Only his personal trainer knows for sure:

Al Gore is third favourite for the Democratic nomination (Telegraph)

For what it’s worth, despite my acidic comments about him in the past—and to my deep astonishment—I’m willing to contemplate a Gore presidency. Everything is upside down anyway. Why the hell not?

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then. I contradict myself.
I am large. I contain multitudes.

—Walt Whitman, “Song of Myself”

Discover magazine does the blogosphere:

The blogosphere is the most explosive social network you’ll never see. Recent studies suggest that nearly 60 million blogs exist online, and about 175,000 more crop up daily (that’s about 2 every second). Even though the vast majority of blogs are either abandoned or isolated, many bloggers like to link to other Web sites. These links allow analysts to track trends in blogs and identify the most popular topics of data exchange. Social media expert Matthew Hurst recently collected link data for six weeks and produced this plot of the most active and interconnected parts of the blogosphere.

It looks like Iraq is the end of the line for what we think of when we hear the word “war.” *** Here’s a glimpse of how we will be looking out for our safety and security in the future:

The next decade holds mind-bending promise for American business. Globalization is prying open vast new markets. Technology is plowing ahead, fueling–and transforming–entire industries, creating services we never thought possible. Clever people worldwide are capitalizing every which way. But because globalization and technology are morally neutral forces, they can also drive change of a different sort. We saw this very clearly on September 11 and are seeing it now in Iraq and in conflicts around the world. In short, despite the aura of limitless possibility, our lives are evolving in ways we can control only if we recognize the new landscape. It’s time to take an unblinking look.

We have entered the age of the faceless, agile enemy. From London to Madrid and Nigeria to Russia, stateless terrorist groups have emerged to score blow after blow against us. Driven by cultural fragmentation, schooled in the most sophisticated technologies, and fueled by transnational crime, these groups are forcing corporations and individuals to develop new ways of defending themselves. The end result of this struggle will be a new, more resilient approach to national security, one built not around the state but around private citizens and companies. That new system will change how we live and work–for the better, in many ways–but the road getting there may seem long at times.

…

The metaphorical targets of September 11 are largely behind us. The strikes of the future will be strategic, pinpointing the systems we rely on, and they will leave entire sections of the country without energy and communications for protracted periods. But the frustration and economic pain that result will have a curious side effect: They will spur development of an entirely new, decentralized security system, one that devolves power and responsibility to a mix of private companies, individuals, and local governments. This structure is already visible in the legions of private contractors in Iraq, as well as in New York’s amazingly effective counterterrorist intelligence unit. But as we look out to 2016, the long-term implications are clearer.

Like Microsoft, the United States hasn’t found its match in a competitor similar to itself, but rather in a loose, self-tuning network.

Security will become a function of where you live and whom you work for, much as health care is allocated already. Wealthy individuals and multinational corporations will be the first to bail out of our collective system, opting instead to hire private military companies, such as Blackwater and Triple Canopy, to protect their homes and facilities and establish a protective perimeter around daily life. Parallel transportation networks–evolving out of the time-share aircraft companies such as

Warren Buffett’s NetJets–will cater to this group, leapfrogging its members from one secure, well-appointed lily pad to the next. Members of the middle class will follow, taking matters into their own hands by forming suburban collectives to share the costs of security–as they do now with education–and shore up delivery of critical services. These “armored suburbs” will deploy and maintain backup generators and communications links; they will be patrolled by civilian police auxiliaries that have received corporate training and boast their own state-of-the-art emergency-response systems. As for those without the means to build their own defense, they will have to make do with the remains of the national system. They will gravitate to America’s cities, where they will be subject to ubiquitous surveillance and marginal or nonexistent services. For the poor, there will be no other refuge.

Ready or not, here comes the future.

