Dean's World

Will this strange statistical correlation during election years old true again?

Take DEEP BREATH before you click on this link to see this costume that will make parents and children scream and run down the street.

Is it just me or are there fewer trick-or-treaters these days?

Next time steal some of your kids Halloween candy when he not looking and pop the candy into your mouth, you might want to think about this.

The Chinese government has had enough of on-line porn so it's moving to reduce the number of potential outlets:

BEIJING: China shut 1600 internet cafes between February and August and imposed 100 million yuan ($NZ18 million) worth of fines for allowing children to play violent or adult-only games and other violations, state media say.

Of 1.8 million internet bars inspected, 18,000 were ordered "to stop operation for rectification", Xinhua news agency quoted Zhang Xinjian, deputy director of the Culture Ministry's market department, as saying.

"Porn, gambling, violence and similar problems have adversely affected the healthy development of the internet in China," Zhang was quoted as saying.

The crackdown comes amid a nationwide push to limit violence and pornography on the internet that has seen the government shut down hundreds of websites it deemed unsavoury.

China has some 87 million internet users, over 50 per cent of whom are under 24 and approximately 18 per cent are minors.

Yeah, but Chinese computer users still get spam about enlargements...

Mega-terrorist Osama bin Laden's latest tape raises NEW concerns that he is spinning himself of into a kind of corporate brand for smaller groups — and trying to transform himself into a political figure.

Those are some of the concerns sited in a Los Angeles Times article. It notes that experts say the tape is unwelcome news for whoever wins on Tuesday "but not for the reasons one might expect."

Al Qaeda watchers had concluded long ago that the elusive Saudi exile had relinquished much of the day-to-day leadership of the terrorist organization he founded more than a decade ago. But the latest videotape has caused concern at the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies about Bin Laden's potential new role, as an elder statesman for aggrieved Muslims worldwide.

The 18-minute videotape....contains no overt threats of an attack on U.S. interests, particularly the kind of strike on American soil that authorities have been warning about. In the footage, Bin Laden's first videotaped comments in three years, he lacks any of his usual trappings of warfare, including camouflage clothing, a dagger or a rifle, said a U.S. official familiar with the tape.

In fact, what has caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community is the strangely conciliatory nature of Bin Laden's new message, said some government officials and outside experts.

These experts said Bin Laden appeared to be intensifying his campaign to "re-brand" himself in the minds of Muslims worldwide, and become known more as a political voice than a global terrorist.

"In some ways the tone of the message is as intriguing, and alarming, as the timing," said a U.S. official familiar with the tape, and the intelligence community's analysis of it. "The absence of an explicit threat does represent a different point of emphasis for this guy.

"Is he still an enemy? Absolutely. Is he still focused on terrorism? Yes," continued the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But the tone of this is something we're looking at very closely to see where this guy is placing his emphasis."

The official said "a political spinoff [of Al Qaeda] is one of the greatest fears" of U.S. counter-terrorism authorities, with Bin Laden and his network following the path of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Hezbollah and the Irish Republican Army. Over the years, those organizations evolved from violent militant groups into broader organizations with influential, widely accepted political wings.

So if his intent is to go a bit more "legitimate,' he will have problems, as the LAT story also notes:

Bin Laden faces significant obstacles in any attempt to appeal to a wider audience. For one, he is the world's most wanted man, responsible for attacks across the globe and will always have to operate from hiding. U.S. officials also were skeptical that Al Qaeda would ever halt its terrorist activities, saying that the group was plotting attacks even now.

But, some former U.S. intelligence officials said Saturday, Bin Laden's efforts already have met with some success among a broad spectrum of the global population, Muslims in particular.

John Brennan, director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, appeared with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on Saturday to discuss the tape. Brennan said various intelligence agencies were scrutinizing it to look for larger messages beyond possible hints of an attack.

"I think what he's trying to do is to show, or to try to demonstrate, that Al Qaeda, as an organization, is still effective, even though they have not, in fact, been able to do something here in the States," Brennan said of Bin Laden. "Now, are there other aspects of it that we have to better understand? That's what we're trying to do right now."

To be sure, the most striking thing about this tape's message was that it was more political than terrorist-threat-military:

On the tape, Bin Laden offers a harsh critique of U.S. foreign policy over the last few decades, especially during the administrations of President Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush. He says both administrations propped up corrupt Mideast regimes at the expense of the region's Muslims.

Bin Laden has criticized U.S. leaders in the past. But the new tape, experts said, marks a departure in that he suggests to Americans that they have the power to stop Al Qaeda attacks by rejecting candidates who attack the terrorist organization or who cause harm to Muslims here and overseas.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda," Bin Laden said, addressing Americans. "Your security is in your own hands."

Note that statement: since there is indeed (and has been) a basic consensus on the part of the elites of both major parties on the essential policy towards bin Laden — that he must be wiped out.

But this shift, experts say, started before the video was unleashed and threw a new monkey wrench into an already painfully close election:

Roger W. Cressey, a senior counter-terrorism official in the Bush and Clinton administrations, said Bin Laden began his shift this year, when he tried to drive a wedge between the United States and its allies over the invasion of Iraq.

Al Qaeda criticism of Spain's role in the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is believed to have contributed to the Madrid train bombings in March, in which at least 191 people were killed.

Then, in mid-April, Bin Laden offered a cease-fire to other European nations with a presence in Iraq, saying Al Qaeda would not attack them if they withdrew their troops. The offer was rejected, but authorities said the success of the Madrid bombings emboldened Bin Laden into believing that Muslims worldwide would actively support such efforts.

"He has injected a political element into his work and has tried to appeal almost on an intellectual level," said Cressey, now a counter-terrorism consultant. "He's saying, 'I'm here and you better factor me into your calculations, political and otherwise.' "

"If people are concerned that he is evolving into more of a political figure, to a certain extent he already has," Cressey said. U.S. authorities, he added, "should be concerned if [Bin Laden's] message resonates with a broader portion of the Muslim world than his narrower messages of the past, in that he was declaring war. And only time will tell if that's the case."

And that's the problem: his messages may be ostensibly aimed at the American people, but a key target is clearly the Muslim masses. This is akin to when American politicians address a powder-keg issue in a kind of code, not going as far as they would like to so they don't votes, but making sure the message is getting across to their core constituency. It's an American political technique used for many years. It works — and experts say bin Laden is already finding that out:

Lee Strickland, who recently retired after 30 years at the CIA, said Bin Laden already had made inroads in some respects.

"He and his organization have matured and become more subtle and more effective in delivering their message and their policy," Strickland said. In his most recent tape, Bin Laden "shows a great sophistication in thinking, in planning and in communication. It makes him much more dangerous," Strickland said.

So, in a way, he is evolving into an even more dangerous enemy.

Rob at Say Anything has a way you can fight breast cancer. For free. You have to do it today, though, once Halloween's over, it's over.

He's got a neat classic Halloween story you can read, too.

There are now tons of news stories and links on it. Rather than do a zillion, here are some of the more notable ones. This will be UPDATED throughout the day:

--KERRY DIDN'T TAKE OUR ADVICE ON DUCT TAPE and probably wished he did now that his stepson came down with foot-in-mouth disease (is it genetic?):

October 31, 2004 — THIS campaign is ending just in time before someone gets hurt. John Kerry's stepson, Chris Heinz, 31, displayed his mother Teresa's famous lack of rhetorical restraint at a recent campaign event with a group of Wharton students. Philadelphia magazine reports: "Heinz accused Kerry's opponents - 'our enemies' - of making the race dirty. 'We didn't start out with negative ads calling George Bush a cokehead,' he said, before adding, 'I'll do it now.' Asked later about it, Heinz said, 'I have no evidence. He never sold me anything.'

--A Mason-Dixon Polling poll for MSNBC-Knight Ridder has good news for George Bush: he's ahead in some key battleground states.

--But a newspaper poll shows Kerry opening up a substantial lead in Minnesota.

--And the new emphasis on absentee or early balloting seems to have boosted Kerry in Iowa, where a Des Moines Register poll gives him the lead.

--Nationally, a Fox News poll now places the race at dead heat — yet another indication that the Get Out The Vote drives of both parties will determine the next President.

The presidential race is dead even among likely voters — 46 percent back both President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry, a new FOX News poll conducted Friday and Saturday finds. Independent candidate Ralph Nader receives one percent.

The Democratic challenger has a two-point edge among registered voters, receiving 47 percent to Bush's 45 percent (Nader receives one percent). The poll's margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

In mid-October, Bush held a seven-point lead over Kerry among likely voters overall. Since then, independent voters have shifted from giving an 18-point lead Bush to giving a slim five-point edge to Kerry today.

In addition, Democrats are now backing Kerry at the same level of intensity as Republicans have backed Bush for the past several weeks. Previous surveys showed that Republicans were more likely to support Bush than the Democrats were to back Kerry.

--The GOP has demanded IDS of 37,000 voters in Milwakuee, Wisconsin — an early sign that election day this year could be unprecedented in the degree of partisan bitterness, mobilization and challenges.

--President Bush is being criticized by two famous Britsh figures.

(1) British Prime Minster Tony Blair may be out looking for duct tape after his wife issued a fairly broad-ranging critique on some of George Bush's policies:

CHERIE Blair has criticised the policies of the US President George W Bush, attacking his stance on terrorist prisoners and gay rights.

The Prime Minister's wife was condemned by supporters of the US President, after a speech to Harvard law students which contained a stinging rebuke to Bush, while on a lecture tour of the United States.

She attacked the manner in which the White House has dealt with the human rights of UK citizens detained at the US-run Camp X-Ray prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Blair said the decision by the US Supreme Court, fiercely opposed by Bush's government, to give legal protection to two of the Britons detained at the camp was "profoundly important" and a "significant victory for human rights and the international rule of law".

She took a sideswipe at Bush's record on gay rights, condemning the arrest of a homosexual couple in the President's home state of Texas, for defying a ban on gay sex. The US Supreme Court's decision to throw out the law, which had been backed by Bush, was a "model of judicial reasoning". Blair also called the US legal code an "outdated grandfather clock".

The controversial speech was seen as flying in the face of long-held tradition that British political figures, and those close to them, do not criticise other countries during foreign visits.

(2) The Queen is getting directly involved in pressing the White House to change an environmental policy due to personal observations.

The Queen has made a rare intervention in world politics to warn Tony Blair of her grave concerns over the White House's stance on global warming.

She is understood to have asked Downing Street to lobby the US after observing the alarming impact of Britain's changing weather on her estates at Balmoral in Scotland and Sandringham in Norfolk. The revelation gives an unusual glimpse into the mind of the monarch, who normally strives to stay above politics.

Further evidence of the Queen's views on global warming will be seen this week when she opens one of the most high-profile conferences ever staged in Europe on the issue. She is keen for this to be interpreted as a symbolic and political statement.

--At Halloween the winner of every election since 1980 has been predicted by which mask of the candidate sells the most. It's a close race even there — but Bush is ahead.

--GWB and John Kerry are now tied in a various polls, including Zogby's.

--NEW ZOGBY CELL PHONE POLL OF YOUNGER VOTERS: The theory is that polls don't get preferences of younger voters who use cell phones so John Zogby and Rock the Vote did a cell-phone poll finding a 15 percent edge for Kerry:

Polling firm Zogby International and partner Rock the Vote found Massachusetts Senator John Kerry leading President Bush 55% to 40% among 18-29 year-old likely voters in their first joint Rock the Vote Mobile political poll, conducted exclusively on mobile phones October 27 through 30, 2004. Independent Ralph Nader received 1.6%, while 4% remain undecided in the survey of 6,039 likely voters. The poll is centered on subscribers to the Rock the Vote Mobile (RTVMO) platform, a joint initiative of Rock the Vote and Motorola Inc. (for more information: http://www.rtvmo.com). The poll has margin of error of +/-1.2 percentage points.

The poll also found that only 2.3% of 18-29 year-old respondents said they did not plan to vote, and another .5% who were not sure if they would. The results of the survey are weighted for region, gender, and political party.

--The Washington Post reports a deluge of dirty tricks, a sign of our (sadly) changing political culture where the ONLY thing that matters is winning. Two quick excerpts:

As if things weren't complicated enough, here comes the dirt.

Registered voters who have been somehow unregistered. Democrats who suddenly find they've been re-registered as Republicans. A flier announcing that Election Day has been extended through Wednesday....

Dirty tricks are a staple of campaigns, but election officials say this year's could achieve new highs in numbers and new lows in scope, especially in key battleground states such as Florida and Ohio, where special-interest groups have poured in to influence the neck-and-neck race between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry.

"In my 16 years as an election administrator, I've never seen anything like this," said Ion Sancho, supervisor of elections in Leon County, Fla. "I see it as an expression of a political culture that has evolved in the United States of win at any cost. It's not partisan, but it's just lie, cheat and steal, and ethics be damned."

Read the whole thing and weep (unless you believe any tactic is valid to elect a candidate of either party).

When Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaks, people listen.

And he has spoken bluntly:

LAWRENCE, Kan. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Thursday he would prefer not to face another election-related lawsuit, but defended the high court's decision to get involved in the contentious dispute over the 2000 presidential vote in Florida.

''What are you supposed to do when somebody brings a lawsuit?'' Thomas asked University of Kansas law students. ''You hear people say the Supreme Court jumped into the last election. I find it very ironic that the very people saying judges are interfering are bringing lawsuits.

''What do you think? Donald Duck is going to decide it?''

(That's a classic set-up line, folks. I will NOT lower myself to do a joke about a "Mickey Mouse decision." NO! I just won't!!")

When asked about the prospect of more litigation over the 2004 vote, Thomas said, ''I would prefer not to have to decide it, but that joins a long list of things,'' adding: ''It's my job.''

Appointed to the court in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, Thomas was part of a 5-4 Supreme Court majority that ended a recount in Florida in 2000.

What do you do when you have two generally sympathetic Los Angeles talk show hosts who adamantly differ with the UNOFFICIAL party line on immigration (the official party position is stronger than actual enforcement)?

What do you do when these two generally sympathetic hosts have been uncompromising on demanding that Washington impliment tough, no-nonsense immigration enforcement but otherwise are with you on many other issues? In fact, their station is known all over the country for its strong line-up of conservative talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh..

What if these two broadcasters had used their radio waves extensively to help your party dump California Governor Grey Davis by urging listeners to sign petitions, giving out websites where they could get the petitions signed — even emceeing rallies at which then-candidate-and-eventual Arnold Schwarzenneger appeared? What do you do about them if some news stories actually credited these talk shows with helping Schwarzenegger win?

What if they then broke on one issue — the need to have immigration policy enforced without any winks and turning the other way — and decided to make a "human political sacrifice" by picking (via a long series of progams, candidate interviews and website voting) a Republican for their listeners to help defeat — to send a message to party bigwigs to take as tough a stance on immigration in practice as is taken in campaign promises and campaign platforms?

What do you do if these two independent-minded, mega-rated talk show hosts generally backed your Presidential candidate on many issues and blasted the Democratic candidate?

And, especially, what do you do when what they're saying on the air in coming out against a Republican — a party that on many issues they support -- is exactly what talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan say about John Kerry or what Al Franken and Randy Rhodes says about George Bush?

Easy decision: You go to the Federal Elections Commission and file a complaint against them — to basically shut them down.

And since it's a felony, if the talk show hosts are prosecuted and convicted, they can go to jail for being critical on the air.

(And you make sure the candidate who is impacted is not the one formally making the complaint so he can come back and say he isn't the one who did it).

Read about it all on this post here (make sure you go to the primary source the talk show host links).

Then read the latest news update here.

Read this follow post from a second blog here.

PS: This talk show was flooded with phone calls on Friday by Republican listeners furious at their party and many are re-registering as independents. The two talk show hosts plan a big rally at the targetted Congressman's offices on Monday.(You can probably listen to it online) In the end, the targetted Republican will most certainly be re-elected but the party has hurt itself in the state. You'll note that the GOP candidate's opponent is enjoying this. She is GETTING this press due to the GOP's action. And she, unlike her opponent, has constantly accepted their invitations to appear in their show. KFI has monster listenership and is the country's top talk show station (Dr. Laura Schlesinger and Phil Hendrie spun their L.A. shows off into syndication from KFI, which also had a huge role in the Golden Age of Radio since it broadcast the Jack Benny Program). A B-I-G mistake since it'll just help boost station ratings and get tons of attention for the Democratic congressional candidate.

