A day before the infamous crossfire appearance, Jon Stewart was on C-span's "America Perspectives" for a one-hour talk. He covers a lot of the same ground (and uses a few jokes that showed up in his show in subsequent weeks) and it's really quite something to see him at work. Here's the stream, pass it on.

He's clearly not entirely comfortable in the role he's playing here. He makes jokes to get away from tough questions -- totally dodged the "where do you get your news from" query -- but he has good answers here on a number of standard critiques. For instance, on the idea that "kids get their news from the Daily Show," his answer is simple: they don't, because if they didn't already understand current events the show wouldn't be funny.

I also think it's very revealing the kinds of questions other people ask him. For instance, the first question from the audience was from an older guy, a dad, who worked at Citigroup, a muslim, and his question was "how do we make peace with the 1.2 billion muslims who want to make peace?"

That's the question he asked Jon Stewart. I begin to see why Jon's so uncomfortable being in the position he's in. Fighting for the Truth (cap-t) is hard, and when you do it in times like these, people fucking up and swarm to you like you came down from heaven. Tough, ugly business.

The Doctor Speaks:

"Some people say that George Bush should be run down and sacrificed to the Rat gods. But not me. No. I say it would be a lot easier to just vote the bastard out of office on November 2nd."

Plenty more good stuff in there. He's slowing down in his age, but's he still got it.

Enjoy The Draft is a great satire site some friends of mine put together. If you actually want to register your opinion on the matter, you can head on over to NoIraqDraft.com.

For the record, in spite of what you might like to believe, if Bush is re-elected the chances of events leading to forced military service move from "possible but unlikely" to "frighteningly possible." This is not scaremongering; it's rational analysis.

I was talking to someone the other night who serenely insisted that it wouldn't happen because mothers would not allow it. Some say because it's currently politically unpopular, it would never happen. Others simply scoff at the very notion.

I think these people are (like the president) somewhat insulated from military and geopolitical reality.

Let's play a little game called "what if." What if North Korea starts lobbing artillery at Seoul? What if Iran is conclusively shown to be sending arms, fighters and possibly even non-nuclear WMDs into places like Fallujia and Sadir City? What if there's a coup in Saudi Arabia or Syria? What if the Russians decide to invade some of their former satelites and that triggers a wider conflict, perhaps including Pakistan?

The reality is, at the moment we ain't got shit to do. Training units are being called away from training new troops to fighting in the Middle East. Reservists are being forced to re-up. There's a major crisis of manpower, and without a change in plans and priorities, something's got to give.

Public support for warlike causes is historically remarkably easy to whip up. Let's not get carried away with how people "won't get fooled again." More than half of all Republicans (and close to 1/3 of Democrats) still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, ok? It wouldn't even take another nation getting involved (as above) or an attack on US soil to stir up the pot. What if 35 young US solders (male and female) are captured on an unprotected supply run -- similar to the one that recently sparked a mutiny -- and then brutally executed/beheaded by Iraqi insurgients en masse?

That shit could happen any day now, but how 'bout if it happened right before Christmas; if it was all over the news through the new year as the saga drug out to it's final tragic bloody conclusion. Think that might sway some public opinion?

That would force the reality that we need to protect our supply lines -- Rumsfeld's pet theories of war notwithstanding, public opinion would demand we support our troops rather than leaving them exposed. Only problem is that means fighting the war like most generals initially requested, with 100 thousand more bodies to stand around holding guns and getting shot at. It would be either that or packing up and leaving, and if you think Bush is flexible enough to cut and run, you haven't been paying attention to his tempermet or his political advosors' willingness to exploit tragedy for their own ends.

It's a real thing; there really honestly could be a draft if we don't get our shit together here. One more time: NoIraqDraft.com.

The scrappy economist from Princeton lands a devistating combination, weaving together all the threads that make this such a worrisome issue for us tender youngins. Feeling the Draft:

Those who are worrying about a revived draft are in the same position as those who worried about a return to budget deficits four years ago, when President Bush began pushing through his program of tax cuts. Back then he insisted that he wouldn't drive the budget into deficit - but those who looked at the facts strongly suspected otherwise. Now he insists that he won't revive the draft. But the facts suggest that he will.
...
Mr. Bush's assurances that this won't happen are based on a denial of reality. Last week, the Republican National Committee sent an angry, threatening letter to Rock the Vote, an organization that has been using the draft issue to mobilize young voters. "This urban myth regarding a draft has been thoroughly debunked," the letter declared, and quoted Mr. Bush: "We don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer Army is working."
...
The reality is that the Iraq war, which was intended to demonstrate the feasibility of the Bush doctrine, has pushed the U.S. military beyond its limits. Yet there is no sign that Mr. Bush has been chastened. By all accounts, in a second term the architects of that doctrine, like Paul Wolfowitz, would be promoted, not replaced. The only way this makes sense is if Mr. Bush is prepared to seek a much larger Army - and that means reviving the draft.

Just so we know what the deal is here at the "liberal-lovin'" NYT, the guy they hired to explain Allen Greenspan is the only one with the prescience and courage to put two and two together. He's the econ man, and he's the only one bringing the heat. Once again, my hat is off.