Well, kiss my grits!

So I was talking about how I think that voting laws can be reformed, and I think that the gist of it is to have a national voter database for federal elections. Implementing the database wouldn't be too difficult, and the initial investment in IT would far outweigh the cost of lawyering and bureaucratic red tape we have now. The database itself would be easy: you would need only a person's full name, Social Security number (all citizens are issued this unique number), present address, and birth date. The registrant wouldn't even have to register in person. If all pertinent information is submitted to city hall, for example, a quick check of the information would ensure that there are no duplicate names and SSNs registered. Of course, this database would have to be tied into the Social Security Administration to ensure that the names are crosschecked against the SSNs uniquely and that the name and SSN are actually associated with each other. This would also eliminate the chance of voters being registered in multiple locations. I'm sure that this was thought of before and was probably shot down primarily for privacy reasons, but I think that, in this case, another look should be in order. The 2000 election, as well as the 2004 election and onward, demand such reforms.

In other news, Andrew Sullivan continues to win the award for The Most Breathless Conservative Blogger on the 'Net in his persecution of the Bush administration. I don't know if his disillusionment is a factor in this, but recently, he's really been laying into the Bush administration with an eagerness more attributable to Kos. His most recent blog about Bush's incompetence in guarding weapon sites such as Al-Qaqaa has already been debunked by NBC News even before the day was out. It turns out that the U.S. military, along with embedded NBC News reporters, was at the site on April 10, 2003 and found no caches of HDX and RDX. And really, folks, the irony of the New York Times touting the dual uses of HDX and RDX only reinforces the Duelfer report's findings that Saddam actively sought WMDs.

Now, I admire Andrew a lot. I've got a lot in common with him politically. His analysis of the news has often been trenchant and insightful, but recently, and especially with the Bush administration, his remarks in my opinion have become shriller and shriller by the minute. And maybe it's just me, but Andrew seems to have been linking more and more often to the New York Times for his posts. Take that how you will, but don't mind me, I'm just one ant in the anthill.

Also today, Mickey Kaus notes that Kerry himself didn't think that Iraq was a diversion all the way back in November, 2001!

Wow. Just wow. I did not know that, and I'm stunned. This actually says two things to me. First, John Kerry cannot run from his record of saying one thing, then saying the complete opposite. But second, and perhaps most significantly, Kerry perhaps really did get it after 2001, which mitigates the first. If so, all he has to do is prove to me that he really will take the fight on the GWOT to the terrorists and use all of America's power to transform the Muslim world. Nah, don't think it will happen.

And still following today's theme, George Bush, in an interview with Charlie Gibson on Good Morning, America, said that he supports civil unions between gay couples and all the rights associated with those trappings. Wow, I'm glad that I'm sitting down right now.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan responds by saying that the news crew and the 101st would not have been able to determine whether the HDX and RDX were missing and sticks to the New York Times's account until the facts change. Who is he kidding? Exactly what facts are there to be had? The only facts are that until March 8th, 2003, the explosives were there. Afterwards, there is no evidence as to what happened to them save one thing: that the U.S. military on April 4th, 2003 and April 10th (this time with an NBC crew) reported no HDX nor RDX. There are no other facts to this matter save supposition and conjecture. The New York Times story is nothing more than sensationalism.

Ah, well. For some great local news, the Sox win again! It's 3-0, and I hope that they learned their lessons from the Sox/Yankees series and put the last nail in the coffin.

Night all.