Clearly, if the FEC clamps down on them there will be a move to do the same by some in the cases of Rush, Sean, Hannity, Al and Randy....And, if laws are to be applied universally, rightfully so...

Sean Kinsell, an American living in Japan, has a truly excellent (I'd almost say must-read) analysis of how the press generally views America and her Presidents--and how the foreign press and those in other nations are likely to view America after our elections are over. The difference between a Kerry victory and a Bush victory that he predicts, based on what he's seen over the years, will probably surprise a lot of Americans. And he's got the history to back it up.

Will it help George Bush? Will it hurt George Bush? Was it a wash for the candidates?

Here's one opinion here -- plus a ton of other opinions for you to read, ponder, and comment on in the comment box. Make sure you keep scrolling down...

A young Afghani woman returns to her homeland to cover reconstruction -- a homeland were many of the Taliban taboos against women were supposed to have been shattered.

She return...and she was surprised by what she found.

Flying Space Monkey is having an online exit poll. You can tell it's very scientific, Kerry's taken North Carolina by one vote!

Heh.

Baseball Crank is accepting nominations now for the Bedfellow Awards, the "late hit" political story of the year. Mind is the utterly stupid Al QaQaa nonsense. If you have your own nominations, give them to Baseball Crank.

I'll be appearing on Pundit Review radio this afternoon at slightly after noon Eastern. You can tune in and listen if you're in the Boston area on AM 1060. If you'd like to listen over the Internet, you can listen at right here.

Feel free to call in and razz me if you want. 877.711.1060. Just remember I'm not on until about 10 after noon Eastern. :-)

Anyone who has researched Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 knows that it is full of horrible lies and distortions.

You don't really have to see the film to know that this is true. Why? Because enough responsible people from all sides of the political spectrum--Democrats, Republicans, independents, George Bush fans, George Bush critics, Iraq war advocates, Iraq war detractors--have documented, repeatedly and in great detail, just how dishonest this film is, and how much it uses the techniques of the great Stalinist and Nazi propagandists. If you've researched this film, you realize it's not much different from the forgeries known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

However, if you really feel you must see it, bear in mind that if you pay to see it, you will be giving money to a hate merchant. Furthermore, it's money you're giving to a hate merchant who has coordinated with terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Thus, if you pay for it, then in a very real sense you have the blood of innocents on your hands.

However, if you want to see it in a way that gives no money to hate merchants, you can download it and watch it over the Internet right here. Moore, because he wishes to spread his Stalinist vision to as many people as possible, has allowed it to be distributed free of charge over the Internet. So if you must see this hate-film, go see it that way.

After you do see it though, you owe it to yourself to immediately see FahrenHYPE 9/11, a documentary which deconstructs Moore's film, and shows time after time how Moore deliberately lies, deliberately fabricates and--in scenes that will make almost any decent human being weep--interviews many of the very same people Moore used in his film. The most heartrending interviews are those of the wounded veterans and the families of veterans who were killed, who were outraged and often in tears at how their images and words were so cynically and dishonestly manipulated by Moore.

Bear that in mind if you watch Moore's film, too: almost any time an injured soldier is shown in Moore's movie, or the family of a dead soldier is shown, in all but one or two cases those images were deliberatly skewed and without those people's permission, and to say things that most of them absolutely did not believe and found utterly shameful. Pay particular attention to the interview with the soldier Moore showed who lost both his arms, who was absolutely outraged when he found out Moore had used his image and what Moore's film had said about him, about America, and about the liberation of Iraq. He's interviewed extensively in FahrenHYPE 9/11. Also pay close attention to how, in Moore's hate-film, he uses footage of a weeping family at a military funeral. They, too, are interviewed in FahrenHYPE 9/11, and speak of how outraged and violated they feel by Moore, and how ashamed they are of the vile things Moore's film says.

Even if you haven't seen Moore's film, you owe it to yourself to see Fahrenhype 9/11. You also need to read Dave Kopel's Fifty-Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11. Because you need to realize that Moore's film is not only a terrorist propaganda film, and an anti-American film, but things straight out of Michael Moore's film are now being parroted by Osama bin Laden and his followers. Moore's film is, literally, an Islamo-fascist recruitment and propaganda film, and it will be killing Americans and other innocents around the world for decades to come. You need to be aware of it, because all of us are going to be paying the price for Moore's perfidy for quite possibly the rest of our lives.

And finally, if you know anyone who believes the things in Michael Moore's film, you genuinely owe it to your country to try to get them to see how they've fallen for a Nazi-style propagandist. Show them FahrenHYPE 9/11, if they're open-minded enough to look. Talk to them about what's in Fifty-Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11, and about the horrible viciousness and blatant distortions and lies in Moore's film.

Some will smirk at you and laugh and roll their eyes. But some will listen. It's important to reach the people who will listen.

And might I also suggest that you donate to Truth for Troops?

Thanks.

The must-see campaign video of the season was put together by Protein Wisdom, INDC Journal, and the Daily Recycler. Check it out here, it's a scream.

Well, surprise surprise. Bin Laden appears to be alive and stumping for Kerry. From the content of his speech, it also appears that he's working with Michael Moore.

I'm so utterly bemused by this that I can't think what else to say, but INDC JOurnal has a great roundup of reactions.

If you like to cook, you'll probably like the latest Carnival of the Recipes.

Because I'm not really sure what it is.

My Blog-Niece Maddy is hosting the latest Carnival of the Vanities. If you're looking for some reading this Friday evening, you will probably find much there to amuse and distract you.

Ah, the wonders of the early 21st Century.

Kitty in free fall. Heheh. Cool.

(Requires QuickTime. Via Improbable Research.)

If you have friends who are wavering or uncertain about what's really going on in Iraq and the general War on Terror, you really should point them to Kevin Aylward's Where We Stand.

I highly recommend printing it out and showing it to any of your friends who really don't understand why what we're doing over there is so necessary. Especially anyone who doesn't understand that terrorists are intentionally manipulating the news media, and how the media are going along with it willingly.

For something a lot shorter, you might want to read this short John Weidner essay. Summation: you have to be either badly misinformed or nakedly dishonest to say that the Iraq or Afghanistan operations are a disaster. Unfortunately, misinformation and/or dishonesty pervades the press coverage we see these days.

I'm working at the moment on editing and cleaning up my interview with Steve Gardner, and just as I'm working on it The Queen yelled at me to come look at the TV. Tabby and her dad were on the news and they were showing her, her dad (with his face thankfully blurred out) and the doctors working on her and talking about the treatments she's going to need but also how optimistic they are that they're going to be able to help her.

I love this country. God I love this country. Thank you so much. Thank you all of you, thank you.

Yeah. Me neither.

(Click on image to see enlarged version. By Dave Munger.)

You can now watch Stolen Honor for free. The full-sized version, made free now by special arrangement with the veterans who served personally with John Kerry in Vietnam. See the full version here.

I'm going to hope to be talking to Steve Gardner this morning. I did try to contact the Kerry campaign in Washington to see if I could get an interview with one of the tiny handful of vets who served with Kerry who support him, but alas, I could not get through to anyone who would talk to me.

Oh man. The greatest animated feature of the 1990s is getting the deluxe DVD treatment.

God I loved that movie.

(Via Gerund.)

It appears that Senator Kerry is likely to reinstate the draft if he is elected next week.

Well, he's obviously far more likely to do it than Bush, anyway. Well-known experts on the history of the draft confirm it.

John F. Kerry has recently compared the Iraq operation to the disastrous Bay of Pigs fiasco of 1961. Those who knew the men who were abandoned by JFK to die on those beaches are just a little peeved.

You can read the latest on John Kerry's reckless charges of incompetence by the U.S. military, and how the New York Times and CBS appear to have colluded in this sickening display of naked partisanship, right here on Powerline and on Captain's Quarters. I suggest you also check out the top of Powerline and the top of Captain's Quarters periodically throughout the next few days to get the latest updates on this embarassment for the news media. (I'd say it's also an embarassment for Senator Kerry, but he's beyond embarassment at this point.)

* Update * The Washington Times this morning has photos showing flatbed trucks all over the site just before the invasion. I just gets worse and worse, doesn't it? Do either CBS or the New York Times have any idea how much their credibility has tanked? And do the Kerry people have any shame at all? I mean, have they no shame whatsoever?

(Cartoon by the lovely E-Claire.)

Bush is doing surprisingly well at the last minute here in Michigan, in part thanks to the efforts of Jews for George.

In the meantime, a Michigan blogger is calling you Buckeyes. He's claiming you can't possibly do as well helping Bush get elected in your pathetic little state as the Bush supporters can here in Michigan. Just like you could never possibly beat Michigan in a fair game of football.

He's calling you out, you wimpy Buckeyes!

I enjoy the BBC's world coverage but I usually chuckle at their coverage of the U.S. and anything involving it. Once in a while they get things right but sometimes, well... California Yankee notes just how blatantly silly their latest election coverage is.

The New York Times begins backpedaling, and the Kerry campaign has already begun to try to change the subject.

Meanwhile, the New York Times is also talking about how big mean bloggers are scaring poor innocent reporters.

Yeah, a "chill wind blows" when you report something false and you get caught at it.

The mainstream media will eventually learn that webloggers are a great free resource that they can put to good use. Until they figure that out, though, they're just going to keep showing their butt cracks like this.

(My that Powerline really is a good blog, isn't it?)

Did you ever get the feeling that some people just go out of their way to antagonize traditionalists?

As an outsider to these affairs, I can only laugh at the absurdity.

(Via Andrea.)

Powerline notes that the New York Times is still deceiving by omission. Unbelievably careless reporting that's being recklessly repeated by the Kerry campaign.

A year or two ago I ran a "BlogSpot Exodus" to get people to leave BlogSpot (or LiveJournal) for a better solution. Actually I never formally stopped. I still set people up, free of charge, with their own domain and an installation of much better blog software than Blogger or BlogSpot. It's much, much better than BlogSpot or LiveJournal, and I've done it for well over a hundred people. All you have to pay is the monthly hosting fees to a third party, usually $5 a month.

I'll still do that on request to anyone who wants me to, but it looks like there's a better deal out there. The folks at Blogs About Hosting will do all that for you, and provide direct tech support to boot.

If you're currently stuck on BlogSpot or LiveJournal, or just think you'd like your own blog, you ought to check them out.

We can only hope so.

Don't miss the transcript of John Hinderocker and Jeff Jarvis from CNBS, on QaQaaGate, the ginned-up, partisan-hack New York Times/CBS story on "missing" explosives in Iraq.

Oh, and, uh, don't miss how 3 seems to equal 380.

Heh.

The Bush campaign has a nice new ad, "Whatever It Takes," that's worth seeing. You can view it on the Bush campaign web site.

Also, a few hundred family members of people who perished in 9/11 have endorsed Bush's re-election. You know, very little annoyed me this last year more than the cynical people who who formed a group called "The 9/11 Families" who said all kinds of vicious things about the President, Mayor Guiliani, and other leaders who stepped forward that day.

Yes, of course some of the family members of those killed in 9/11 don't like Bush. That's normal out of a group of thousands of people. It never bothered me that those folks wanted to speak against Bush. But it did bother me that they named themselves "The 9/11 Families" and that they were treated as if they were somehow representative of those who lost people on 9/11--and when they acted as if they had the moral authority to tell the rest of the country how to react to 9/11. That group's behavior at the 9/11 commission was especially abominable. (But then if you ask me the whole commission was abominable anyway.)

In other news, Paul at Wizbang has a primer on the revelation that recent Soviet documents have been unearthed showing that, back in the 1970s, there was direct international communist involvement in John Kerry's Vietnam Vets Against the War group.

Some find this significant. I, unfortunately, do not. Well no, that's a lie, I find it significant, but only in an intellectual way. Why? Because I always assumed it was true.

I am a minor expert on communism, and am quite widely read on the subject. Any time I've seen any of the "Vietnam Vets Against the War" literature from the 1970s (such as The Winter Soldier materials), I can tell I'm reading old communist propaganda. Ditto when reading John Kerry's book from the early 1970s, The New Soldier. I am virtually certain I could show some of it to my mother-in-law from Poland and she'd say the same thing without hesitation: yeah, sure, that's communist propaganda.

It's like reading a Nazi tract from the 1930s. Certain phrases and lines of thinking just jump out at you. It's as obvious as a fingerprint.

Furthermore, if you've read much about what's been unearthed from the Soviet and Comintern archives in the last 10-15 years, you know that countless groups here in the U.S. were Communist front groups in the 1930s through the 1970s. Just like International A.N.S.W.E.R. is a communist front group today.

Therein lies the problem. If Kerry was involved in a communist front group back in the 1970s, few people will care. He did, after all, resign, and it was, after all, 30+ years ago.

Besides, when you say "communist propaganda" most people just smirk. They figure it's a joke or that you must be some far-right wacko. Most people just don't care.

Does it bug me that Kerry was a communist dupe? Some. What bugs me more is that he won't admit it today. But I'm cynical on this: I think Kerry's behavior ever since his fellow Swift Boat Vets came out against him has shown us all a man who refuses to own up to the mistakes of his youth. And anyway, like I said, say "communist dupe" and most people just roll their eyes and say "whatever."

Should people care? Maybe, but you can't make them. It's a standing double-standard this country's always had: If you're tainted with Nazism, like a Leni Riefenstahl or a Charles Lindbergh, you're tained with evil forever. But if you're tainted with communism, most people shrug it off as youthful idealism. Never mind that the communists killed a lot more people than the Nazis. People just don't care.

Still, for whatever it's worth: yes, it does appear to be true: Kerry was a communist dupe. And he does not, apparently, regret that.

Should we care? Well, I care, but I've given up thinking most people will. Anyway, if you do care, you can read about it on Wizbang.

For some time now I've been of the belief that most of Saddam's WMDs were probably moved to either Syria or Russia. I wanted to think Syria, because while we know the Russians were getting huge sums of money under the table from Saddam (hence their opposition to taking out his butcher-regime), I didn't want to think the Russians had gone so far as to directly cover for Saddam and then lie about it for two years. Although I've never thought all that well of Vladimir Putin, I wanted to believe he and his government weren't that treacherous.

Today, the Washington Times is reporting that evidence indicates that Russian special forces moved large quantities of Saddam's weapons into Syria and shredded documents showing contractual arrangements between Saddam and the Soviet government in the weeks leading up to the American invasion.

There is a problem with the story that I'm seeing, namely, that we need corroboration for the Times' story. The main source seems to be undersecretary John Shaw. Still, it's an entirely believable story; many experts have long suspected something like this, and it would certainly explain why most of the world's intelligence agencies were certain Saddam possessed WMDs and yet we haven't been able to find them.

INDC Journal also notes several stories from the historical record involving strange Russian activities during the Iraq invasion.

Ah, and as I write this, I see that Michelle Malkin and Wizbang have a bunch more links on this. You'll want to read their materials. So rather than be a fifth wheel, I'll just tell you to go read them.

I see it's 3-0 at the bottom of the 8th....

* Update * 3 more outs and it's over...

* Update * Score is 3-0 Boston, bottom of the ninth, Cards have 1 out and 1 man on base...

* UPdate * 2 outs....

THE RED SOX HAVE WON THE WORLD SERIES!

Oh man, I already have this on my Christmas list. Check out the preview for Lightning In A Bottle.

I will never for the life of my understand how young black people gave up any interest in the blues. What is wrong with y'all?

(I'm from the south, I'm allowed to talk like that. Link via Casey, by the way.)

Art Chrenkoff looks at the prospects for greater help from the Europeans in Iraq if Kerry should win the Presidency, based on what European leaders are saying.

It, uh, doesn't look promising.

Cabal of Doom notes some rather fascinating poll results from Harris.

