And all fellow word nerds should enjoy this one: a short essay about the longevity of stupid phrases like “throw ____ under the bus.”

If he really meant “all hands,” then he wouldn’t be talking about helping religious groups, but every social or charity group, including the non-religious ones. (Or at least he wouldn’t be talking up the “faith-based” aspect of his plan.) But he is focusing on the religious groups, despite knowing very well that no government action that advances religion will pass constitutional muster. The government cannot just give money to religious groups for charitable purposes, but refuse to give it to other groups who want to do the same kinds of things. So, really, what good will this do?

In other words, if you’re hip to the scene, you can probably recognize this as a fairly cynical pander to religious people.

Religious people comprise a big portion of the electorate. That’s fine. Whatever. For the ones who stand to get ahold of a little extra dough through this program, this move may factor into their ultimate decision to vote for Barack Obama. But here are a couple things to think about:

First, if people who run “faith-based programs” can’t seem to convince their own “faithful” constituents to cough up enough money to get anything done, then why should taxpayers be giving them any money? This applies to any private group that stands to receive federal money.

Second, if you decide who to vote for in a presidential election based on which candidate panders to your religious beliefs, then you are severely confused about the purpose of politics, which is entirely secular. Political structures like governments are not designed to bring down benefits on particular groups or individuals, such as religious organizations, but to provide a mechanism for collective decision-making about issues of general or universal interest to the members of that political unit. For Americans, that ought to mean things like foreign policy, infrastructure, and whether or how much to regulate industry and the economy.

If you vote for candidates because of their religious beliefs, or because of their support for religious beliefs, then you are missing the point. Candidates like Barack Obama should not have to try and get your votes by pandering to your politically irrelevant hobbyhorses with things like “faith-based programs.”

The real problem is not what General Clark said, but how it was reported. In the original interview, Clark was explaining that having on-the-ground military experience does not translate into “order[ing] the bombs to fall.” He continued:

[John McCain] hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, “I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it.”

Then Bob Schieffer made a completely ridiculous and illogical remark:

I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.

So just stop right there and consider the context for what came next. General Clark pointed out that being a soldier and being commander-in-chief are vastly different, that having experience in one role does not automatically transfer to the other role. Then Bob Schieffer seemed to imply that “rid[ing] in a fighter plane and [getting] shot down” is the unique quality that John McCain brings to the mix. To which General Clark responded—and quite correctly, I think:

Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

Unfortunately, that is not how the remark has been reported. The “journalists” in broadcast media have instead turned the discussion from one of logical relevance—that is, really, how relevant to the job of President can it be that John McCain was shot down as a fighter pilot?—into one of insubstantial mudslinging and politicking.

Lately I have been railing against people who substitute meaningless fluff for substance in the name of “politics.” But here we have people taking real substance and turning it into pernicious fluff. It’s the same game. Don’t buy it.

John McCain deserves plenty of honor and respect for his military service. But when Bob Schieffer suggested that getting shot down in a fighter plane makes McCain more qualified to sit in the oval office and order the bombs to drop, that was just a stupid, flat wrong thing to say. General Clark shouldn’t be taking any heat for that one. Nor should Barack Obama. No, that stupidity was all Schieffer’s.

With some derision for the Bush administration’s arguments, a three-judge panel said the government contended that its accusations against the detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents.

The court compared that to the absurd declaration of a character in the Lewis Carroll poem “The Hunting of the Snark”: “I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”

“This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true,” said the panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Okay, who is surprised? Show of hands?

You can read a PDF of the actual opinion. Check out page 28, where it says:

[T]he government suggests that several of the assertions in the intelligence documents are reliable because they are made in at least three different documents. We are not persuaded. Lewis Carroll notwithstanding, the fact that the government has “said it thrice” does not make an allegation true. See LEWIS CARROLL, THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK 3 (1876) (“I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.”). In fact, we have no basis for concluding that there are independent sources for the documents’ thrice-made assertions. To the contrary, as noted in Part III, many of those assertions are made in identical language, suggesting that later documents may merely be citing earlier ones, and hence that all may ultimately derive from a single source. And as we have also noted, Parhat has made a credible argument that — at least for some of the assertions — the common source is the Chinese government, which may be less than objective with respect to the Uighurs. Other assertions in the documents may ultimately rely on interview reports (not provided to the Tribunal) of Uighur detainees, who may have had no first-hand knowledge and whose speculations may have been transformed into certainties in the course of being repeated by report writers.

For years now, we’ve had propaganda coming down from on high that if we let any of those Gitmo “detainees” see blue sky, home-cooked food, or their families again, we might as well kiss our keisters goodbye—but better yet, let’s torture them! Just a couple weeks ago we had Justice Scalia freaking out—there’s really no better way to describe it—over the thought of giving these people a basic human right like habeas corpus.

