The English is clear enough to lorry drivers - but the Welsh reads "I am not in the office at the moment. Please send any work to be translated."

From the BBC:

E-mail error ends up on road sign

When officials asked for the Welsh translation of a road sign, they thought the reply was what they needed.

Unfortunately, the e-mail response to Swansea council said in Welsh: “I am not in the office at the moment. Please send any work to be translated”.

So that was what went up under the English version which barred lorries from a road near a supermarket.

This is just the kind of random hilariousness we could use around here, huh?

All right, back to the nail biting.

Is it a unique trait of Alaskan politicians to ignore reality, especially where things like “convictions” and “ethics violations” and “abuses of power” rear their ugly heads?

Alaska Governor and VP candidate Sarah Palin, after her state legislature found her guilty of breaking Alaska’s ethics law, said:

Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that.

And then last night during a Senate candidates’ debate, days after he was convicted of SEVEN FELONIES, Alaska Senator Ted Stevens said:

“I have not been convicted of anything,” he maintained during a Thursday night debate in Anchorage, only days before Tuesday’s election.

The debate, sponsored by Alaska Public Television, pitted Stevens, who is seeking re-election, against his opponent, Democratic Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, in a tight race.

“I’m not going to step down. I have not been convicted. I have a case pending against me, and probably the worse case of prosecutorial … misconduct by the prosecutors that is known,” Stevens said.

“I think you will find out, I will succeed and I’ll be found innocent.”

Senator Stevens will probably refer to his room in the Big House as his “state-funded refuge from prosecutorial wolves” while he awaits his glorious vindication.

Yesterday, I read this:

Less than a week from a potentially landmark presidential election, black voters in Florida are turning out in huge numbers to vote early, according to an Orlando Sentinel analysis.

So are people 55 and older. And Democrats.

But voters younger than 35 — especially the college-age group that has drawn so much attention from Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign — are doing what they have largely done in elections past: staying home.

…

*Young people are turning out in disproportionately low numbers. Though major registration efforts this year boosted their totals to nearly 25 percent of the total electorate, voters younger than 35 represent only 15 percent of early voters, making them the worst-performing demographic group in the analysis.

So, once again, the young voters don’t.

Sure, this is just about early voting, and we won’t know for sure till next week whether the young voters really couldn’t be bothered to vote or whether they just waited til Election Day.

But one thing might just convince them to wake up on Tuesday morning to vote: the race is tightening.

The national polls show a closing gap between Obama’s lead and McCain’s support. Many of the so-called battleground states still show that the candidates’ leads are so slim as to be within the margin of error.

And most significantly: there is still a small but significant percent of the population which considers itself to be undecided. I personally feel that these undecided folks will mostly break to McCain in the end, so the big question is where these undecided voters live. If it’s Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, Virgina, or North Carolina, the impact could be huge.

Whether young voters support McCain or Obama (though the theory is that they are probably Obama supporters), they’re more likely to feel the urgency to vote if the race is tight.

If they’re still paying attention at this point.

Thoughts?

I can’t quite decide how I feel about the 30-minute Obama media blast scheduled for tonight.

He’s going to appear on NBC, CBS, Fox, (not ABC for some reason) and other networks, all at the same time. Fox even cut their World Series pre-game coverage short to make room for the ad. The idea is that it’s a roadblock - no matter what channel you flip to, you’ll see Obama.

I can definitely see how the exposure could be good for Obama. It’s effectively an uninterrupted last word, and if the convention videos are any indication, it will be slick and compelling. It’s a good opportunity to showcase the Obama family, allowing Americans to picture, easily, this family occupying the White House and to be pretty comfortable with the idea.

I’d also expect them to discuss the economy, attempting to dismiss the “socialism” accusation by McCain and his surrogates, and to clarify his tax plan.

I hope he’ll also talk about foreign policy and how America is viewed abroad and that he touches on health care and energy.

But I think there’s also a potential downside to the coverage. I’m afraid it might come off as a little bit arrogant, or maybe just as overkill as people grow fatigued from the interminable campaign.

It’s a lot of money (more than $5 Million) to spend on what amounts to a televised pep rally. And it also provides another opportunity for the McCain camp to bring up Obama’s refusal to limit himself to public financing.

Finally, it also might reinforce the whole media darling thing. Conservatives are already complaining that if Obama wins, it will be because he was “installed” by the adoring media. It may not be logical, but I would expect the 30-minute multi-network ad to entrench this idea. (However, I’m not sure it matters how much it annoys conservatives - it’s more a matter of how it will affect the allegedly undecided voters.)

What do you think? Is it a great opportunity for Obama, or will it cause voter fatigue or even resentment?

Remember the unfortunate Obama quote about clinging to guns & religion in uncertain times? Well, turns out he’s right.

The Washington Post reports that conservatives are worried about both the economy and about an Obama win, which to them signals an impending squeeze on gun rights.

Several variables drive sales, but many dealers, buyers and experts attribute the increase in part to concerns about the economy and fears that if Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wins the presidency, he will join with fellow Democrats in Congress to enact new gun controls. Obama has said that he believes in an individual right to bear arms but that he also supports “common-sense safety measures.”

“Even though [Obama] has a lot going for him, he’s not very pro-gun,” said Paul Pluff, a spokesman for Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson, which has reported higher sales. Gun enthusiasts are “going to go out and get [firearms] while they still can.”

Obama has repeatedly stated he won’t take people’s handguns from them (and even praised the Supreme Court decision that struck down the D.C. handgun ban), but the little (D) that follows his name on the ballot, combined with all the other (D)s in Congress, strikes fear in the hearts of gun enthusiasts everywhere.

But what’s scary about the story is this:

Gun purchases have also been climbing because of the worsening economy, which fuels fears of crime and civil disorder, industry sources and specialists said.

“Generally, we know that hard economic times always result in firearm sales,” said James M. Purtilo of Silver Spring, who publishes the Tripwire Newsletter.

So now we’ll have an overly armed, angry, and terrified populace. What could possibly go wrong?