But oh, it's not on the elections. It's on people's perceptions of the war in Iraq.

It seems to destroy an awful lot of dogma about public perceptions, doesn't it?

I see I forgot to link these cool pictures of Tabby's arrival here in the U.S..

Thanks again for everything you guys have done to help out on this.

I keep forgetting to mention: The Queen has returned to her old stomping grounds, and is battling this week against Iron Blog Democrat: Bush vs. Kerry. You won't want to miss it.

Her best line so far? "You certainly don't want someone dumber than Bush winning, do you?"

Heh.

In an effort to bring weblogging back from the partisan bickering, Penny Wit has begun a new project called The Carnival of the Solutions. You may want to check it out.

I personally think it's a lost cause until after election day, though. %-)

Wow. According to Wired News, scientists at USC are working on a brain implant to replace the hippocampus, which stores short-term memories.

Wow. You know, this sort of thing raises interesting philosophical questions. Well, actually, they're not new questions, as some authors and ethicists have been asking them for some time. But such questions are becoming increasingly less a matter of speculation and more a matter of a hard reality we have to face. What makes a human being a human being? Presumably if one part of the brain can be replaced, one day other parts will be replaceable too.

(Via Rachel Ann.)

The latest Bonfire of the Vanities is available for your reading pleasure.

I've interviewed two of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as most of you probably know. I have been given the opportunity to do a third interview, one with Steve Gardner, but to be honest I'm not sure I'm up to the task. The sheer level of vitriol and irrationality coming from the left has been soul-crushing for me to watch, and I've taken abuse from some people for just talking to these guys.

I saw this in action on national television with the Lawrence O'Donnell meltdown on MSNBC from late last week. I still find it stunning.

I used to really like and respect O'Donnell. But now there's him, there's Chris Matthews, and a ton of other people who, rather than say, "Wow, what would cause 250 people who served with Kerry, many of them decorated, two of them with Medals of Honor, to speak out so loudly against Kerry?" they seem to just want to screaem "lies! lies!" and occasionally even quote these guys out of context to "prove" that they lie.

So would another interview with any of these guys really matter? What difference can it make? It's so tiring, it really is.

Michelle Malkin published pretty much the definitive overview of the O'Donnell debacle, by the way.

Have you visited The Truth About Iraq web site yet? Have you told your undecided friends about it? If not, you should.

You should especially make sure to watch the ad they're running, and read their editorial in the L.A. Times..

These folks are trying to raise funds to put their ad on the air. If you think you can help 'em out, I encourage you to do so.

The Club for Growth (one of our sponsors, you should visit their site) has a new ad out which claims that we have vaccine shortages because American vaccine manufacturers had $six billion in profits but $thirty billion legal expenses to fight off trial lawyers, and that this is why there are no domestic flu vaccine manufacturers anymore.

Interesting claim.

The New York Times' (probably bogus) story that American forces "lost" 380 tons of explosives lacks a certain important perspective: the 400,000 tons of ordnance that have been secured and/or destroyed. John Cole has a military perspective on that.

Of course, in truth, these reports of "losing" these explosives have been pretty heavily questioned, both by those in Iraq and by other news sources. Probably the best overall roundup on why the story of lost explosives is questionable and is almost certainly just a media hit piece is on Truth Laid Bear.

Indeed, the holes in the story are so huge, some are already calling this another media scandal, and have given it a name. I would have called it QaaqaaGate myself. But it's good to give this scandal a name, because it sure looks like the New York Times and CBS colluded on this thing specifically to damage Bush, and for no other reason.

Somewhere in all this proof of the New York Times' sloppiness and partisanship, though, we seem to have missed an important point: we've rounded up 400,000 tons of ordnance in Iraq. There are 380 tons we're not sure of the location of, although it's now clear that the idea that they were "lost" or are being used by terrorists is highly questionable. But, as Bar Code King notes, isn't it rather ironic that those who are saying Bush "lied" about Weapons of Mass Destruction, what the hell are we supposed to think of Saddam having 400,000 tons of explosives? That's about the equivalent of 100 atomic bombs worth of explosives. Oh never mind. The world would be much better with Saddam in power, we should never have taken him out, never...

Anyway, here's my question: the New York Times and CBS both seem to have trumped up this story as an attempted "October Surprise" to discredit Bush just before the election. We have six days until election day. Can they trump something else up in the next six days? Will there be another attempt at a ginned up fake story? If so, what might it be?

The short story: The New York Times (and the Kerry campaign) claim that the Bush administration "lost" a major WMD stockpile. As NBC and others have documented, it ain't so, and the New York Times has once again proven itself to be a partisan shill organization rather than a news organization.

Jeff Goldstein has the rest of the details.

Political junkies will enjoy reading Steven Taylor's latest Toast-O-Meter.

A couple of readers recently mentioned the following piece in The Village Voice that appeared in January of this year. It's a fascinating look into the hate that's come to define so much of the left in this country. According to Village Voice contributor Michael Feingold:

Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.

You can read the rest right here.

Supply your own commentary.

(Thanks to AlexH for the link.)

* Update * Sam in Estonia notes a similarly creepy rant.

Over on my blog, The Glittering Eye, I've written that I thought the blogosphere was inhaling, waiting for the results of the presidential election that's just one week away now. The Iraqi blogosphere seems to be inhaling, too.

Dr. Saif of Iraqi Humanity is having some experiences that I suspect are common to med students everywhere

We took history from her then we presented it to the Doctor & I was astonished for the 1st time bcz she told the doctor she had vomiting also but she didn't said that when I asked her, when I told the doctor he told not make the patient misleading me bcz her in Iraq most of popular people used to tells lies either to make the doctor become sad(very merciful) & try to help them only (extraordinarily) or to take more drugs which they think it is better, & also he told me that they trust illegal medicine (used in country side regions or deserts where no hospital are there by those who pretended the ability to cure patients & they use fire burning or some readings on patients to make the devil out of his/her soul J this bcz of incivilization of those people especially in our hospital bcz most of patients come from regions outside Baghdad ) or what ordinary people said more than what doctor says. I toughed this lesson & I wish I will not doing again J.

Abu Khaleel of A Glimpse of Iraq has an interesting post in which he describes some of the effects of what I believe to be one of the greatest tragedies of the Arab world: tribalism. Check out his post Mischief and Revenge.

The Iraqi bloggers are waiting for the American elections, too. Riverbend of Baghdad Burning is pulling for Kerry.

Several of the Iraqi bloggers were much affected by the recent murders of 49 new Iraqi national guardsmen by insurgents. This got passing mention in the Western media. It's a pretty big deal for the Iraqis. Sam of Hammorabi has some pretty harsh words. Omar of Iraq the Model thinks either that it was an inside job or that Iranian intelligence was involved.

Omar of Iraq the Model has an extremely interesting post in which he quotes the participants in a BBC forum on the upcoming American presidential elections. Some of the participants have a really good handle on what's going on over here. Some have no clue. All are interesting. Here are some representative samples:

"John Kerry cannot change the policies of the US in Iraq because the American policy (unlike the countries of the ME) is not monopolized by individuals. And no matter how high the price America is going to pay in Iraq, it will be for the best of the American people. I think that Bush is America's best choice"

Khalid Abdullah-Kuwait.

"The story is clear; Bush and Kerry are two faces for one coin and their goal is to humiliate the Arab countries for Israel's benefit so that the latter can impose her conditions on arab countries and enslave them. It's time to wake up, as we know Americans don't like us and there's no hope that one day they would. They're after their interests using different means including the stick, which they're good at, and which we seem to love already"

Hasan-Beirut.

"Bush is a better choice than Kerry. Regardless of the reasons behind the war in Iraq, I'm hearing news about Iraqis happy with the liberation and frankly speaking, some of the Arab media are very hypocritic when it comes to the situation in Iraq and they exaggerate things greatly. We-the Arabs-are getting to understand many new subjects"

Mohammed Kerim Al Sabti - Oman.

"There won't be a big difference; the American policy has constants and fixed principles and there are institutions that decide America's interests not a group of people (administration) who do whatever they want. It's the congress who plays the major role in the decision making process. America is staying in Iraq whether it was a democratic or a republican man in the white house, besides, we all know that the law of the liberation of Iraq was released in Clinton's days back in 1998. The American interests in Iraq and in the region demand a permanent existence for American forces to protect these interests and also to help and support the Iraqi government which is still weak and depends much on the American forces in managing the security situation in Iraq. We may see only a reduction in the number of troops and this depends on how the security is going to improve in Iraq and on the Iraqi government gaining more control over the country and only then, the troops may be reduced but a total withdrawal is impossible. The American vision about Iraq is that Iraq is the no.1 ally and the most important country for American interests in the region and consequently the American presence will remain strong and active"

Mohammed Al Khafaji-Babylon/Iraq.

Probably my personal favorite of all of the Iraqi bloggers is Ibrahim Khalil of Iraq Today. He doesn't appear to be pro-American. He doesn't appear to be anti-American. I think he's a mature, honest commentator on life in Mosul as he sees it. Last week he commented on fuel shortages and proclamations by insurgent groups in Mosul. This week he tells us the fallout of both of these problems. I've linked to a post of his on the shortcomings of the Arabic language media:

That just shows how the Arabic media interprets the news. This is not the only sample, but most news which appear in most of the Arabian media are malformed and all news are shown as a fabrication and not shown the real truth.

I never trust the Arabian TV channels. These channels are the most famous in Iraq and we have no other choice to see in our TV as we can not get the European or American channels. Also most Iraqis can't understand English well enough to get the news in English.

It's the six month anniversay of neurotic iraqi wife's blog and she seems to be down in the dumps. You might go over there and offer her some encouragement.

Alaa of The Mesopotamian is clearly one very smart guy and equally clearly, IMO, the best essayist in the Iraqi blogosphere. Every so often he pops up with insights that are sharper than any talking head on American TV. Here's an example:

But the logic and "dialectic" of historical evolution does seem to conform to the old "Hegelian" concept of thesis and antithesis. That is to say historical forces will inevitably tend towards the emergence of New Poles (not to be confused with the Polish people) and New rival powers. And it is not difficult to guess the powers and countries who are candidates for this new polarization. I believe, this is already happening in front of our eyes. However, "Religious fanaticism", or if you like this pseudo-Islamic extremism, represented by, for instance, Al-Qaeda or similar groups, do not qualify as serious candidates or serious rivals for the predicted new polarization of the twenty first century. As I see it, this "War on Terror", important as it may be, is nothing but mop up operations of some the side effects and consequences of the "Cold War".

You may wonder: why the above preamble? And what bearing does it have on the present situation? Well, I shall answer you very briefly and concisely. Any concept that there is possibility of a wide alliance that will support U.S. efforts and be amicable to its goals and national interests is a false hope which profoundly misinterprets the logic of historical realism. The battle lines are clearly drawn, and ally, foe, and opportunistic bystander are all quite well defined, and any notion that these can be appreciably changed by diplomacy or otherwise is an illusion.

Are you a sports fan? There's a blog by an ex-pat Iraqi blogger in Johannesburg devoted exclusively to Iraqi sports. It's called, as you might expect, Iraqi Sport. For everything you wanted to know about Iraqi league football and more, check it out.

Writing on Instapundit, Michael Totten has some news about the controversy. The New York Times is taking another drubbing, looks like.

I have been meaning for weeks now to note this and I keep forgetting:

One of Michigan's finest webloggers, Solomon has recently changed his name. In his young punk days he was known as S-Train, and he used that in his blog-name. Now he's left all that behind, and his newly renamed weblog, "Solotude," can be found right here.

Update your bookmarks, and your blogroll if you have one.

Solo is one of my favorite people in the blogosphere. If you read his blog regularly, you'll know why--even though he's always wrong about everything. ;-)

By the way, he just had abominal surgery. Please give him a get-well-soon greeting.

Lovers of short fiction will want to check out the latest Storyblogging Carnival.

The evil Carnival of the Capitalists has infected everything.

It's an article of faith: Bush is not-very-bright but has the common touch. Kerry is the bright aristocrat.

Too bad it turns out that, even according to the New York Times, Bush has a higher I.Q. than Kerry.

No, it couldn't possibly be true, could it?

Must be all rightwing lies.

Via Der Professor, who understands that verbal proficiency = intelligence and general correctness.

Oh, by the way: John Kerry makes stuff up just so he can be elected.

Yeah. That's what happens when your whole campaign is based on "I hate Bush, and Bush is either evil or incompetent, or, or, one or the other."

Jeff Quinton's got a good one.

Okay. First off, I can't help but make the joke: here's a very bad horror movie just waiting to be written.

That aside? It's actually utterly fascinating and seems incredibly groundbreaking.

The oddest things you see in everyday life sometimes.

This morning The Queen and I stopped for breakfast at a local cheap diner. While eating, I spied a n older man chatting with a young woman, probably his daugher. He had a slice of canteloupe and a slice of honeydew melon. As I watched, he picked up a shaker of black pepper, sprinkled it on his melon slices, and began to eat them.

I'm 38 years old and I've never seen anyone do such a thing. I found myself curious: does anyone else out there put peppers on his melons?

In case you were wondering, I don't find the thought gross. I may actually try it some time, if I think about it. I'm just curious if this is some common thing I'd just never noticed before. Pepper on melons?

Art Chrenkoff notes:

There are two Iraqs. The one we more often get to see and read about is a dangerous place, full of exploding cars, kidnapped foreigners and deadly ambushes....The other Iraq is a once prosperous and promising country of twenty-four million people, slowly recovering from physical and moral devastation of totalitarian rule. It's a country whose people are slowly beginning to stand on their own feet, grasp the opportunities undreamed of only two years ago, and dream of catching up on three decades of lost time...

Yes indeed. But the good news, which overwhelmingly exceeds the bad news most weeks, rarely gets covered by our press, whose only real interest is in showing carnage and despair. Partisan political shills like to cynically exploit this negative press for their own ends. So, in the interests of balance, just check out the latest roundup of the terrifically good news from Iraq. Because there's so much good news it's simply astounding.

Funny how some people get mad when you point all that good news out, isn't it? You'd almost think they want us to fail over there or something.

Here are Ten Reasons I'm Not Voting for Bush either.

Back in May, a really creepy obsessive named Dave Neiwert, well known for lunatic fringe conspiracy theories, decided to insinuate that your host (Dean Esmay) is a secret Nazi sympathizer. Or at least a fascist at heart, though my dark desires are hidden to anyone but clever brave scribblers such as himself, anyway.

Now such accusations are nothing new. If you ever read Niewert's materials (no links for him--attention is what people like him crave and I won't give it to him, although if you follow some of my links below you can find his strange site if you really want to), you can see that he is of the exact same mindset as people like Lyndon LaRouche, the white supremacists who believe we live under a Zionist Occupation Government, the Holocaust Revisionists, and creeps like Michael Moore. Just take a whole jumble of seemingly related facts, slap it all together, and come to vile, hateful conclusions based on your own paranoia. It's classic Conspiracy Theory reasoning. You can read a pretty good dissection of the mindset in Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style In American Politics or in Daniel Pipes' Conspiracy: How The Paranoid Style Flourishes And Where It Comes From. You can see how Niewert's long, intricately reasoned nonsense is a textbook case of the Conspiracy Theorist mindset. Niewert'd get along great with the LaRouchies, or those who think that the Freemasons control world events.

By the way, if you don't know who the LaRouchies are, you're missing out on some fun. They are the followers of a gentleman named Lyndon LaRouche, who I must say is the creme-de-la-creme of modern American nutjobs. He has written countless voluminous essays, intricately referenced, exquisitely reasoned, internally consistent, and absolutely nuts. You owe it to yourself to check him out some time. You'll find LaRouche's main web site right here. Just perusing the titles and summaries should give you a clue what the guy's about, and how easy it is to fall for a madman's reasoning. (You can also gain insights into similar crackpot lunacy by reading our discussion of the great Jack T. Chick from earlier this year.)