And now the Bush administration has a chance to ride into court, present a smoking gun, and give the lie to its many, many detractors. So what does it do? Some kind of Jedi mind trick? “These aren’t the detainees you want to set free.” “Pay no attention to the torturers behind the curtain.” Who the hell are these people and how did they get their grubby little hands on the national steering wheel?

Oh, that’s right—a couple skyscrapers got knocked down and the American people eagerly hopped into the back seat, covered their eyes, handed the government a case of whisky, and said, “Step on it!”

It’s time to swallow the fear, climb back in the driver’s seat, and get back to the highway. Enough with with the shrill paranoia, secrecy, and fear. Security is probably impossible, but justice may be within reach.

Franklin Graham issued a statement after the meeting praising the Arizona senator’s “personal faith and his moral clarity.”

Personal faith and moral clarity are vague, nebulous qualities that have little objective correspondence with the world. Not that I mean to fall into the cliché—and I don’t think this does—but Adolph Hitler had personal faith and moral clarity, too. He had personal faith in his own twisted ideology and he had moral clarity so sharp that it drove him to exterminate people who drew his moral disapproval.

But stepping back from the precipice of hyperbole, what exactly does it mean to have “personal faith and moral clarity”? Perhaps more importantly in these particular circumstances, why is it so important for John McCain to have Franklin Graham declare his “personal faith and moral clarity”?

If these qualities meant anything, wouldn’t they be apparent to everyone? Or are the Grahams more like palm readers, who pull heads of state behind their curtains, engage in a hushed dialogue, only to emerge with some kind of “expert” proclamation regarding the inner or spiritual qualities of their supplicants? What gives them the authority? And how exactly do “personal faith and moral clarity” translate into policy?

Better to vote for someone with personal integrity and intellectual clarity—those are the qualities of someone who makes good decisions. But good luck getting the voters excited about those qualities. It seems Americans prefer to hang their hat on things that equate, in practical terms, to “goes on hunches” and “shoots from the hip.” You’d think people might learn after eight years of that leadership style that it’s nothing but trouble. Apparently not.

Police on Sunday were investigating vandals’ spray-painting of dozens of city vehicles [in Orlando, Florida], some with disparaging messages about the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Authorities think the vandalism to about 60 vehicles, estimated at $10,000 in damage, was done Saturday afternoon, police spokeswoman Sgt. Barbara Jones said.

The vehicles were parked across from City Hall and investigators said culprits tagged messages including “Obama smokes crack” and a racial epithet.

They even left business cards on the vehicles that disparage both the Illinois senator and his rival, Republican John McCain. The cards voice support for Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former opponent.

It’s bad enough that Clinton supporters keep whining and refuse to move on. But committing property crimes? What is wrong with these people?

Okay, now that you’re done chuckling at how childish and transparently “political“ that sounds, read ”McCain’s Flourishing Flip-Flop List.”

And watch this video: “John McCain vs. John McCain.”

This is how politicians waste time, insult the American public, and perpetuate stupidity and ignorance. We all know that politicians change their minds about things. We should expect them to change their minds. Like the rest of us, they constantly encounter new information that may lead to a change in their views. Even if they’re acting from wholly pure motives, why should we expect them never to change their minds?

I would never vote for someone who appears never to have changed his or her mind, who seems to be flying on an ideological autopilot, without responding to circumstances, which are always changing. Those are absolutely the most dangerous people in the world.

Whether a politician has changed his or her position is and always should be a non-issue. Politicians have always changed their minds and they always will. Get over it. That John McCain is out there making this non-issue into an issue demonstrates either how far removed from reality he is or how stupid he thinks the American public is.

Worse, McCain’s cynicism shows through when he uses the stupid phrase, “keep my word.” Keeping your word is adhering to a promise to act a certain way. If your friend says, “I’ll help you move on Saturday,” but then doesn’t show up, your friend did not keep her word. If you say, “Don’t worry how much it costs, I’ll make sure it’s paid for,” then most people would say you are morally obligated to keep your word. Elected representatives are in a situation that is not remotely similar to a typical “keep your word” situation. We do not elect representatives to go to Washington and act like contractually-bound drones. That’s what proxies do. We don’t elect proxies. We elect people who will go to Washington, participate in the debate, listen to arguments—both from constituents and from other representatives—then use their informed judgment to make a decision.

There’s no “keeping your word” in elective office. But there is doing your job. And one of the jobs of elected representatives, like Senators, like both Barack Obama and John McCain, is to exercise discretion. Since they are humans, they are bound to contradict themselves. If you’ve ever met someone who didn’t contradict himself or herself, then you weren’t paying attention.

And if you are suckered in by John McCain’s talk about “keeping his word,” then you need to take another look. His statement is factually untrue (i.e., a lie) regarding whether he has changed positions, because he has in fact changed his mind on many occasions, and substantially irrelevant because it’s not his job to “keep his word.”