During my sojourn in Connecticut, the world has not stopped turning, and news has not stopped breaking. But I have been, for the most part, too busy/lazy to post about it. Here, however, is a brief overview of some stories that I should be posting about. :)

Gay marriage in Massachusetts: Today’s the day. But is there really any point in posting about this? You all know where I stand, and I know where all of you (i.e., my regular readers) stand. Blah blah, civil rights, blah blah, judicial activism. Been there, done that. Moving on…

Report says Rummy ordered torture; Pentagon denies it: Full ramifications not immediately clear, since who knows if it’s true? If true, smoking gun. If not true, liberal media bias. Again, we’ve had this debate before. Moving on…

Saddam’s WMD: Poorly constructed sarin-gas artillery round detonates in Iraq; was probably an old Saddam relic. Again, full ramifications not immediately clear. Maybe I’ll have more to say when the fog of war lifts.

Iraqi governing council president killed: Sad, but not as devastating as it might seem, since it’s a monthly rotating presidency anyway. Also, I don’t need to post about it, because CNN Breaking News did so for me.

Michael Moore’s big day: Audience gives anti-Bush documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11″ the longest standing ovation (20 minutes!) in the history of the Cannes film festival. But are we really surprised? They’re French. Drudge goes nuts. But are we really surprised? He’s Drudge.

NBA, NHL playoffs: Eh. Wake me when it’s the finals. Scratch that; wake me when somebody is one game away from winning the finals.

UPDATE: I will add this, regarding gay marriage, from here in Connecticut:

Connecticut law does not allow for same-sex marriages, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said today. …

Blumenthal said there is nothing in Connecticut law that allows or authorizes marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples.

Blumenthal said Connecticut statutes refer to a “bride” and “groom” and a “husband” and “wife” and said these terms are commonly understood to refer to a man and a woman.

He declined to say whether Connecticut can recognize same-sex marriages from out of state.

“An answer would require me to make law, not interpret it,” Blumenthal said.

And non-legislative officeholders would never dream of doing that. :)

Congratulations to all the newly married Massachusetts couples. Blogger John Scalzi has some advice for them. It applies just as well to straights as to gays, and I e-mailed the link to Becky. Some good stuff, there.

Britain’s Daily Mirror has apologized for publishing fake photos of alleged Iraq prison abuse, and has fired its editor.

Not that that’s enough to convince some people of the photos’ inauthenticity. “Fake” Abuse Photos Help Al Qaeda - UK Soldiers, declares the Reuters “news” service.

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe is also eating crow over some pornographic prison-abuse fakes that it published.

Of course, really, this is all part of a vast military cover-up, don’t you know. All of these “fakes” are actually real, and there are many more out there, including a picture — nay, a video! — of George W. Bush personally torturing several Iraqi babies while Dick Cheney looks on, pointing and smiling. [/sarcasm]

I’m back from our weekly Wednesday lunch meeting, which is on-the-clock work time, so I have a few more minutes of freedom to post some lunch-break tidbits…

The Reform Party has endorsed Ralph Nader. Wow: from Perot to Buchanan to Nader in just eight years. What a circus.

(If the party of Perot, who arguably acted as the “spoiler” in Bush I’s defeat in 1992, now acts as the spoiler that keeps Bush II in office in 2004, will that be poetic justice… or sad irony? I guess it depends which side you’re on.)

Meanwhile, USA Today has an analysis of John Kerry’s struggles in today’s paper. The money quote comes from David Letterman, who said on Monday night’s show, “Gas prices are up, the stock market is down, Iraq is a mess, and John Kerry is saying to himself, ‘How am I going to beat this guy?’” Heh.

Kaus has more dump-Kerry fodder (of course) in his “Dem Panic Watch 5,” pointing out that the haughty, Tales from the Crypt-looking senator who by the way served in Vietnam is only up by one point in California. But hey — “Don’t worry! He’s a good closer!” Mickey adds sarcastically.

In other news, notwithstanding this article that Andrew e-mailed me on Monday, “A group of libertarian-minded Republicans in Congress is blocking President Bush’s effort to strengthen domestic counterterrorism laws and reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, which the president has made one of his top domestic priorities this year,” according to The Hill. Well, good for them.

Fox is airing a 10-minute preview of the global-warming disaster flick The Day After Tomorrow tonight at 7:44 PM Arizona time. (Check your local listings for the time in your area.) That’s right, 7:44 PM. That 70s Show goes from 7:00 to 7:44, the Tomorrow preview runs from 7:44 to 7:54, and the American Idol results show begins at 7:54 and ends at 9:00. Methinks the Fox scheduling people were smoking a bit too much crack when they came up with this one. (Tomorrow, Al Gore’s new favorite movie, opens on May 28.)

And finally, in today’s inflame-the-comment-war item, let it be known that Vatican foreign minister Giovanni Lajolo thinks Abu Ghraib is a bigger blow to America than 9/11.