Anyway, back to the intellectual titan Dave Niewert. What caused this strange paranoid to make his absurd insinuations? Basically, it's because I posted the cartoon that appears over at the left. It was drawn by occasional Dean's World commenter Cerdipity. If you want the long blow-by-blow of the whole stupid kerfuffle, you can read about it right here. My favorite moment in the whole escapade was when some uber-lefty asked me to prove that Cerdip's cartoon wasn't Nazi-inspired.

Well. Some things ya just can't answer, ya know?

Anyway, if you don't want to read the whole silly history of this (I wouldn't), I can summarize by telling you that that cartoon was a strong condemnation of the graphic shown below. That photo, which first appeared on the hard-left hate site, "Indymedia," was noted by me and countless other people back last December when it was first created. Cerdip's cartoon not only objected to that hateful attack on America's troops, but also objected to the vicious demagogues of the left who say America only went to war for racist reasons, to get Saddam's oil, because we're imperialists, and so on.

Anyway, that's the story. According to LaRoucheNiewert, this cartoon illustrated the secret fascist mentality of people like me. At least, in the paranoid mindset of LaRoucheNiewert and his fellow travellers on the fringe left, anyway. Pretty cool, huh?

Now, mind you, I'm not the only secretly Nazi / Fascist / Stalinist person in the blogosphere according to LaRoucheNiewert. No, the cabal of crypto-fascist / crypto-Stalinist / crypto-racist baddies of the Blogosphere includes Glenn Reynolds, Stephen Green the Vodka Pundit, Charles Johnson, and a host of other people, all of whose biggest claim to common ground is that we think the liberation of Iraq from Saddam's fascist tyranny was a good thing. Which LaRoucheNiewert commonly defines as "The Right."

It's rather amusing, isn't it, that those of us who wanted to see the end of Saddam's fascist regime (which was directly modeled after Nazism, by the way) are secretly (maybe even unwitting) Nazis, but those like Niewert who opposed that liberation are... what? Well, George Orwell would have called them "objectively pro-Fascist" for opposing the liberation of Iraq from fascism, but I'm sure Niewert and his followers have found some way to rationalize their way out of that. Somehow, they've concluded that those of us who wanted to remove a fascist tyrant are actually secret fascists ourselves. I won't try to argue with people that far gone in the fever swamps of pseudo-reason. I merely make note of it and chuckle.

By the way, I only bring any of this up because apparently, Lyndon LaRoucheDave Niewert is at it again. I gather that I'm in his crosshairs. I only know about this because I heard about it from the inimitable Eric of Classical Values. Actually, it's Eric who's in LaRouche'sNiewert's fever swamp this week. Apparently I'm just sort of an afterthought at the moment. You can read about the madness here if you are curious. You may consider this my public response to this latest round of "Dean is a fascist at heart" nonsense from the hate-soaked, Michael Moore-style Uber-Left.

I would like to come to Eric's defense, though. Eric is as big a fascist-loather as I am, and he runs a terrific weblog, which everyone should read more often: Classical Values, which should also be on your blogroll if you have one.

I'm also using this as a long-winded way of making a little joke, by the way. (Ah, I'm sure LaRoucheNiewert just knew I had a secret motive!) As I said earlier, I once posted the above cartoon to make a strong political statement about the hate-soaked left, and Niewert concluded that if anything looks like anything the Nazis ever put out, well, you do the math, right?

So. In honor of that little LaRouchismNiewertism (anything that looks like anything the Nazis ever did or said is evidence of Nazi thinking), I would also like to note a delicious irony: A currently popular poster being put out by the Kerry/Edwards campaign reads "Kerry: Hope Is On The Way."

As it happens, in the fateful year of 1932 when Hitler took power in Germany, a popular campaign sign around Germany read "Hitler: Unsere Letzte Hoffnung." Translated into English: "Hitler: Our Only Hope."

Well, what else could this possibly mean?!?!?!

You know, come to think of it, Kerry did say that the war to topple Saddam's fascist dictatorship was wrong. So, I mean, really now: what more needs to be said?

And doesn't Kerry look just a little, y'know, French? Maybe even... VICHY FRENCH?!?!?!

Well. I'm not saying it's so. I merely leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions. (Sly wink.)

Months ago when terrorists in Iraq started seizing and beheading hostages we predicted on our own blog that they would eventually raise the ante.

They clearly have in kidnapping Margaret Hassan, a Dubliner who spent 30 years to aid work among in Iraq. Read this article about her tear-filled plea for her life, her GUTS in staying there to work and help people despite the dangers of which she was fully aware -- and your heart can't help but go out to her and her family. And your anger can't but be aroused against her captors (no matter what your political persuasion is in this election year).

Yet, unless she is being held by a renegade faction that releases her, it's unlikely she'll get away. The terrorists seized her for a reason and they have goals.And Britain can't give into the terrorists' demands -- not just because of the short-term implications, but because that wouldn't fit in with England's historical behavior during times of crisis and challenges.

So now the terrorists raised the ante...again. Killing women -- and children -- doesn't matter to them, and is even advantageous from their point of view, since it not only increases the body count but garners the publicity they seek and helps them recruit angry Muslim youths. It is Sunday; and not matter what your religion, a prayer for Mrs. Hasaan would be in order......

And -- surprise -- this high-profile foot-in-mouth incident happened in.....you guessed it: France.

A devil-worshipping non-commissioned officer in the Royal Navy has become the first registered Satanist in the British Armed Forces. Chris Cranmer, a naval technician serving on the Type 22 frigate Cumberland, has been officially recognised as a Satanist by the ship's captain. That allows him to perform Satanic rituals aboard and permits him to have a funeral carried out by the Church of Satan should he be killed in action.

Anton LeVey: founded the Church of Satan, was also known as the 'Black Pope' Ldg Hand Cranmer is now lobbying the Ministry of Defence to make Satanism a registered religion in the Armed Forces so that Satanists can join up without "fear of marginalisation and the necessity to put up with Christian dogma". Mr Cranmer, who has been aboard the Cumberland's tour of duty in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf since April, said that being registered as a Satanist gave him "the freedom of religion I wanted despite its controversial nature".

Satanists are encouraged to perform rituals in worship of the Devil, to fulfil their sexual desires and to change situations or events in accordance with their will. Ritual trappings can include a black robe, an altar, the symbol of Baphomet (Satan), candles, a bell, a sword, a gong and a model phallus

Mr Cranmer, 24, is single and from Edinburgh. He has been in the Navy for four years and was promoted leading hand - the naval equivalent of corporal - in July last year. He told The Telegraph that he realised he was a Satanist nine years ago when he "stumbled across The Satanic Bible. I then read more and came to realise I'd always been a Satanist, just simply never knew."

He added that he had been "warmly congratulated" by his friends and family for becoming the Armed Forces' first Satanist but did not feel that the war in Iraq was "the Devil's work".

"From a military perspective, I believe in vengeance. I don't consider Satan to be an intelligently external force in my life; instead I consider it an empowering internal force. If I were asked if I were evil, I would say yes - by virtue of the common definition. However, if you asked my family and friends you would hear a resounding 'no'. I get a massive amount from my career, while sacrificing little."

Mr Cranmer added: "Freedom to practise my religion irrespective of location was one of the most important factors. I didn't want to feel I couldn't get out my Satanic Bible and relax in bed. I didn't want to bite my tongue any more when dealing with idiots.

"First, I can read what I want and express Satanic opinions without fear of prejudice. Second, I no longer have to attend religious ceremonial duties and am excused from all of them.

"Third, I will have a space provided for Satanic ritual practice - I'm not a habitual visitor to the [ritual] chamber, but to know that I have the facilities to use if need be is indeed a comfort. Fourth, I will not be subject to a denominational burial should I be killed in action. The Church of Satan will be contacted to provide a service, and if this is impossible, a non-denominational service will be performed."

The Church of Satan was founded in San Francisco in 1966 by its high priest, Anton Szandor LaVey, author of The Stanic Bible. Adherents live by the Nine Satanic Statements, which include "Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek", "Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they lead to physical, mental or emotional gratification", and "Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence".

To register as a Satanist, Mr Cranmer was required to make an initial submission to his divisional officer, who assessed any security implications. According to Rule Satannia, the official magazine of the Church of Satan to be launched on November 1, Mr Cranmer was then required to give a 30-minute presentation in June to the chaplain and senior officers on board, explaining the tenets of Satanism. The commanding officer, Capt Russell Best, granted his request a month later.

Unlike members of the Army and Air Force, recruits to the Navy do not have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen as head of the Armed Forces.

The arrival of the Navy's first Satanist shocked veterans. Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward, the former Commander of the South Atlantic Task Groups in the Falklands War and a Flag Aide-de-Camp to the Queen in 1989, said that Satanism would be "terribly undesirable" on a ship. "My immediate reaction is 'Good God, what the hell's going on?' " he said. "When I was serving, you were either Church of England or Roman Catholic, but I never heard of any Satanists. This sounds pretty daft to me."

The two campaigns: two clearly defined styles, two clearly defined messages, two clearly defined pitches to specific constituencies....

It has predicted the winner ever since it was launched in 1988. And the kids have voted.

Now it's coming out. News stories have a momentum, and this one from the AP is now is in Big Mo gear: NEW YORK - Interviews with dozens of former and current

Iraqi officials by congressional investigators have produced new evidence that Saddam Hussein micromanaged business deals under the U.N. oil-for-food program to maximize political influence with important foreign governments like Russia and neighboring Arab states.

The Iraqi officials, who were flown outside of Iraq for their own safety during the interviews, provided a list of foreign companies favored by Saddam and his top lieutenants for import contracts under the U.N. program. They also revealed a parallel blacklist of companies that the then-Iraq leader disqualified from getting deals, investigators told The Associated Press.

The precaution of redoubled secrecy comes after an Iraqi official involved in the oil-for-food investigation of corruption died in a car bombing in late June after speaking with investigators from the House International Relations Committee. The official, Ehsan Karim, who headed the Iraqi Finance Ministry's audit board, was interviewed in Amman, Jordan, on May 21.

Just a coincidence, of course...........

The Iraqi officials also helped investigators identify Iraqi front companies, which operated abroad to solicit and process alleged bribes from foreign companies and to help facilitate imports for the Iraqi government, including dual-use military goods such as vehicles.

The oil-for-food program, which ran from 1996 to 2003, was created to permit the former Iraqi government to sell limited amounts of oil in exchange for humanitarian goods as an exception to U.N. sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

One of the documents, known as "the exempt list" and obtained by AP from congressional investigators at the House International Relations Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., catalogues companies personally approved by Saddam and top lieutenants to circumvent Iraqi regulations to sign deals. The list contains hundreds of names of companies from more than two dozen countries.

No French, Chinese or American companies are on the list, but more than 280 Russian and 100 Saudi companies account for well over half of the list. The investigator who provided the document to AP said Congress might not have the full list.

The Saudis? We're SHOCKED!!!!!!!!!

Earlier this month, the top U.S. arms inspector, Charles Duelfer, published a report that listed foreign companies and individuals who had received vouchers for oil contracts under the U.N. program from the former Iraqi government. The report said Saddam himself approved companies.

Duelfer's report alleged that Saddam's government had used the oil vouchers to both solicit kickbacks and to reward countries and individuals willing to cooperate with Iraq's political goals. Companies and individuals from Russia, France and China dominated the list.

France? How can that BE?

Saddam was able to "subvert" the $60 billion U.N. oil-for-food program to generate an estimated $1.7 billion in revenue outside U.N. control from 1997-2003, the Duelfer report said. In addition to oil-for-food schemes, Iraq brought in over $8 billion in illicit oil deals with Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt through smuggling or illegal pumping through pipelines during the full period that sanctions were in place, the report added.

But the new lists obtained by AP of both companies favored and spurned by the Iraqi government are a more overt illustration of Saddam's manipulation of the program.

One investigator described the exempt list as the equivalent of the list in Duelfer's report of oil voucher recipients, but in this case for goods imported under the U.N. program.

"Until now, it had been thought that only vouchers for oil were handed out, but due to disclosures by Iraqi officials from the Ministry of Trade, we now understand that the practice was spread even further," said the investigator, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Companies on Saddam's special lists got vouchers giving them priority for deals in humanitarian goods under oil-for-food, or to act as middlemen for companies providing goods.

Some Iraqi officials confirmed the lists were crafted to reward companies from countries supporting Iraqi political goals, especially the lifting of U.N. sanctions, investigators said......

And there were other fun benefits, too:

"Many foreign delegations were coming to Baghdad by plane with businessmen and sometimes even artists," the official told investigators, according to other notes that were read to AP. "They broke sanctions laws and spread propaganda then they would go to the ministry of trade. Anyone who could agree to a contract for any item at a set price would get a voucher."

Another official explained that Saddam and others sometimes asked that foreign delegations bring favorite artists with them for entertainment. He alleged that Saddam granted vouchers to a prominent Egyptian actress, called Raghda, whose picture he kept in his bedroom.

Iraqi officials said that as many as 3,000 to 4,500 contracts or about 10 to 15 percent of all deals for importing goods through the U.N. program were granted to companies on the exempt list. The list includes numerous large Russian oil companies _ whose names also appear on the oil vouchers list published in Duelfer's report _ including Gazprom, Lukoil and Tatneft.

In the past, Russian companies have denied any wrongdoing in the oil-for-food program.

A handful of obscure companies from Western countries including Germany, Belgium, Cyprus, Italy and Switzerland appear on the list.

Over 250 companies appear on Saddam's blacklist, obtained from an Iraqi Health Ministry official, according to congressional investigators. The document also details reasons the companies lost favor with the Iraqi government. Dozens of the companies are blasted for "dealing with the Zionist entity," apparently referring to Israel.

One contract in English obtained by AP from investigators required companies given deals with the Iraqi government to sign a pledge that says, "We hereby confirm our commitment and pledge not to deal with Israel."

American companies Johnson & Johnson, Hewlett-Packard Co., and Eli Lilly and Co., make the list for this reason and Agilent Technologies Inc. _ which was spun off from Hewlett-Packard _ is accused by Vice President Ramadan of changing its name from Hewlett-Packard to "enter into Israel," according to the document.

So it wasn't just a theory after all (I'm hard to convince):

A key prediction of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity has been confirmed by an experiment showing that the Earth's rotation drags the surrounding fabric of space-time along with it.

The phenomenon, known as frame-dragging, was one of the last untested predictions of general relativity. A NASA satellite, Gravity Probe B, was launched earlier this year to test the same effect.

"Frame-dragging is like what happens if a bowling ball spins in a thick fluid, such as molasses," said Errico C. Pavlis of the Joint Center for Earth System Technology, a leader of the international research team that measured the effect.

There she WAS....

And all of you thought I was DEAD! Fat (pardon the expression) chance.

I've been hiding out here in San Diego at the pad of Joe Gandelman who's making me a plate of matzah ball soup.

I keep wondering: wasn't it painful to get those things off that poor matzah? Did it scream?

Inhuman -- but I'm NOT an anti-semite, mind you...

Oh. He's back. I have to get back into my disguise. Since no one reads blogs on weekends I'll let you in on a secret: I am STILL in show business and STILL seen by millions, when I dress up and go out perform under the name of Rosie O'Donnell.

I'll turn you over to Joe who's going to do a quick "pointer" blog, then plop into bed until he resumes his posts tomorrow morning. (He was in Texas this week, just got back and has been out all day).

TCB

PS: I can't BELIEVE my daughter was married to that guy!!

Our friend known as "Tall Glass of Milk" has apparently been a victim of voter fraud. She'd like some advice on how to proceed.

I had thought that perhaps these claims of widespread fraud this year were overblown but I begin to worry now.

Do these people realize what could happen to this country if elections all over the nation are questioned on something like this? Do they really want to see fighting in the streets and an election thrown to the House for the first time in over a century?

Chief Wiggles has the latest.

By the way a huge thanks should go to the folks at Homewood Suites in South Carolina. They're putting up Tabby and her dad for free. If you ever have a choice of places to stay, just remember their willingness to help out!

Hey, it looks like William Shatner may be one of the first space tourists.

No joke.

It would be kind of cool, wouldn't it?

In a fit of madness, apparently, a Guardian columnist is advocating the assassination of President Bush.

