turn off the Evangelical Christian base he's been trying to evangelize.

Puzzling.

And kind of idiotic. Wasn't he in charge of the platform? Doesn't he support the state constitutions amendments that would outlaw these unions?

But let's ignore all that and just take a moment to celebrate.

I find myself agreeing pretty wholeheartedly with Kos:

While this appears to be a calculated, late attempt to move to the middle, it still is a significant milestone in the battle for equality under the law.

Remember, it was just a year ago that Howard Dean was a far-left crazy wacko for daring to defend civil unions during the primary campaign. It was one of his stances that allegedly made him "unelectable". Now, it's the default position for even those who would seek to deny gays the right to marry.

I read that yesterday morning, and was tempted to quote it then, but I was highly conflicted. But . . .

Who cares why he did it. It was a milestone. The sitting, Republican, messianic president comes out in favor of gay marraige, so long as we're forbidden from calling it that. The forbidden from calling it that part really sticks in my craw, but hey, I'll take what I can get. Kos is right, this is a huge leap from just a few years ago. Most Democrats and aetheists--notice I am not equating the two--found that position political suicide just a year or two ago.

Now he has made it acceptable. And even a liberal Dem who believes in the first amendment who gets charged with an anti-American Evangelical with rejecting God to support Gay Marraige Lite, he or she can take political cover by pointing out he's taken the same position as The Last Messianic President.

And so on. It signals to a whole lot of people that it's OK.

It's not the biggest step we have ever taken, and it certainly won't force every Religious Right wingnut to accept us. But it's a pretty big step.

As several Kos readers point out (same link), this helps also gays by reframing the debate as it should be, in terms of rights. One entry:

It is important that Bush mentioned "rights" in his statement. This is important, since this frames the issue of civil marriage for gays and lesbians as about individual rights. Bush and others have been framing the issue as about protecting children and traditional values - which is not only more difficult to challenge but is also very dangerous for gays and lesbians. Turning gays and lesbians into threats against children and society is a low form of propaganda.

Great piece on Kos, about the issue most disturbing to me.

Even for the WSJ, this is just too much.

Read the revolting entry here.

Here's the summary, which reads like so much media crap:

A) Republicans are spending untold thousands on lawyer goon squads created with the single purpose of disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters, many of whom are first-time voters spurred to participation by Bush's singular failure, and most of whom live in communities that were up until recently subject to statutory disenfranchisement;

B) Democrats are saying nasty, albeit true, things about Bush;

C) Therefore, both sides are engaging in voter supression.

Even for the WSJ, this is atrocious.