(So you see I wasn’t exactly joking when I wrote about the kind of security Brangelina will need for their new floating paradise.)
——–

*** a point also brought home in the segment of PBS’s America at a Crossroads called “Warriors,” a revealing film about daily life for our soldiers in Iraq as they go about their painstaking door-to-door counterterrorism campaign. It’s worth watching also for the scenes of normal life in Iraq (which we almost never see on television) that our soldiers intrude upon.

It’s been a while since I checked up on the political scene. Yesterday, I caught a few minutes of Lou Dobbs’s show. His roundtable was discussing several instances of foot-in-mouth disease by politicians this past week. I consider that par for the course for politicians, of course, so I offer this for your amusement [e.a.]:

DOBBS: Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader this week saying that the war in Iraq is lost. Straight out declaration. What do you think?

ROLLINS: I think it’s a disastrous thing for the majority leader of the Senate to say. You may say that in private, you may say that in the cloak room but you certainly don’t stand up and say that when you have men and women getting up every day and obeying the orders of this government to try and create a democracy, a long ways away. You may disagree on the war but to stand up and make that kind of statement is not an act of courage. …

DOBBS: Speaking of popping off, Senator John McCainsic] out of the idea of bombing Iran. What in the world is he thinking?
declaring that Baghdad is safe. Singing — making a diddy [
ROLLINS: Well, John's campaign has had a terrible three or four months. I can't think of any modern presidential campaign that's gone as downward as his has. He is out of money. He certainly has lost a lot of traction and the guy that was the inevitable nominee has got to really fight now to get back in the game. I think John has got to get very programmed and really figure out what it is that he wants to do.

He's running for a third Bush term. This country is not going to give Bush a third term with John McCain or anybody else. ...

DOBBS: Should Senator Barack Obama be buying a house? A lot of people right now at the end of this week are trying to define what in the world he meant comparing the violence at Virginia Tech to verbal violence.

SHEINKOPF: He's also wrong. There is something wrong with people in public life who keep saying things that the public is going to reject.

Dude! That's what I said. Then Sheinkopf goes on to make a painfully obvious point that nevertheless seems to have been lost on certain people this week:

The basic rule of rational political discourse is to did that which the public would like you to do, say what they would like you to say to win them over. Not to alienate them. So we have three alienating gestures all in one week.

Yes, and then there's Rudy Giuliani. Today, I saw a clip of one of his speeches and winced as he stumbled over his syntax, uttering nonsense.

GIULIANI: How do we make our schools safer? How do we do a better job of detecting the wrong signs and the wrong warning signs earlier? [he should have said "detecting the warning signs, and detecting them earlier" --ed.]

Of course CNN picked that clip to air, and WNYC quoted it on its site for me to reprint easily. Nevertheless, Giuliani is showing durability and popularity, according to this Gallup poll. He leads the GOP field. Also:

Giuliani also has the most positive image among the general population, getting a 61% favorable rating from all Americans.

In context, that means:

That is the best among any of the leading candidates of either party. McCain also has a favorable public image, with 57% of Americans viewing him positively. Gingrich, on the other hand, is viewed more negatively (48%) than positively (29%) by Americans.

The first Gallup favorable rating of Thompson, the former Tennessee senator and current Law & Order actor, shows 24% of Americans viewing him positively, 11% negatively, and 65% not able to rate him. Romney also is a relative unknown, but unlike Thompson, Americans familiar with Romney are about as likely to view him negatively as positively.

This seems like a mere popularity rating. But don’t discount it as a factor in the vote.***

———

*** You’ll recall that I’ve said many times that I’m not a politico. I also picked Giuliani way, way early—long before he declared. Starting here, last October, when I wrote:

Call me crazy, but I think the country also wants a socially liberal (tolerant) hawk, not a socially conservative (intolerant) one. Here’s why: first, because we’ve had one of those icky conservatives for a horrible six years now, and we’re tired of him (and if not of him than of the constant culture war, which has left people exhausted); second (and way more important): social liberalism (tolerance) is one of the things we’re fighting for in the war on terrorism. That makes Rudy a seamless candidate with a consistent message: he stands for the same things abroad that he stands for here at home—a case that Bush has never been able to make. I believe Rudy can make that case, and make it well.