Yes. Well. Isn't that interesting?

The Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth are planning an ad campaign in Pennsylvania. Would you like to be a part?

These men are not Republicans, not Democrats, they are Americans. Many of them decorated with purple hearts, bronze stars, silver stars, and beyond. There are two Congressional Medal of Honor winners among them. Including Bud Day.

Their position: A man who spread horrible, vicious lies about the band of brothers who served with him in Viet Nam has somehow managed to secure the Democratic nomination for President. These men want to tell others about their experience with him, and the lies he told about them, to the voters of Pennsylvania. If you'd like to be a part of what they're doing, click here.

Roger Simon's review says it all: They Want Us To Look Away.

The film which the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee attempted to have banned from broadcast television, Stolen Honor, is now available for free on the Internet.

I'm going to see if I can't get a copy up here on Dean's World, but in the meantime you can see it for free here, here or here.

Most notable about the film is that the Kerry campaign was given a chance to respond to it when it was scheduled to be broadcast. Instead they sued to keep it off the air. Funny, having watched it, it would seem to me that this gripping film, which even the New York Times said every American should see, would be easy to answer if it were really juts a piece of dishonest trash.

Why not watch it yourself and decide?

(Links via Wince & Nod and Drink This.)

It's nice to see that some college students are protesting MTV's scaremongering nonsense about the draft. Let's hope the protest gets lots of attention. It sure should.

Scaring young people with bogus stories about bringing back the draft is no way to win an election.

(Via The Professor.)

My buddy Chris Lansdown notes that those spreading the rumor of a draft have a very good point. They claim that even though it's only speculation, it's a "legitimate issue" and "worth discussing." So, we should continue to tell people there's the possibility of a draft if Bush is re-elected, even though he denies it and even though there's no political support for it, even though it's already been voted down overwhelmingly in Congress, and even though the only people proposing a draft are Democrats.

Still, it's "legitimate" to "speculate."

Chris also speculates that, in order to keep social security viable with our waning tax money, John Kerry is going to impose mandatory euthanasia for all seniors at age 70 for men and 72 for women.

He also speculates that Democrats, along with George Soros and MoveOn, might be funding terrorist activity in Iraq in order to make Bush look bad.

Well it's just speculation, right? Speculation is legitimate, right? And worthy of discussion? I mean, it could be true, right?

The latest Carnival of the Recipes awaits your gourmandish pleasure.

The Queen notes that John Kerry enjoys a good hunt, with a little help from his friends.

It's being reported that fear and indimidation games are being played already in Florida.

The folks at Pundit Review radio recently had a fun interview with INDC Journal's Bill Ardolino that you might want to check out. INDC Journal's a Dean's World favorite.

Pundit Review's show is on at noon Eastern every Saturday on WBIX in Boston and is simulcast on the Internet here. This Saturday they'll be interviewing Bill Lalor from Citizens Journal.

"Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.

You know, it's interesting to me, the people who say they don't care about this stuff. I can understand saying you see the film as slanted, and wondering what Kerry's side of it is. But just not caring? Is it just cynicism? The notion that all politicians are dishonest and slimy and so these sorts of things are just irrelevant? That's kind of the vibe I get. If this were about my chosen candidate, and I investigated and decided the charges were for real, it would rock me back. It really would. I don't really entirely understand people who roll their eyes and say "who cares?"

I kind of get those who froth at the mouth and shriek "lies! lies!" because, well, they'll say that about anyone or anything who criticizes their chosen candidate. It's the "oh who cares?" folks that really bemuse me. You guys really, seriously, just do not care at all? I'm really curious.

Kevin Holtsberry has an excellenet analysis of how the Bush and Kerry campaigns are working in Ohio.

Conventional wisdom now has it that Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida will decide this year's election. They say whoever wins two of those three wins the Presidency. Although there are other possibilities, that seems to be what most observers are expecting.

As a child, I always dreamed of owning my own private spaceship. And my own robot. I was pretty sure by the year 2000 both of those would seem attainable.

Well, it looks like my sons at least will be able to think about owning t heir own spaceships by the time they're my age, and it looks like owning your own robot will be affordable a lot sooner than that.

Man I wish we'd gotten NASA out of the launch vehicle business in the 1980s.

The weekly Toast-O-Meter is available for the reading pleasure of political junkies.

There is a rumor floating around that Bill Clinton would like to be Secretary General of the United Nations. This is almost certainly just one of those rumors being floated in order to excite the Democratic base (just like some rumors circulate to excite the Republican base that are equally nonsense, like abolishing the income tax).

It's an intriguing notion, mind you. Clinton would be perfect for the role in many ways. But Eric Erickson explains why it ain't gonna happen, period.

You preferred Kerry's statements 33% of the time You preferred Bush's statements 67% of the time Voting purely on the issues you should vote Bush Who would you vote for if you voted on the issues? Find out now!

Not a bad test, although a few of the questions annoyed me since I would have preferred to say "both!" and not just pick one or the other. Also, of course, there are issues missing, and then there are questions of character and trustworthiness and experience, which do matter. Still, it's always interesting to see these things from a different perspective.

(Via The Queen.)

Trudy Schuett has information on common misconceptions and myths about domestic violence you might want to check out: Urban Legends Debunked I and Urban Legends Debunked II.

The image of the helpless oppressed female brutalized by patriarchal neanderthal males is being challenged by more and more researchers. Which is a good thing, because important social and legal problems can't be addressed if you don't have as much accurate information as possible about them.

Steven Moore (who is no relation to this Steven Moore) has a piece in the LA Times you should read.

Yes that would the the Steven Moore who is in charge of The Truth About Iraq, I site you should book mark and check frequently.

It's getting crazier and crazier.

12 days and counting. 12 days. Is there any way we could press the "fast forward" button?

Val Prieto recently discovered a way to freak out a sleepy Cuban wife.

Heh.

Some of my female readers will be annoyed by this, but it's a truism in politics: most undecided voters are usually women, and women tend to wait the longest to make up their minds before walking into an election booth.

You may be tempted to say "nuh-uh, not me!" But you know what? That would be like me telling you that most men don't like sports because, after all, I don't like sports (and for the most part, I don't, even if I like watching an underdog like the Red Sox pull an upset). It's true. Look at surveys of women and they tend to pay less attention to politics than men do and they tend to wait the longest before making their minds. If you're the exception, bully for you. That doesn't change the reality. As The Washington Times notes, a large majority of this year's undecided voters are women, and both parties are aggressively courting them.

And by the way, this should tell you just exactly what the thinking is of this ad. It's a pitch to the "Security Moms" of this election. You may think it's schmaltzy or smarmy, and you may even be a woman who says it will have no effect on her. But you'd be foolish not to acknowledge that that's really who exactly that ad is pitched at: wavering Security Moms.

The question is, of course, whether it'll be effective.

Assuming Kerry wins the Presidency (hardly impossible), it's interesting to speculate what he'll be like. His record hardly makes that clear. My own view is that he would immediately face a Democratic Party that erupted into turmoil. Most of his base doesn't really like him, they just dislike Bush. Furthermore, he's never presented a clear and coherent agenda to unite people behind. Well, national health care and taxing the rich more and being "smarter" on the War on Terror. Okay. But that's all vague and nebulous, and meanwhile, he's got a big chunk of his base that will immediately begin giving him headaches as soon as the election is over.

If you're not sure what I'm talking about, Beldar Blog has examples of things already happening. Including some names that will seem very familiar to weblog readers.

There appears to be a brain chemistry link to cola choice, especially toward Coca-Cola. Fascinating reading, for it has ramifications on how other socio-cultural choices influence brain chemistry and vice-versa.

Bill has the best Red Sox gloat.

Bill Ardolino has a good thread going about leadership in war. It sums up my feelings about this last year and a half or so in Iraq perfectly.

It also underscores something else for me: if Kerry is victorious 12 days from now (something I begin to see as increasingly likely), I will of course support him and do my best to be better toward him than the most vicious critics have been toward Bush. Either way, though, I'll feel permanently alienated from much of the Left. Then again, that's pretty much just a given: I'm genuinely ashamed to live in a country where Michael Moore and his apologists are not treated with contempt by most of the citizenry. I'll still love my country, but will always view with deep contempt and loathing some of my countrymen, something I hoped would never be the case again after 9/11 (but which was probably a naive wish anyway).

What has been most frustrating about some of the Bush critics I encounter, and so distressing, is that there has been literally nothing they won't criticize, even if it's contradictory to things they've said in the past. But what's even worse is the simple fact that they refuse to acknowledge that anyone can criticize anything, and that if you really want America to be successful in her war efforts you don't just criticize, you propose alternatives. Which, with the exception of those who say simple things like "Out of Iraq now!" (which would be a humanitarian disaster) almost none of them will do. They seem content merely to engage in hindsight criticisms of how things could have been done better.

In short, when the going gets tough, the whiners whine louder and the sneerers sneer wider.

I've permanently severed friendships because of this. The lack of patriotism such behavior betrays is simply sickening. But it's also taught me something:

If Kerry wins, the American people will have spoken definitively, and for all time so far as I am concerned. They will have, in effect, said, "We will not support pre-emptive wars or large-scale efforts to democratize other nations any longer. We simply haven't got the stomach for what's required."

Because let's face it: by any rational measure, the Iraq war has gone better than any operation of its type and scale has ever gone in history. And yet the piddling cost and the incredible work of our people is now routinely viewed as a disaster. The press is content merely to report the negative, without any rational or historical context, and the American people are (apparently) content to let them get away with it.

And that's okay. If that's what the American people want, it's what they want. If anyone proposes such a task in the future, I'll simply say "Look to the Iraq war. It will end in disaster because the press will only report failure and death and excuse that with phony mealy-mouthed claims of "objectivity," and within a year or two the American people will go wobbly. It's just who we are as a people."

It will change forever the calculations those of us who favor hawkishness must make when we advocate any course of action. For those who say the American people always lose heart for any armed conflict that goes on for more than a short period of time will have been vindicated--and those of us who advocate military action will have to always remember it.

Or is Boston leading the Yankees 8 to 1 in the 4th inning?

Wow.

* Update * Bottom of the 7th, and it's still 8 to 1. Unreal.

* Update 2 * Damn. 8 to 3.

* Update 3 * Woohoo! Top of the 9th, 9 to 3. Go Sox!

* Update 4 * Top of the 9th, 10 to 3.

* Update 5 * Bottom of the 9th. 10 to 3. 2 outs, 1 man on base.

* Update 6 * SOX WIN!!!

This has got to be one of the greatest sports comeback moments in history.

An independent group called Progress For America has started the most expensive political ad campaign of the year.

You can view the ad over the Internet by going to the ad's web site.

I find the ad effective, but then as I've said many times I think Bush is an honest, decent, humble man, and that his detractors are far too often just plain nasty--and that they didn't have to be so nasty, they chose it. So of course I would like the ad. The real question is whether it will motivate any of the people wavering on who to vote for.

I believe that the only possible response from the Democrats on this one is going to be to get even more negative, because there's nothing comparable in Senator Kerry's background that they can pump like this.

What surprises are in store for the next 13 days I wonder?

Dean's World was featured prominently in a Detroit Free Press article on Monday. I was wondering when that story was coming out. (Thanks to Andrew Roth for bringing it to my attention.)

Chief Wiggles and Plunge have an update on Tabby. She's still coming Friday night. They could use some advice from people familiar with Charleston Airport, and are still having some visa issues. Check out the update and help if you can.

...but GO RED SOX!

The Queen notes that General Tommy Franks has refuted John Kerry's claims about Afghanistan and bin Laden.

I cannot wait for this election to be over. 13 days, 13 days....

I note that the Watcher of Weasels Council has nominated a Dean's World posting. That's always a nice compliment. All the nominations are good, though.

I was quite amused by the hysterical reactions I got when I noted that anyone who paid to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 has blood on his hands. Most amusing was a person identified only as "LKR," who said, "It angers me that you're equating a political commentary film created within a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY to Nazi or Stalinist propaganda. This comparison is beyond inappropriate."

People like LKR need to do a little more thinking. Our liberal democracy allows the creation of Nazi and Stalinist propaganda. White supremacists, holocaust revisionists, and other hate-merchants (such as Michael Moore) are protected in their political commentary by the 1st amendment and by the great values of our liberal democracy. Hate-sites on the Internet such as Stormfront also are allowed to exist. Groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the Neo-Nazi party, and Michael Moore fan clubs are all allowed to operate in this society. They go unmolested so long as they are non-violent. That's what liberal democracy is all about.

This in no way, shape, or form means that I am not free to identify such people as human cockroaches. Which is exactly what they are.

You see, the cure for hate-speech is more speech. Nazis and communists and Michael Moore apologists and white supremacists are all allowed to say whatever they want--and the rest of us are free to call them out on their lies and to identify them for what they are.

I am also amused by people who say that my words are "angry." They aren't. They're my dispassionate evaluation and judgement. It's simply the truth: if you paid to see this movie you are complicit in mass murder--because it is used as a recruitment film by terrorist groups, and its many lies motivate some of the very people shooting at our troops now. It has also created a morale problem for our troops--not a pressing one, as it turns out, but multiple reports from the field confirm that it's so.

So. If you paid to see this film, you have blood on your hands. Furthermore, if you defend this movie, then you are either horribly misinformed or you are a human cockroach.

Guess what? By saying all that, I'm exercising my free speech rights. Isn't liberal democracy grand?

There is one key difference between my words and Moore's though: my words don't kill people, whereas Moore's movie, like the communist and Nazi propaganda films it so closely resembles, does. I would therefore suggest that those of you who are angry with me have your anger misplaced. Your anger should be directed at Moore. I also suggest that, while the damage cannot be undone, you can help ameliorate it by donating to Truth for Troops.

Don't like me for saying all this? Go read this. Then go to Hell. :-)

Our friends at Jews For George would like me to make note of Ed Koch's endorsement of George W. Bush. They also have a phone message from Mayor Koch that you might want to hear.

Have you visited The Truth About Iraq web site yet? If not, you should.

You should especially make sure to watch the ad they're running.

Those who would have you believe that "America put Saddam into power" and "Saddam was America's friend" and "we went to war for oil" have a lot to apologize for. Alas, they probably lack the introspection to admit it.

I had a wonderful time reading Technography's roundup of reactions to TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE.

This week's Carnival of the Liberated presents a sampler of the work of Iraqi bloggers on topics including Ramadan, terrorism, and secularism in Iraq.

Another acquaintance, a doctor called Zeyad Walid, was found decapitated in Yusifiya, southwest of Baghdad. He worked with a pharmacist, Zena Al-Qashtini, who was also found shot in the head. They were both kidnapped from a pharmacy in Harthiya by 10 armed assailants a few weeks ago at mid-day in front of a large crowd of customers. His brother abroad collected a ransom thinking he was kidnapped by petty criminals. Turns out that the pharmacy had previously sold some pharmaceuticals to the US army and this was their punishment for 'collaboration'. I remember it was reported that two bodies 'with western features' were located in the area, that was because the girl was blond. They have only been identified a few days ago.

Riverbend of Baghdad Burning has an interesting post on Valium abuse in Iraq.

The ongoing terrorism in Iraq is also on everyone's mind. Dr. Saif of Iraqi Humanity and Ali of Iraq the Model offer personal narratives and reflections:

Why these explosions occurred in churches specifically? & why the explosions occurred in that day specifically? I reached to general idea me & my friends in the college after long morning discussion, & the answer was that those who did these things weren't a true Muslims & they are 100% terrorists wanting to make a gap of trust & love between Christians & Muslims who lived in this country in peace for years.

This morning my uncle who's a highschool principal found a post signed by Al Tawheed Wal Jihad group on the door of his school. It seems that they are distributing a poster throughout Baghdad demanding all government employees to stop going to work, threatening to behead anyone who disobey! It reads:

In the name of God most merciful most gracious
A threat to all government institutes and all government employees.
Why do you keep going to work and schools and keep silent about the occupation? We will behead anyone who commits to work in government institutes.
Allah Akbar Allah Akbar
wal yakhsa'a Il khasi'oon*
Al Tawheed Wal Jihad group.