I’m, uh, not so sure about that one… but then he actually gives a rather intelligent summary of the whole thing, IMHO:

Lajolo said that “intelligent people in Arab countries understand that in a democracy such episodes are not hidden and are punished … Still the vast mass of people — under the influence of Arab media — cannot but feel aversion and hate for the West growing inside themselves.”

Well, that’s it for now. Oh, but wait! Breaking news from Drudge! “‘I don’t know how the hell these people got into our army,’ Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) said after viewing more abuse images from Abu Ghraib prison.” Story here.

John Kerry said today that his #1 choice for defense secretary would be… John McCain.

Doesn’t this rather ballsy (some would say cheeky) statement by Kerry leave the door wide open for Bush to dump Rumsfeld and appoint McCain as his replacement, thus making Kerry look like a complete ass? What better way to blunt your opponent’s criticism of your foreign policy than by naming his #1 choice for defense secretary as your defense secretary!

Of course, we all know Bush and McCain don’t like each other, and the good senator would be, for all practical intents and purposes, an interim secretary; Bush would undoubtedly pick someone else for his second administration if re-elected. (McCain would know this too, which makes one wonder if he would take the job, giving up his precious Senate seat in the process.)

But if Rummy falls on his sword, and if McCain could be convinced somehow to come on board (offer him a cushy ambassadorship in the second administration, or something), he would actually be a rather convenient choice from Bush’s perspective, in more ways than one: his unique bipartisan-ish status would virtually guarantee a quick Senate approval (wouldn’t it?), and he’s a media darling, so his appointment would give Bush all sorts of positive publicity. Plus, it would tie McCain’s hands behind his back with regard to accepting any possible veep overtures from Kerry.

If I were Bush, I’d give it a shot.

P.S. The McCain Option does have at least one downside for Bush, as the Washington Post pointed out last week in its list of possible Rummy replacements: McCain’s Senate seat would be temporarily filled by an appointee of Arizona’s Democratic governor, Janet Napolitano, bringing us back to a 50-50 split for a while. But, as the Post says, “the Senate doesn’t do much these days anyway” — and besides, how much cajoling would it really take to induce Zell Miller to switch sides once and for all?

The good news is, President Bush’s approval rating has reached an all-time low. The bad news is, John Kerry is getting absolutely no benefit from it. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

The Bush decline did not produce new support for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the expected Democratic presidential nominee. In a hypothetical matchup among likely voters, Kerry fell 2 points since last week — from 49% to 47% — and remained in a dead heat with Bush, who was steady at 48%.

In the 16 states that were close in 2000, the new poll shows Bush with a 5-point edge over Kerry, 51%-46%, among likely voters. In mid-April, Bush and Kerry were tied at 49%.

That’s right: after a couple of the worst weeks of the Bush presidency, the president’s approval ratings have dipped to their lowest levels ever, yet Dubya has actually gained a net 5 points on Kerry in the battleground states.

It truly is remarkable what a weak nominee Kerry is. I mean, really. Howard Freakin’ Dean would probably be leading Bush in the polls right now. John Edwards could have built a double-digit lead by now just by standing there and looking pretty. But Kerry has bungled things so badly that there is a very real chance Bush will win by default even if things continue to go this badly for him!

Hey, Mickey! Time for some more Dem panic, eh?

My own personal panic is further reinforced by an article by John Zogby which was intended to show that Kerry is the man to beat in November. And granted, Zogby makes some good points in that regard. But I think the most telling statistics he offers are boldfaced below:

Senator Kerry is leading 47% to 44% in a two-way race, and the candidates are tied at 45% in the three-way race with Ralph Nader. Significantly, only 44% feel that the country is headed in the right direction and only 43% believe that President Bush deserves to be re-elected - compared with 51% who say it is time for someone new.

Got that? Fifty-one percent believe Bush does not deserve to be re-elected, that it’s “time for someone new,” yet only 47% plan to vote for Kerry in a two-way race (and only 45% if Nader is factored in). Of course, these numbers can, and will, change. But at such a polarized moment in American politics, the fact that 4 to 6 percent of anti-Bush folks don’t plan to vote for Kerry (and moreover, that 1 percent of anti-Bush folks plan to vote for Bush!!) strikes me as very bad news.

Put another way, what these numbers tell me is that if John Kerry were a nameless, faceless, hypothetical opponent, he would — he should — be leading Bush 51% to 43%. Instead, he’s only up 47% to 44% by Zogby’s count (and that’s about the most optimistic count out there).

Paaa-thetic.

Oh white knight, where are you? (At this point, I’d almost settle for her.)

P.S. How does Nader’s entry into the race manage to increase Bush’s percentage — not his margin, his raw percentage — by one point?

California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, has condemned the torture of Iraqi prisoners by some U.S. soldiers, and has called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign over the scandal. But yesterday, she couldn’t bring herself to vote in favor of a House resolution condemning the actions of the soldiers involved.

