The New York Times admits it has a liberal bias.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.

Bully for Daniel Okrent, the paper's ombudsman, for writing this column. He states at the end that he's going on vacation now; will he have a job to come back to afterwards?

Most of the ink spilled here is devoted to social issues, where my own viewpoint actually isn't that far from the Times. (Except that, for some bizarre reason, the gun issue seems to track closely with social conservatism. Which makes absolutely no sense to me: shouldn't it be obvious that the solution to, for instance, gay-bashing, is for gays to pack heat?)

I'm far more interested (now) in Okrent's take on political coverage, especially in what promises to be an spectacularly shrill campaign... in which, for instance, theft of an entire Time-Life set of Top Secret codeword documents by a former Clinton official is somehow construed as a sign of Bush's perfidy.

I wish all corporate press releases were this well written.

Two gigs of storage? What hath Gmail wrought? (Whatever it is, I like it...)

Now here's a perfect slogan to motivate the undecided middle in America: John Kerry Is A Douche Bag But I'm Voting For Him Anyway.

Did the Democrats learn nothing from the California governor's race? This kind of talk doesn't win over anyone who wasn't on his side to begin with. In order to win the election, Kerry is going to need to win at least a few votes from people who don't hate George W. Bush. Even voters who only dislike Bush enough to consider him (to borrow the phrase) a "douchebag", are likely to think, "Well, better a douchebag I know..."

What, exactly, does Kerry stand for? What does he believe in? What is he willing to fight for? Or fight against, other than Bush and his fellow Republicans? If he can't answer that question, he's going to lose, no matter where the polls stand right now.

Mohammed says it is his birthday, but he will not celebrate this year. Just read it.

jacob likes Scheme. I don't. If you care, read his piece on kuro5hin, then read on here for my reasons why.

In the wake of the attacks in Spain, Fareed Zakaria reminds us who it is we are fighting ... regardless of whether it was ETA or Al Qaeda that was to blame:

"The purpose of terrorism," Vladimir Lenin once said, "is to terrorize." Like much of what he said, this is wrong. Terrorism has traditionally been used to advance political goals. That's why a rule of terrorists used to be: "We want a few people dead and a lot of people watching." Terrorists sought attention but didn't want people to lose sympathy for their cause.

Yet with many terrorist groups -- like ETA, like al Qaeda -- violence has become an end in itself. They want a lot of people dead, period.

From the "why-didn't-I-think-of-that" department: HP announces a new drive that labels a CD or DVD by etching the label onto the surface of the media, with the same laser that's used to write the data:

Looking for a way to label your multitude of CDs and DVDs neatly and efficiently? HP has come up with an elegant answer: Use the same laser that already burned the data to make a label on the flip side of the disc.

A technology dubbed LightScribe enables drives to burn a silk screen-like, high-contrast label on the upper side of CD or DVD media bearing a special coating. After completing a data burn, users will be prompted to flip the disc over to burn a label onto the other side.

Andrew Sullivan directs us to Jeffrey Overstreet's interview with John Rhys-Davies, which contains this haunting passage:

I grew up in colonial Africa. And I remember in 1955, it would have to be somewhere between July the 25th when the school holiday started and September the 18th when the holidays ended. My father took me down to the quayside in Dar-Es-Salaam harbor. And he pointed out a dhow in the harbor and he said, "You see that dhow there? Twice a year it comes down from Aden. It stops here and goes down [South]. On the way down it's got boxes of machinery and goods. On the way back up it's got two or three little black boys on it. Now, those boys are slaves. And the United Nations will not let me do anything about it."

The conversation went on. "Look, boy. There is not going to be a World War between Russia and the United. The next World War will be between Islam and the West."

This is 1955! I said to him, "Dad, you're nuts! The Crusades have been over for hundreds of years!"

And he said, "Well, I know, but militant Islam is on the rise again. And you will see it in your lifetime."

Yes, the biggest mass-murderer since Pol Pot has been captured, and is likely to face harsh judgment at the hands of those he once oppressed. Millions are now freed from the fear that someday, somehow, the tyrant will return and the reign of terror will begin anew. And the nation he once did his best to pillage, maim, and destroy now takes another step on its way to becoming an actual democracy -- the first such in the Arab world, but hopefully not the last.

Naturally, this must somehow be construed as bad news.

I predicted before that the Democratic race for the nomination will be a bloody fight between the Angry Left, led by Howard dean, and the moderates. I initially expected Wes Clark would lead the moderates, with the blessing of Terry McAuliffe and the Clinton machine; that appears to ahve fizzled. But I fully expect a more moderate voice to emerge -- Leiberman, Gephardt, or Kerry -- and the Clintonistas will circle that candidate by default.

Michael Barone sees it similarly:

Dean has a wide lead over John Kerry in New Hampshire and runs at or near the top in national polls. So Dean's competitors have started to take a different tack. At the November 15 Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Des Moines, Kerry and John Edwards said that the party needs a nominee with answers, not anger. Gephardt and Joe Lieberman have struck similar notes. They hope to be the un-Dean--the candidate who survives Iowa, New Hampshire, and the gantlet of February 3 contests and then faces off against Dean in the big states starting with Michigan February 7. Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi expects that someone will emerge as the un-Dean. And it's not clear that in the big states Bush haters will outnumber more ambivalent Democrats. Either Dean or the un-Dean, whoever he turns out to be, could win.

But Democrats will have a problem either way. If the un-Dean wins, Dean's enthusiastic supporters will be bitterly disappointed. Some will not want to vote for a Democrat who voted for military action in Iraq. The Green Party nominee, whether Ralph Nader runs or not, could easily exceed the 3 percent Nader won in 2000. That would hurt with the electorate this closely divided. Just ask Al Gore.

(Read the whole thing.)

I'll make another prediction (and a 100% refund if it doesn't come true): despite the conflict within the Democratic Party, the decisive moment in the conflict will be the Republican convention.

Why? The location, of course: New York City. Just imagine the protests. Imagine the counter-protests. Were Giuliani still in charge (as many will wistfully lament, surely), order would be imposed, and none too gently; but Bloomberg is going to want to seem kinder and gentler than his predecessor -- an approach which will work about as well for him as for Bush père.

Picture the mayhem outside, while the Republicans put on a good show, and do their best to look reasonable, moderate, and in touch with Middle America inside. All of this within shouting distance of the WTC site. How do you think that will play in Peoria?

The Democrats will have to either distance themselves from the protestors -- alienating their most enthusiastic supporters, driving more Angry Left voters to the Green Party -- or else defend the indefensible, and give up all hope of winning over the moderates and independents.

I'll certainly grant that Howard Dean is no pushover, and has the opportunity to run towards the center on the basis of his record, once the nomination is sewn up. But I think the election ahead is essentially unwinnable for the Democrats, mostly because they are so deeply divided, especially over this supremely important issue.