(I don't know how this phrase can be translated but it's the one Saddam used to end his speeches with for the last few years before the war! A close translation might be, "Let the doomed ones be doomed"!!)

My sister (who lives in Mosul) called today and was very upset. The extremists put announcements in the streets forcing all women to wear the hijab (head scarf) even the Christians and this announcements was signed by five Islamic parties. And even for women who wear the hijab they should not wear trousers, just the Islamic dress as they said. My sister already wears hijab, not because she is convinced with it, but because she looks different than the others around her, they all started to look at here as someone bad. Today she was upset because they forced her 14 years old daughter to wear hijab in the school, otherwise she will not be able to go to school again!

I try to end these samplers with something a little lighter so I turn, as usual, to neurotic iraqi wife. She's having a nicotine fit due to Ramadan, still looking for ways to keep Hubby interested, and she's posted her picture. I think she's using the same photographer as Kate of Electric Venom.

I have a flawed and imperfect hero.

He's often a mess, and anyone who looks at him knows that at times he is an embarassment. Why can't he be more glib?

The Queen says "This represents my feelings on the election."

Yeah. Me too.

What do I mean? Just click here.

Can't.

Stop.

Laughing.

Just saw Team America: World Police.

Oh. My. God.

John and Beth have more.

My spy boy saw your spy boy

Sittin' by the fire

My spy boy told your spy boy,

"I'm gonna set you flag on fi-yo!"

I said:

"Hey now,"

"Hey now,"

Aiko aiko all day

Jockomo feno aye na nay

Jockomo feena nay!

My grandma and your grandma

Were sitting by the fire

Said my grandma to your grandma:

"Gonna get your tail on fire!"

Talkin' 'bout

"Hey now,"

"Hey now,"

Aiko aiko all day

Jockomo feno aye na nay

Jockomo feena nay!

A few times recently I've been asked what I'll talk about on this weblog once the election's over.

My God, there used to be so much else I talked about. Music. Poetry. Philosophy. Science. The future of western civilization. History. Supporting our troops, and the cause of liberty and human rights. Art. Women and men. Culture.

I have so much I'd rather talk about than this bloody election. I seriously wish Democrats had nominated someone like Dick Gephardt or Joe Lieberman. If they had I'd probably only talk about a tenth as much about the election as I do.

Still: this weblog existed long before it got sidetracked by the Presidential election. I have a thousand things I'd rather talk about on a day to day basis.

15 days. They can't go by fast enough for me.

The latest Carnival of the Capitalists has baby pictures. Also evil capitalist swine articles. What's not to love?

The American Academy of Neurology notes that some blood pressure medicines may retard the progress of Alzheimer's.

Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" is now used as a recruitment film by terrorist networks. Mr. Moore is aware of this fact and has done nothing to even protest it, let alone try to stop it. His film has also created a serious morale problem for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly our younger ones, because Moore has arranged for it to be distributed over the Internet to them for free.

This film tells them that they went to war for no good reason, and horribly killed a lot of innocent people, simply to make evil men in the U.S. government wealthy and powerful. That they basically died and killed for oil and for other evil purposes. And even that the terrorist threat itself is a lie. It portrays America as working a great evil and our troops of doing work that does no good and much harm.

In short, this film is no different from a Nazi or Stalinist propaganda film. It kills. Especially when it goes unanswered.

If you paid to see this film over the summer, or bought it on home video or DVD, you probably didn't realize you'd have blood on your hands. But if you did, you do. So what are you going to do? Just sneer and pretend you are not a party to the death and destruction? Get mad at me for telling you this?

Or will you maybe do something about it?

Here's your chance to make up for your mistake: Donate to Truth for Troops.

Rusty Shackleford notes that one of Senator Kerry's most frequent claims, that George W. Bush is the "first President in 72 years to preside over net job losses" is a highly questionable assertion (I won't call it a "lie" like Rusty does, but it's certainly far from irrefutable).

I'll also note that the current jobs calculation formulas are based on new payroll jobs, even though we're in a time (which started about 10 years ago and has been increasing ever since) where more and more people are self-employed and no longer show up on those payroll figures. But never mind that. Just go look at Rusty's data, which is comprehensive and well-referenced. (Yeah it was released on Friday, I didn't get around to it til now. Sue me.)

It would be fair to note, however, that overall job numbers do not necessarily mean that certain regions and certain industries haven't experienced severe dislocations. the tech industry is still recovering from its bad hangover from the '90s, and manufacturing is perpetually in trouble. States like Ohio and Michigan and Washington and Oregon are especially struggling. Still, this is far away from the gloom and doom some people seem perpetually addicted to believing.

Last week, the Annenberg Public Policy Center released the results of a careful scientific survey of active duty and reserve military people to see their attitudes about President Bush and Senator Kerry. Their preference for President Bush was by hugely lopsided margins, 3 to 1 on average, and reservists--the people supposedly most hurt by the Bush administration's policies--preferred Bush even more than the more traditional active duty folks. James at Outside the Beltway has a lot more details, and a link to the actual study if you want to get into the depths of the numbers.

He also notes how some press accounts managed to spin these findings as a negative for the President.

Well, you knew they'd find a way if they could, didn't you?

The astonishing events in Afghanistan reached a new high last week. Art Chrenkoff, a refugee from oppression himself, has kept an interest in the Afghan people for decades. Today he has the latest news roundup on that amazing country's amazing progress.

Also, for those of you interested in other parts of the world, Simon has the latest Asia blogging roundup.

Not that this portends anything for November 2, but here's an interesting trivia question. Actually, it's a series of related questions:

In the entire history of the United States of America:

1) How many who were not currently serving in any political office at all (save armed forces General) have we elected President?

2) How many sitting members of the House of Representatives have we elected President?

3) How many sitting Vice Presidents have we elected President?

4) How many sitting members of the Senate have we elected President?

5) How many men whose only qualification was having served as a General have we elected President?

7) How many sitting Governors have we elected President?

Points for correct answers will be assigned on an utterly arbitrary basis by the management.

Tabby is arriving in South Carolina at midnight on Friday, where she'll be met by Chief Wiggles, Dr. Hochman, and anyone else who wants to great her. More details right here.

Thank you all for helping make this possible.

The discussion Hatcher, Mary, and now me are now having in the Hate Is A WMD has turned to even more detailed arguments over the current nature of Saudi society, and an intriguing comparison between Al Qaeda and the "Ghost Dance" cult of 19th century America. Hella good reading, much of it. But pack a lunch, you'll be there a while....

If there was any doubt before (and there wasn't), there isn't now:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The most feared militant group in Iraq, the movement of terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, declared its allegiance to Osama bin Laden on Sunday, saying it had agreed with al-Qaida over strategy and the need for unity against "the enemies of Islam."

The declaration, which began with a Quranic verse encouraging Muslim unity, said al-Zarqawi considered bin Laden "the best leader for Islam's armies against all infidels and apostates."

It said the two had been in communication eight months ago and "viewpoints were exchanged" before the dialogue was interrupted.

"God soon blessed us with a resumption in communication, and the dignified brothers in al-Qaida understood the strategy of Tawhid and Jihad," the statement said.

Bin Laden should worry, though, if al-Zarqawi sends him a message saying "I just wanted to give you a heads up..." More:

The statement affirmed the "allegiance of Tawhid and Jihad's leadership and soldiers to the chief of all fighters, Osama bin Laden." It said the announcement had been timed for the start of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan when "Muslims need more than ever to stick together in the face of the religion's enemies."

"It's good tidings for our nation ... to spite the infidels and frighten the enemies of Islam."

Al-Zarqawi's statement also endorsed bin Laden's goal to "expel the infidels from the Arabian peninsula" — a reference to American influence in the al-Qaida leader's native Saudi Arabia, birthplace of the Islamic faith.

Al-Zarqawi's declaration appeared two days after the U.S. government formally declared Tawhid and Jihad a terrorist organization. The listing imposes several restrictions on al-Zarqawi's group, including a ban on travel to the United States and a freeze on the group's assets in U.S. banks.

The United States, Britain and Iraq are asking the U.N. Sanctions Committee to list the al-Zarqawi group as well, which would impose identical sanctions worldwide.

The Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi is suspected of about a dozen high-profile attacks in Iraq, including last year's bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, and the beheading of numerous foreign hostages.

U.S. and Iraqi officials believe al-Zarqawi's movement is centered in the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, where U.S. troops clashed Sunday with militants. However, Tawhid and Jihad banners have been seen recently in Samarra, Ramadi and even on the streets of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

In Cairo, Mohammed Salah, an expert on Islamic militancy, said the claim that bin Laden and al-Zarqawi were in regular contact was "more or less a media stunt to frustrate" their common opponent, the United States.

It appeared the announcement also was aimed at enabling al-Zarqawi, who has a background as a common criminal, to profit from bin Laden's stature among radical Muslims.

Bin Laden, believed to be hiding in Afghanistan or in the border areas of Pakistan, has faded somewhat from public view and recent declarations by al-Qaida's leadership have been made by his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri.

On the other hand, al-Zarqawi's group has become highly visible, posting videos on the Web showing the beheading of foreign hostages and bloody attacks against American troops in Iraq.

"By virtue of his location, al-Zarqawi has more access to the Americans, which will make it easier for al-Qaida to carry out operations without logistical complications or time delays," Salah said. "Bin Laden is on the run and hiding. He's become a symbol, as opposed to al-Zarqawi's actual presence on the ground that has made him a definite planner and executor."

Indeed, it would appear that this is going to continue the process that began with the beheadings, in particular — of making al-Zarqawi a symbol of terrorism almost on the same level as bin Laden.

The U.S. military reportedly wants British troops to be deployed in the US-controlled area of Iraq -- and it's sparking much controversy in England. The Scotsman has an interesting Q&A; here on the controversy: the precise reason why this move is needed militarily, the political pitfalls..and more. Here's the crux part in terms of what the British PM and his government face:

Q: What will Mr Blair do now?

A: It is difficult to be sure. It had been assumed last week that the Government would accede to the US request. However the announcement that Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon will only make a "holding" statement in the Commons tomorrow suggests that ministers are still agonising over how to respond.

Q: Why is it such a difficult decision?

A: Mr Blair would almost certainly want to help the Americans if he could. However, given the current unpopularity in Britain of both George Bush and the Iraq, any suggestion that he was putting British troops in danger in order to boost the President's chances of re-election would be hugely damaging politically. If any British soldiers were killed in the US sector it could lead to bitter recriminations, with accusations that Mr Blair had sacrificed British lives for the sake of his friend in the White House.

One possibility for the Prime Minister could be some form of agreement to deploy troops to a relatively quiet part of the US sector for a strictly limited duration. However, even that could be fraught with danger if they are then targeted by the insurgents.

Alternatively Mr Blair could simply offer a polite refusal. There is a precedent. When US forces were besieging the holy city of Najaf, the Government eventually turned down a request to help.

Prediction: Tony Blair won't turn the request down but help out in some form.

This boost is very significant. USA Today reports:

President Bush surged to an eight-point lead over Democratic challenger John Kerry in the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup national poll, giving the president a tie for his largest margin of the year with just more than two weeks left until Election Day.

In a poll taken Thursday-Saturday, Bush received 52% support from likely voters, Kerry received 44% and independent Ralph Nader received 1%. Three percent of likely voters had no opinion.

The 52% figure is a tie for Bush's largest support number since March, when it first became apparent Kerry would be the Democratic presidential nominee. And the eight-point spread is also a tie for the largest spread since March.

It would indicate the undecideds are breaking for Bush. More:

The survey also is a significant swing from the last USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup national poll. In that survey, taken Oct. 9-10, Kerry had 49% support, Bush had 48% and Nader had 1%.

Bush's favorable/unfavorable rating also improved in the new survey. Fifty-five percent of those surveyed said they had a favorable opinion of Bush, compared to 44% with an unfavorable opinion. Kerry's favorable/unfavorable rating remained largely unchanged, with 52% of those surveyed saying they had a favorable opinion of Kerry and 45% saying they had an unfavorable opinion.

Bush regained a lead in the poll even though a plurality of likely voters thought Kerry won last Wednesday's debate —47% for Kerry to 35% for Bush.

But the percentage of likely voters who view Bush favorably climbed in the past week from 51% to 58%, while the number who viewed Kerry favorably stayed at the 51% level.

Kerry also finds himself battling the Bush campaign's attempts to label him as too liberal. Among likely voters, half (52%) say Kerry's political views are too liberal. Conversely, 41% of likely voters see Bush as too conservative.

Bush also has a lead in other recent polls. A Newsweek poll released Friday gave Bush 50% to Kerry's 44%; a Time magazine poll released the same day gave Bush a 48-47 edge; Friday's poll from The Washington Post gave Bush a 50-47 advantage and a Zogby poll released Friday gave Bush 48% and Kerry 44%.

Now the key is going to be be if there is a similar swing in the other polls. But if there is indeed an 8 point lead it would indicate the undecideds are breaking for Bush and the election — barring unforseen results — could be pretty well decided. A LOT can happen in two weeks - but if this poll reflects a TREND the election results will be fairly predictable.

UPDATE: But, again, all of these polls are themselves the subject of debate. Here's what the site Donkey Rising says about this latest Gallup Poll.

We've had GREAT fun on our blog The Moderate Voice just reporting on (supposedly) Republican candidate Alan Keyes' campaign pronouncements in Illinois.

Keyes is proving to be King of the Sound Byte — but come election day he may be King of the Electoral Debacle, since his pronouncements are to the right what Dennis Kucinich' are to the left. Even many Republicans cringe. And how can you resist not linking to a news report like this new one?

U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes told a rally Saturday that incest was "inevitable" for children raised by gay couples because the children might not know both biological parents.

"If we do not know who the mother is, who the father is, without knowing all the brothers and sisters, incest becomes inevitable," Keyes told the Marquette Park rally held to oppose same-sex marriages.

"Whether they mean it or not, that is what will happen. If you are masked from your knowing your biological parents, you are in danger of encountering brothers and sisters you have no knowledge of."

But what's the big deal? Incest is relative...

Oh, we will miss Alan Keyes when the election is over and he goes back to collecting even fatter speaking fees and is probably given a new cable or radio talk show due to his nuclear-bomb-laced rhetoric (is there an opening at Crossfire?).

Pierre Salinger, John Kennedy's efficient, somewhat colorful and loyal-to-the-end press secretary is dead -- another signal of the closing of a political era.

For those of us who remember the JFK administration and assasination as clear as yesterday (even if we were kids) Salinger's image is set in concrete. He was an affable, heavy-set, cigar smoking press secretary who enjoyed great credibility. He was clearly shattered when JFK was killed and remained adamantly devoted to his assasinated boss throughout his life.

But his post-JFK administration life was not as happy or successful, even though for he worked for ABC News for a while. He had a rocky road ahead once he left the White House:

After Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, Mr. Salinger continued as White House press secretary for several months under President Lyndon B. Johnson.

He resigned in 1964 to run for the Senate from California. After winning the Democratic primary, he was appointed to fill the Senate seat when Senator Claire Engle died. But Mr. Salinger was defeated in the 1964 general election by George Murphy, a Republican.

Mr. Salinger, whose mother was a native of France, and who had been fluent in French since childhood, spent much of the next 30 years as a journalist in France and England. His first post in France was as a correspondent for L'Express, the French magazine. He then became a French correspondent and later Paris bureau chief for ABC News.

As a television newsman, Mr. Salinger delivered months of detailed reporting on the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 and 1980, and on the release of the American hostages.

The latter days of his career took a strange turn, however, when Mr. Salinger claimed to have a secret document showing that "friendly fire" from a United States Navy ship was responsible for the downing of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 off Long Island in 1996. The claims were widely publicized and immediately disputed by federal authorities. The document turned out to be an Internet posting that had been long discredited by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

His profile went way down after that. In professional terms, he never really recovered.

The newspapers are starting to endorse all around the country and today two of the bigger papers picked different candidates.