Then I expressed my strong reservations:

Having lived in New York City during his entire mayoral career, I have strong reservations about Giuliani. He’s a confidence-inspiring leader in times of crisis—there’s no doubt about that. He is not, however, a democrat.

Now that NBC has helpfully showed us what if feels like to have the business end of a gun in your face, Slate’s Explainer tells you what to do if you should happen to find yourself in the same situation again, except for real:

Fight or flee, depending on the situation. Running away should be your first plan, when possible. At 20 feet from the gunman, you’re still within a deadly range, but at 40 feet, you’re a difficult shot. …

If there’s no way out, then assess the situation. Most robberies, for instance, end without violence, so it may make sense to cooperate with the gunman. If you’re confronted with a determined psychopath, fighting would be a better option.

If the killer opens fire, you’ll want to take cover behind heavy furniture. Hiding is only a temporary strategy, though, since a gunman like Cho may plan to kill everybody in a room. At least two of the students at Virginia Tech survived by playing dead, but if they had more time on their side, they and others could have gone on the offensive.

To disarm a gunman, you’ll need to take his focus off his weapon and his plan of attack. To do this, you might throw chairs, laptops, or fire extinguishers at him, or set off the sprinkler system or fire alarm. Then, you’d want to pick up a desk or some other shield and charge right at the killer. There’s a chance you’ll be killed in the process, but if two or three people rush at once, there’s also a chance that somebody will take him down. (Unarmed civilians who band together have a much better chance of surviving an attack.)

Let’s hope we won’t need this advice, but it’s handy.

I rarely read Peggy Noonan, but her column was featured today on Memeorandum, and I clicked. You should too:

There seems to me a sort of broad national diminution of common sense in our country that we don’t notice in the day-to-day but that become obvious after a story like this.

Common sense says a person like Cho Seung-hui, who was obviously dangerous and unstable, should have been separated from the college population. Common sense says someone should have stepped in like an adult, like a person in authority, and taken him away. It is only common sense that if a person like Cho leaves a self-aggrandizing, self-celebrating, self-pitying video diary of himself to be played by the mass media, the mass media should not play it and not publicize it, not make it famous. Common sense says that won’t help. …

The school officials who gave all the highly competent, almost smooth and practiced news conferences seemed to me like white, bearded people who were educated in softness. Cho was “troubled”; he clearly had “issues”; it would have been good if someone had “reached out”; it’s too bad America doesn’t have better “support services.” They don’t use direct, clear words, because if they’re blunt, they’re implicated. …

The anxiety of our politicians that there may be an issue that goes unexploited was almost–almost–comic. They mean to seem sensitive, and yet wind up only stroking their supporters. I believe Rep. Jim Moran was first out of the gate with the charge that what Cho did was President Bush’s fault. I believe Sen. Barack Obama was second, equating the literal killing of humans with verbal coarseness. Wednesday there was Sen. Barbara Boxer equating the violence of the shootings with the “global warming challenge” and “today’s Supreme Court decision” upholding a ban on partial-birth abortion.

One watches all of this and wonders: Where are the grown-ups?

Indeed. But wait. There’s more:

With all the therapy in our great therapized nation, with all our devotion to emotions and feelings, one senses we are becoming a colder culture, and a colder country. We purport to be compassionate–we must respect Mr. Cho’s privacy rights and personal autonomy–but of course it is cold not to have protected others from him. It is cold not to have protected him from himself.

Yes.

from Dry Bones:

I believe that the screening on TV News of home videos made by psychopathic killers before they set out to kill and maim should stop. Telecasting these videos, like the showing of hostage videos and beheading snuff videos, only serve[s] the needs of the fiends and crazies who made them.

What do you think?

I agree.