Neither could 48 other Democrats, including eight of Pelosi’s fellow Californians, six New Yorkers, and the entire Ohio Democratic delegation (all five of them). One Arizona congressman, Raul M. Grijalva, voted against the measure, as did 26 other Dems from around the country. (One Republican, Ron Paul of Texas, also voted against the resolution.) The final roll call was 365-50.

The obvious question for the 50 dissenters is: Why?

Examining the full text of the resolution, it is difficult to find anything objectionable. It is hard to believe, for example, that a bunch of “usual-suspect” liberals — Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel, etc. — would have suddenly become so pro-military as to disagree that “the American people and the world are dismayed by revelations of abuses inflicted upon detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad” or that “the United States Central Command has identified problems of leadership, chain of command, and training that contributed to the instances of abuse” or that “such abuses are offensive to the principles and values of the American people.”

So perhaps these “Democrats for torture” actually opposed the resolution because of its flip side — the part that praises the brave men and women who make up the bulk of our military? That seems slightly more plausible, but again, it’s hard to find anything worth voting against:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives…

Declares that the alleged crimes of a handful of individuals should not detract from the commendable sacrifices of over 300,000 members of the United States Armed Forces who have served, or who are serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom…

Expresses the deep appreciation of the Nation to the courageous and honorable members of the Armed Forces who have selflessly served, or who are currently serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Expresses the support and thanks of the Nation to the families and friends of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors, and Coast Guardsmen who have served, or who are serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom; and

Expresses the continuing solidarity and support of the House of Representatives and the American people for the partnership of the United States with the Iraqi people in building a viable Iraqi government and a secure nation.

So if there’s nothing objectionably anti-military, and nothing objectionably pro-military, then what was so wrong with this resolution that 49 Democrats, including the minority leader, felt the need to vote against it? Well, according to Reuters, it isn’t what the resolution said — it’s what it didn’t say:

While foes of the resolution deplored the mistreatment of inmates, they said the measure should have also affirmed the need for bipartisan congressional investigations. …

Democrats had sought to broaden the House resolution to declare the need for congressional investigations that would examine alleged abuse by military personnel as well as by civilian personnel and “into the chain of command.”

“Congress has not only the right but the responsibility to determine what went wrong,” said Rep. James McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat.

The Hill has more on the partisan machinations that led to the votes against the resolution.

Leaving aside the question of whether the Democrats’ desire for a congressional investigation is right or wrong, I’m struck by the silliness of their decision, after losing that particular battle, to actually vote against the final resolution as written. Their opponents thwarted their attempts to include an amendment, so, like a three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum, they proceeded to vote against a resolution whose only alleged sin was one of omission. They didn’t disagree with anything in the text, but they voted “nay” on it anyway, just to spite the Republicans!!!

I know this sort of thing is common in Washington, but I still think it’s really, really stupid. Call me old-fashioned, but I would like to see the representatives of the people in the Congress — my Congress — put partisanship aside for a moment and, oh I don’t know, unanimously condemn the torture of Iraqis.

Whatever their rationale, the fact is that Pelosi and 49 others are permanently on record as not condemning torture. And I don’t think that’s something to be particularly proud of.

John Kerry is in Phoenix today. He will be speaking at the Democratic Leadership Council’s annual gathering at 9:30 AM MST, just over 90 minutes from now, at the Biltmore Hotel, which is several miles from my office.

According to this press release, Kerry will leave from Phoenix Sky Harbor airport at 1:30 PM. And as of yesterday, the Arizona Republic reported:

Kerry’s appearances are not open to the public, but his campaign was trying to make arrangements for the public to give him a send-off at 1:30 p.m. at Sky Harbor International Airport. Details were unavailable Wednesday.

Hmm… the airport isn’t far from where I work… I’ll have to see if I can find out more.

UPDATE: Just called the Arizona Democratic Party headquarters. They said there won’t a public airport event after all, because “the airport didn’t allow it.” Oh, well.

Okay everybody, turn your cynicism and partisanship switches to the “off” position for a moment: This is touching.

Okay, back to normal now. :)

This can’t be good:

Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is “unfit to be commander-in-chief.” They will do so at a press conference in Washington on Tuesday.

“What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension,” John O’Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com. … “We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief,” O’Neill said.

Aside from the confusion of the words “historic” and “historical,” this sounds legit, and troubling. Time for some more Dem panic?

Heh.

On Easter, I put an MP3 of Jesus Christ is Risen Today on my blog, so it seems only appropriate that on May Day, I make the Soviet National Anthem available for download. (Turn your volume down; it’s a rather loud MP3.)

Heh. Mr. Lombardi, are you out there? [inside reference alert]

Oh, hey, and make sure to check out the Politburo Diktat blog. In honor of the occasion, you know.

P.S. I’m not really a communist. Honest!