The endorsements are coming in at a quick rate now, but rather than focus on a zillion we're giving you these two. Obnoxious registration is rquired on both of these websites but it's worth it (not just to read the editorials but, if you aren't already registered, to regularly check some of their other great). A few key quotes from each are offered below. The New York Times endorsed George Bush...."OCTOBER FOOL!" And the Times insists this decision is a pro-Kerry decision, versus a strictly anti-Bush decision:

Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

The Times sketches in great detail its case against Bush. One of its points is that once in office after the disputed 2000 election Bush, instead of governing from the center, "he turned the government over to the radical right." At one point it concludes:

The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management. The Department of Education's handling of the No Child Left Behind Act has been heavily politicized and inept. The Department of Homeland Security is famous for its useless alerts and its inability to distribute antiterrorism aid according to actual threats. Without providing enough troops to properly secure Iraq, the administration has managed to so strain the resources of our armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond to a crisis anywhere else in the world.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune (which is proving to be one of the best newspaper chains in terms of content as it has gobbles up papers) has endorsed George Bush, particularly due to his policies on terrorism:

A President Kerry certainly would punish those who want us dead. As he pledged, with cautiously calibrated words, in accepting his party's nomination: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." Bush, by contrast, insists on taking the fight to terrorists, depriving them of oxygen by encouraging free and democratic governments in tough neighborhoods. As he stated in his National Security Strategy in 2002: "The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. ... We cannot let our enemies strike first."

Bush's sense of a president's duty to defend America is wider in scope than Kerry's, more ambitious in its tactics, more prone, frankly, to yield both casualties and lasting results. This is the stark difference on which American voters should choose a president.

There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned. And there are reasons--apart from the global perils likely to dominate the next presidency--to recommend either of these two good candidates.

But for his resoluteness on the defining challenge of our age--a resoluteness John Kerry has not been able to demonstrate--the Chicago Tribune urges the re-election of George W. Bush as president of the United States.

What does it matter? I've always felt newspaper endorsements mean very little.

Most people don't wake up in the morning read it and say: "Hey! I was going to vote a different way but my newpaper made me see the light!!!" In these days of right and left talk radio shows that are essentially endorsement-a-second editorials, 24 hour cable newscasts and cable political talking head screech shows, etc. a newspaper endorsement is today just one more summation of a conclusion arrived at by a voter — in this case a corporate one.

Still, if you read them together it gives you an idea of the consensus out there. The trick is to find out how many papers endorsed X candidate, how it compared with past elections...then consider whether that reflects a shift in support for a given party. But, in the end, that may not matter: the number of people who vote because their All Knowing Paper outlined a position is probably about the same as the number of ethical political campaign strategists out there...

UPDATE: Since someone emailed me asking me about the total: According to Editor & Publisher's running tally:

Kerry gained the editorial backing of at least 22 papers, with Bush winning the support of just four, giving Kerry the lead by 37-17 in E&P;'s exclusive tally. He has many more large papers on his side, boosting his "circulation edge" to better than 5-1: approximately 8 million to 1.5 million (we will post a complete tally later today).

But, again, no matter who gets what: the influence of newspaper editorials in the 21st Century -- with its growing cable "narrowcasting" and internet opinion outlets (like this site) -- is greatly diluted from what it was even 10 years ago.

Actor Nick Nolte's blog.

"Read the whole thing" ...and tell me you don't want to go: "Huh???????"

I was stunned recently to see that MTV's "Rock the Vote" campaign for under-30s is still saying the return of the draft is a live issue, and apparently, for them, no amount of votes by the Congress, statements from politicians of both parties, or explanations as to why a draft is not and will not be necessary will satisfy them. Neither will the fact that their questions about force strength, realignment, and recruiting have all been answered already.

Citizen Smash, a reservist himself who has served in the conflict with Iraq, notes just how stupid this draft hoax really is--and notes that, sadly, some politicians are still trying to play on this hoax in order to win votes.

Economist Donald Luskin notes that the prediction shares in Bush on Tradesports have been intentionally manipulated by an unknown investor. I have no reason to doubt the truth of this, although I find it amusing to think that anyone believes that this would make a difference in the election. Too few people take these prediction markets seriously for it to have any effect on the overall election I would say.

Also, Steven Den Beste notes that poll numbers have apparently been intentionally manipulated in the past few months. Although I find his overall analysis quite reasonable, I do take exception in one regard: he is relying on an aggregate of all national polls. But we have known for years that various press outfits will publish far less reliable numbers than others, and Newsweek is probably the premier example this year, having apparently intentionally rigged the results a couple of times. I believe that if Mr. Den Beste relied on an aggregate of polls only by reputable, scentifically sound polling companies such as Zogby, Gallup, Rasmussen, and a handful of others, he would probably see much more reliable numbers. But I don't know of anyone who's put the work into a more selective sample group like that.

As I have said many times, polls are scientifically valid but only when done properly, and it's as important sometimes to know who did the poll as it is to see the numbers, for some groups are far more reputable and responsible than others.

California's Governor is doing it his way...and he has proven the doomsayers wrong.

Iran will go full speed ahead on its uranium enrichment program:

Iran says it will reject any proposal to end its work on uranium enrichment, a process that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Hossein Mousavian, a senior Iranian official involved in the nuclear negotiations, has told state television his country will not accept any plan that requires it to drop what he calls "its legitimate right" to enrich uranium to make fuel.

European Union diplomats have said they are seeking U.S. and Russian support for a deal that would ask Iran to give up uranium enrichment in return for technical and economic assistance.

Iran has denied U.S. allegations it has military nuclear ambitions, saying its atomic program is solely dedicated to meeting high demand for electricity.

Uranium, enriched to a low level, can be used to fuel nuclear power stations such as one Iran is building at the southern port of Bushehr. However, if enriched further, it can be used in nuclear warheads.

This comes amid reports that the U.S., working with European nations, was close to getting an agreement with Iran. From this report, at least, it would seem any agreement has fallen through. On the other hand, it could also be part of an Iranian bargaining ploy...

No matter who's elected in November...Iran is going to be a troubling issue.

This guy wins the prize.

A father in central China has been refused permission to name his son '@'.

The dad wanted to name his son after keyboard character that appears in every email address, arguing it was now in common usage.

But officials in Zhengzhou, Henan province, refused to register the name on a legal technicality, the Beijing Morning Post reported.

Under Chinese law, all names must be capable of being translated into Mandarin.

If the name change had gone through, instead of eating baby food the kid would be eating spam......

I mean, really.....

Newsweek's latest poll puts President George Bush ahead in a nail-bitingly close race...and with Ralph Nader again possibly poised to impact the final results.

The newsweekly reports:

With just 17 days remaining in the race to the White House, President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry remain locked in a dead heat, according to the NEWSWEEK poll, taken after Wednesday's final debate in Arizona. In a three-way race with Independent candidate Ralph Nader, 48 percent of all voters say they would reelect Bush while 46 percent prefer Kerry.

And Bush's margin is even high with likely voters (see below). More.

Removing Nader, who draws just 1 percent of the vote, bumps the Kerry-Edwards ticket up to 47 percent, reducing the incumbent's statistically insignificant lead to one point and suggesting that the independent candidate could pull a small number of votes away from the Democrat on Nov. 2. Before the debates began on Sept. 30, the Republican ticket held a commanding 11-point lead.

Even so, we are now in a different phase in this campaign. With some three weeks to go a lot can happen but in the end the result will likely hinge on which party can implement the strongest get-out-the-vote drive on election day to get their partisans and sympathizers out to the polls. And both sides have detailed preps in place (for not only getting people to the polls but dispatching lawyers for potential court battles). And likely voters?:

Results based on likely voters (as opposed to all registered voters) give Bush the edge, with Bush-Cheney pulling 50 percent of the vote and Kerry-Edwards drawing 44 percent in a three-way race (Nader still gets 1 percent). This suggests that turnout will be critical in determining the outcome of the election: Kerry now leads Bush 57 percent to 36 percent among those who identify themselves as first-time voters. The number of voters who say they are still open to switching candidates is actually fairly small, but still large enough to determine the popular vote winner: One in ten (11 percent) registered voters are still uncommitted.

Bush has a clear advantage with women, who prefer him 49 percent to 43 percent. Kerry has a slight edge with men, 50 percent to 46 percent. The Democrat also commands 50 percent of the youth vote (with Bush at 41 percent) and 54 percent of the senior vote (to Bush's 39 percent.) But Bush dominates the 30-49 set (56 percent to 39 percent). Voters aged 50 to 64 are split evenly, with 46 percent backing Bush and 48 percent Kerry.

One of them.

UPDATE: A columnist suggests Bill O'Reilly should cool it in the middle of this controversy. Indeed, it's now in the legal arena and that would be wise.

PS: I am big O'Reilly fan, especially of his radio show. I'm looking foward to what I'm told will be his new book Who's Looking Out For A Vibrator.

UPDATE II: Oh, all right..A reader reminded me that I DID offer Bill some useful advice on how to end this whole thing so here it is.....

here's an idea.

(LINK IS FIXED. It was there but messed up).

When CNN's Bobbsy Twins of Confrontation conservative Tucker Carlson and liberal (and John Kerry advisor) Paula Begala invited him they thought it'd be a funny, breezy hour.

After all, he was Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "Daily Show," a show that has grown in influence and attracted prominent politicos guests and candidates amid indications that many younger people (read that v-o-t-e-r-s) actually watch that show to get their news...and shape their views. They thought Stewart would be a lark. Instead, he was a shark.

It'll go down in media history as the day The Funny Guy went on Crossfire and — in comments that echoed what people on both the right and left that have mouthed without real public explosure — made the two hosts (particularly one of them) the subjects of ridicule on their own show. In the end, Stewart mercilessly stripped this kind of show's real meaning — and failings — to its basics. You can read the full CNN transcript here for yourself.

CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion.... STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.

Here are a few highlights from a show that will have clips from it played over and over in broadcast and journalism classes for many years:

STEWART: I think, oftentimes, the person that knows they can't win is allowed to speak the most freely, because, otherwise, shows with titles, such as CROSSFIRE.... Or "HARDBALL" or "I'm Going to Kick Your Ass"...In many ways, it's funny. And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad.

BEGALA: We have noticed.

STEWART: And I wanted to — I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't — it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America.

CARLSON: But in its defense...

STEWART: So I wanted to come here today and say... Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys.

CARLSON: Yes.

STEWART: Stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.

BEGALA: OK. Now

STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...

CARLSON: How do you pay?

STEWART: The people — not well.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure.

STEWART: But you can sleep at night.

So did he leave it at that? No. Stewart zeroes in:

STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.

BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.

STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

And, indeed. Over the years this kind of political show has shifted, just as the typical TV talk show shifted. Back in the 60s and even 70s, a typical daytime talk show discussed more mundane issues than My Husband Likes Sleeping With Our Sheep. Guests dressed casual, but often a bit "up" for TV. TV had a certain dignity and seriousness to them.

But TV titans soon realized that conflict, anger, rage and negativity is what gets ratings (why do most people stop and gawk at a car crash scene?). The Jerry Springerization of daytime TV — minus a few old-style holdovers — spread. TV political talk shows like Crossfire, The Capital Gang, The Beltway Boys, etc. put a premium on several things:

a)People yelling at and over each other and name calling. b)People who were put on and the instant you saw them you knew exactly how they would react to a given issue since they were knee-jerk partisans (with the emphasis on the second word) of the right and the left. The days of Open Mind are gone; the days of Open Mouth are here.

The emphasis then is on anger issues, rage, personalities — but serious policy discussion is generally not done (you can't get ratings from it).

This is confirmed by Carlson putting Crossfire — a supposedly serious show — on the same playing field as The Daily Show. Here Stewart lowers the boom:

STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to....

CARLSON: Kerry won't come on this show. He will come on your show.

STEWART: Right.

CARLSON: Let me suggest why he wants to come on your show.

STEWART: Well, we have civilized discourse.

CARLSON: Well, here's an example of the civilized discourse. Here are three of the questions you asked John Kerry.

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: You have a chance to interview the Democratic nominee. You asked him questions such as — quote — "How are you holding up? Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?"

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: "Have you ever flip-flopped?" et cetera, et cetera.

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: Didn't you feel like — you got the chance to interview the guy. Why not ask him a real question, instead of just suck up to him?

STEWART: Yes. "How are you holding up?" is a real suck-up. And I actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it.

CARLSON: It sounded that way. It did.

STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility.

CARLSON: I felt the sparks between you.

STEWART: I didn't realize that — and maybe this explains quite a bit.

CARLSON: No, the opportunity to...

STEWART: ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.... So what I would suggest is, when you talk about you're holding politicians' feet to fire, I think that's disingenuous. I think you're.. But my point is this. If your idea of confronting me is that I don't ask hard-hitting enough news questions, we're in bad shape, fellows.

CARLSON: We're here to love you, not confront you.... We're here to be nice.

STEWART: No, no, no, but what I'm saying is this. I'm not. I'm here to confront you, because we need help from the media and they're hurting us. And it's — the idea is...

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is — if the indictment is — and I have seen you say this — that...

STEWART: Yes.

BEGALA: And that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white.

STEWART: Yes.

BEGALA: Well, it's because, see, we're a debate show.

STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great.

BEGALA: It's like saying The Weather Channel reduces everything to a storm front.

STEWART: I would love to see a debate show.

BEGALA: We're 30 minutes in a 24-hour day where we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out.

STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.

CARLSON: Jon, Jon, Jon, I'm sorry. I think you're a good comedian. I think your lectures are boring.

STEWART: Yes.

CARLSON: Let me ask you a question on the news.

STEWART: Now, this is theater. It's obvious. How old are you?

CARLSON: Thirty-five.

STEWART: And you wear a bow tie.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Yes, I do. I do.

STEWART: So this is...

CARLSON: I know. I know. I know. You're a...

STEWART: So this is theater.

CARLSON: Now, let me just..Now, come on.

STEWART: Now, listen, I'm not suggesting that you're not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.

CARLSON: They're difficult.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: But the thing is that this — you're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great.

BEGALA: We do, do...

STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?

STEWART: Absolutely.

CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...

STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls... What is wrong with you?

CARLSON: Well, I'm just saying, there's no reason for you — when you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing.

STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far — you would not believe what he ate two weeks ago... You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.

STEWART: You need to go to one...The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk...

CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.

STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey....I watch your show every day. And it kills me.

CARLSON: I can tell you love it.

STEWART: It's so — oh, it's so painful to watch.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: You know, because we need what you do. This is such a great opportunity you have here to actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy.

CARLSON: Is this really Jon Stewart? What is this, anyway?

STEWART: Yes, it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore....I just can't.

CARLSON: What's it like to have dinner with you? It must be excruciating. Do you like lecture people like this or do you come over to their house and sit and lecture them; they're not doing the right thing, that they're missing their opportunities, evading their responsibilities?

STEWART: If I think they are.

CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're talking to Jon Stewart, who was just lecturing us on our moral inferiority. Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?

STEWART: I'm sorry. I don't.

STEWART: But let me ask you guys, again, a question, because we talked a little bit about, you're actually doing honest debate and all that. But, after the debates, where do you guys head to right afterwards?

CARLSON: The men's room.

STEWART: Right after that?

BEGALA: Home.

STEWART: Spin alley.

BEGALA: Home.

STEWART: No, spin alley.

BEGALA: What are you talking about? You mean at these debates?

STEWART: Yes. You go to spin alley, the place called spin alley. Now, don't you think that, for people watching at home, that's kind of a drag, that you're literally walking to a place called deception lane? Like, it's spin alley. It's — don't you see, that's the issue I'm trying to talk to you guys...

BEGALA: No, I actually believe — I have a lot of friends who work for President Bush. I went to college with some of them.

CARLSON: Neither of us was ever in the spin room, actually.

BEGALA: No, I did — I went to do the Larry King show. They actually believe what they're saying. They want to persuade you. That's what they're trying to do by spinning. But I don't doubt for a minute these people who work for President Bush, who I disagree with on everything, they believe that stuff, Jon. This is not a lie or a deception at all. They believe in him, just like I believe in my guy.

STEWART: I think they believe President Bush would do a better job. And I believe the Kerry guys believe President Kerry would do a better job. But what I believe is, they're not making honest arguments. So what they're doing is, in their mind, the ends justify the means.

CNN Crossfire host Tucker Carlson was taken aback by Jon Stewart's rant on the debate show today. "I've never seen a more sanctimonious comedian," he says in an e-mail to TVNewser. "What a boor." I asked Carlson if Stewart had "slammed" the two hosts. "Slammed us? The transcript may read that way," he said. "But I think the tape makes it clear he humiliated himself."

Elections are not only fought via rallies and by TV commercial these days. There's another venue where the battle occurs. And some parties are more efficient than others...

I'm baaaaaaaaaaack for another weekend to spread more fun joy, and intellectual sunshine here at Dean's World...In my other incarnation (on my blog) I'm called The Moderate Voice, although this election season I've been called many things...

A blogger has called out ABC on a Dowdification.

Man. How often did stuff like this go on in the mainstream media without anyone catching it? It's kinda spooky, isn't it?

You know, I must say that Diary of a Porn Publisher has to be the most compellingly unique blog I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot.

The latest Carnival of the Recipes is available for your gustatory delight.

The FCC has finally cleared the way for technologies that offer broadband Internet access via power lines. That's right, you'll be able to get high-speed Internet service through your phone lines (DSL), through your cable TV lines (Cable Internet) or, in the coming years, through your electrical outlets.

This should massively increase the availability of broadband, and make the market more competitive and with more options for consumers. This will be a great thing.

That's not even counting the steady expansion of wireless services.

I'm looking forward to the day where no matter where you go, you have high speed internet access available.

Jan is somewhat embarassed by a few of his countrymen.

Just so you know, Jan, a lot of us Americans are just used to this sort of thing.

If you're a parent, you should read Tony Woodlief today.

Really, you should read him every day, but the selfish jerk only writes something once a month or so, so what can you do?

Sean Kinsell, an American living in Japan, notes some interesting disparities in how Senator Kerry and President Bush are viewed around the world.

I wasn't surprised to learn how things are viewed in Israel, but was a bit surprised by Russia.

So why aren't the rest of you?

Some of John Kerry's worst and most embarassing supporters are outraged that TV stations around the country will soon be playing a documentary by, and about, Viet Nam veterans. It's called Stolen Honor.

This documentary, which extensively interviews former Viet Nam Prisoners of War, takes Senator Kerry to task for his statements and actions after returning from Viet Nam, and notes that his testimony was used as an excuse to torture those prisoners. It also notes that much of what Kerry said then (and has never retracted or apologized for) was made up of propaganda that torturers tried to get American POWs to "confess" to.

I haven't so much as an ounce of sympathy for the people protesting the airing of this documentary. Especially because every person I've seen object to it so far has utterly failed to condemn Fahrenheit 9/11.

Mind you, it's terribly unfair to compare the two films. Fahrenheit 9/11, after all, derives some of its profits from terrorist groups like Hamas, and it is openly used as a recruitment film by people who are even now shooting at our soldiers and murdering civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. That film will be killing Americans (and probably Israelis, and innocent peace-loving Arabs) for the next decade or more. It's also been extensively debunked by honorable people of the left, right, and center, and by responsible journalists everywhere. Whereas Stolen Honor won't kill anyone, and has not been (so far) shown to be so deeply dishonest.

But still, anyone who condemns Stolen Honor but who didn't at least condemn Michael Moore's hate-propaganda film goes down not just as a hypocrite in my book, but a moral cripple.

By the way, of these folks demanding that the voices of our POWs be banned from the airwaves, here's a question to ponder: Do you see them demanding "equal time" in other contexts? For example, do they point to films like Celsus 41.1, or Fahrenhype 9/11, or Michael Moore Hates America, and ask that they be shown on every one of the movie screens that showed Michael Moore's film? You know, so that Americans will have "balance" and "equal time?"

No, I thought not.

(Not, again, that it could ever be truly equal. None of these films will ever kill anyone, while Moore's film will continue to kill and kill and kill for some time to come.)

Besides, as Eric Erickson notes, it's not as if political propaganda of other sorts never shows up on TV.

"Free speech for me but not for thee" is all I hear coming out of the mouths of those who are trying to silence Sinclair Broadcasting and our former POWs. These people are trying to prevent voters from hearing important political voices during an election year. What sad excuses for Americans they are!

Let the voiceless be heard, and let them speak truth to power--despite the best efforts of the powerful and the privileged to silence them.

The Daily Recycler notes how many of Kerry's supporters are excplicitely rubbing their hands with glee over the possibility that some of those eville Christian conservatives will not vote for Bush now that more of them than ever know that Mary Cheney is gay.

In other words, they betray a belief in the exact sort of ignorant, foolish stereotypes I was talking about yesterday.

The Recycler also has the video that drives it all home. Click here to check it out.

In the fever swamps of the elitist leftist imagination, you can just hear it, can't you? It goes something like this:

"Maw, didja hear that? Ol' Cheeeny's got hisself one'a them faggits fer a daughter. Guess'n we'll have to vote fer that Howard Perootki feller won't we? Sheeeiiuutt!"

Then the toothless hick puts on a Lee Greenwood CD, tears streaming down his face as he clutches his double-barrel 12-guage in one hand and salutes the confederate flag with the other.

Hey, isn't it great how Dick Cheney appears in public with his GAY DAUGHTER? I understand that he really loves his GAY DAUGHTER. Don't you admire him for sticking up for his GAYYYY DAAAUGHTERRRRRR!!!?

Well at least we know that Democrats are never queer-baiters. I mean if Kerry & Co were Republicans you'd think they might be playing queer-bashing games. But Democrats just never do that. No, never, never, never.

Election. Over soon. Please.

* Update * Oh, by the way, remember the point I made below about how the Federal Marriage Amendment (which has already been shot down by both houses of Congress) has not a snowball's chance in Hell of being ratified, no matter who wins in November? Boi from Troy notes several more reasons. So what is the point of continuing to make this a major issue in this year's election again?

STILL MORE: Andrew Sullivan writes:

"The usually even-keeled Instapundit says that Kerry's 'position on gay marriage is the same as the President's.' I can't see how that's even remotely the case."

Well, it was this Kerry statement that led to my conclusion:

The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position.

Call me crazy, but I took that to mean that they had the same position. Since it was a Kerry statement, I should have realized that I was probably missing out on a crucial nuance.

Heh.

Let's see. Both believe gays should be accepted with love and compassion. Both believe people should be free to do whatever they want in their private lives. Both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

There is one difference: Kerry believes we should amend the Massachussetts Constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman. Bush believes we should go a little further and amend the Federal Constitution to do that--and Kerry only says he opposes that because, in his words, it's unnecessary.

And in either case, anyone who knows anything knows the amendment has already been resoundingly defeated in both houses of Congress and cannot possibly be ratified no matter who wins in November.

So their positions are not "remotely" similar? Yeesh.

Sullivan has disappointed me so many times lately. I've stuck up for him from some of his more vehement critics, but ever since Bush said he supported this Federal Marriage Amendment--an amendment that, again, has already been totally defeated in both houses of Congress--Sullivan's been almost crazed.

I hope that after the election's over he returns to some kind of coherence. He's too talented and thoughtful a man to go off the deep end like this.

Now this is cool: Google has a new program in beta called Google Desktop Search, which lets you do Google-style searches on your own computer.

Sadly, it's only for Windows at the moment. It seems like a natural for Linux, Mac, BSD, etc. to me. Although it is still in beta...

Interesting. Some scholars suggest there are links between southern blues and Islamic chants.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Speaking of the blues, I'm often a bit dismayed by how American blacks as a group have lost almost all interest in the blues, which alongside of gospel is one of the great gifts the black community gave to America. I still wonder how and why exactly that happened. It's been remarked upon by many people, and seems to have happened some time in the late 60s and early 70s. No one seems really sure why. As a big blues fan myself, I've often found it baffling.

(Link via Gerund.)

Sean Kinsell notes just how wearisome Presidential debates, and the obsessive reporting on them, can be.

I tend to agree with him. Mind you, I don't agree with those who say the debates are devoid of useful information. For people who don't pay close attention to the issues, they tend to give a lot of information. Hell, as far as that goes, this year's debates have been more substantive than any I can remember. But... well, Sean says it better.

You know what really astounds me? How many people act as if Presidential debates are some kind of government function. Of course they aren't. They're just a "tradition," and not a very old one at that. Indeed, this "tradition" in Presidential politics didn't even exist until 1960, and even then it was kind of a fluke. Nixon and Kennedy had the first of what we'd call real Presidential debates. (There was one a hundred years earlier between Lincoln and Douglas, but it was so wildly different it barely counts.)

Now here's an interesting bit of trivia: why did Nixon and Kennedy decide to have debates? Believe it or not there is an answer to this, and it has to do with both men's pasts. Can anyone tell me what it was?

At last night's debate, Senator Kerry made a point of bringing up the fact that Vice President Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. This is the third or fourth time in the last couple of weeks that either Kerry or Edwards has brought that up. Gay Patriot is outraged at the invasion of Mary Cheney's privacy. Michelle Malkin is similarly annoyed.

I find it moderately amusing. It is a very clumsy attempt to alienate Bush's conservative Christian supporters. But in its clumsiness, all it does is reveal a very obvious blind spot on the part of Team Kerry.

Mind you, I'm no conservative. I considered myself one for a brief while, but it was long ago. And I'm not a Christian. Yet I understand the mindset pretty well. I'm not sure how to explain this, but I can only say that anyone who snickers over Mary Cheney and thinks that she's a liability among Bush's conservative Christian base is simply failing to understand how conservative Christians think. What those folks really think when confronted with such information is one of two things:

1) "Well, these things happen," or, 2) "Isn't it rude of them to bring up private family business like that?"

Now, if Dick Cheney or his wife were gay? That might be a problem for the Bush team. But a grown-up adult daughter? Bringing it up, whether in a nice way or a mean way, would only serve to make Bush and Cheney's conservative Christian base more sympathetic.

Conservatives find this sort of thing annoying not because they think it'll hurt Bush. That's not even on most of their radar screens. No, not even the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson/Ralph Reed variety. They'd feel about the same if it was revealed that Mary Cheney once had an abortion. It wouldn't infuriate them, it would annoy them that anyone had brought it up in the first place. And they'd almost all say the exact same things, "We're all sinners, we all fall short of God's grace," and so on and so forth.

Furthermore, they wouldn't say it to be snotty. They'd say it because it's exactly how their minds work, and exactly what they'd actually think.

For the Kerry/Edwards campaign to regularly bring up the fact that Mary Cheney is queer can only strengthen the Bush/Cheney ticket among conservative Christians. If you don't understand why, I can't quite explain it to you. But let's just say: if you're reaching for stereotypes about hatred and bigotry, you're already way off-base. (Or should I say, "way out in left field?" Heh.)

Failure to understand how your opponent's mind works is a weakness. It really is.

Our recent guest blogger Tim Kelly is a new daddy.

LaShawn and her readers are live-blogging the debate.

So will Vodkapundit and a bunch of other folks. In fact, if you're live-blogging this thing, feel free to send me a trackback and I'll pimp your blog tonight. :-)

* Update * Ah, why bother? Just go check out LaShawn's blog. She's got the roundup of everybody who's really covering this thing. I wound up listening to half the debate on my way to work, so I guess I'm a liar. This time I thought Bush owned the debate. But what do I know? Only that a litany of complaints has never impressed me as anything other than a childish game. But I've been saying that for two years. And I've always thought the notion that Bush is "weak" on domestic policy is just silly. Major parts of his domestic agenda are quite popular and those that aren't are highly defensible. Those who acted like they weren't were playing into his hands.

By the way, though, I stick with my general rule: there's no telling who "won" this until at least a couple of working days have gone by.

I'm not watching the debate tonight. I suddenly realized it was a huge waste of time.

How about you?

The latest Carnival of the Vanities is available.

The folks at Red State have a scoop: a transcript of the final two Swift Boat Vets & POWs for Truth ad.

I've already talked to a couple of the men in that ad, and will likely be talking to one or two more before election day.

Jeff Quinton has a really neat story and poster on the new Iraqi SWAT forces.

** Dean's World Exclusive ** ** Must Credit Dean's World **

I was pleased recently to have an in-depth conversation with retired US Navy Captain George Elliott. We talked about his career in the military and his involvment in the group known as Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth.

The retired Captain Elliott served for decades with the U.S. Navy and won a number of combat and non-combat citations, most of which he is (as I discovered) reluctant to talk about let alone brag about. I also had the pleasure of speaking a few times with his lovely wife, who was helpful in making sure I got our transcribed interview right. --Dean

Dean's World: Thank you for talking to me, Captain Elliott. Can you give me some basic details on when and where you served?

George Elliott: Well I graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1959. I went into the academy directly after High School here in Delaware and served at many different stations over the next 26 years as a commissioned officer, retiring in 1985 with a rank of Captain.

Dean's World: How long were you in Viet Nam?

GE: From August of 1968 through July of 1969.

DW: How long did you know Kerry?

GE: He served at my command at An Thoi--Coastal Division 11---well there were 5 days in December wherein I barely knew he was there, then he returned in January 1969 and departed on the 26th of March. Actually I don't know the exact date but I use the date of 26th of March because that is the last day my fitness report covers him.

DW: But you did know him personally then obviously.

GE: Oh yes.

DW: Are you receiving any sort of compensation for your activities against Senator Kerry?

GE: No, absolutely not. I'm... we've had some of our hotel rooms and bills paid when we've gone to Washington, but I've made a personal committment to donate to the organization whatever I think my expenses are, and a little more.

DW: So you make nothing at all?

GE: Absolutely nothing.

DW: What do you do for a living?

GE: I'm currently retired. I worked for about 10 years after I retired from the United States Navy and now I am a volunteer in my small town of Lewes, Delaware. I'm a member of the Rotary Club, was president of the Lewes Historical Society for seven years and am now a member of the board of directors of a maritime museum here in Lewes. It is a lightship--the former Boston Lightship. I also play a little golf--but certainly not for a living!

DW: How about politics? Do you have much background in politics?

GE: I've avoided it like the plague, but I vote every election.

DW: Are you a Republican?

GE: No I'm not. I'm registered as an independent voter and have never voted a straight ticket in my life that I recall. I have not always voted for one party or the other on the national ticket--presidents, senators, congressmen, so forth.

DW: Is it true that you campaigned on behalf of Senator Kerry in the 1990s, and if so, why are you involved in this effort against him now?

GE: "Campaign" is the wrong word. In 1996 a Boston Globe reporter named, Warsh I believe it was, in 1996, he wrote an article that very strongly implied that John Kerry, in the Silver Star incident, had simply executed a wounded Viet Cong soldier. In Warsh's words, he had isssued a "coup de grace," which we found deeply offensive. So, with several members of John Kerry's crew, Admiral Zumwalt and Captain Adrian Lonsdale and I went to speak out against accusations of war crimes by the Navy.

We went to Boston to support Kerry in this accusation of a war crime. It was as much to defend the Navy and my outfit as it was to stand with John Kerry. This was a specious inference and we couldn't let it stand. It had very little to do with politics in my view.

In my opening remarks at the press conference on the piers down at the old Boston Navy Yard in Massachussetts, my remarks were, "I am not here to support Senator Kerry, I am here to support Lt(jg) Kerry." And I made that distinction for two reasons. First I didn't want anyone to think I was a carpetbagger there to inject myself into a campaign in Massachussetts, and second I wanted to make it clear that I was there to defend the Navy against accusations of war crimes.

DW: Were you aware of what Kerry said about war crimes in his testimony before Congress in the early 1970s?

GE: Absolutely. At that time I think most of us considered that in the past. As long as John Kerry was a Massachussetts Senator we had no, I had no reason to interject myself into any campaign he was running or not running.

DW: I've also been asked why it is you guys took 30 years to come forward with your allegations against the Senator. Do you have any response to that?

GE: Absolutely I have a response. First of all as I just said, when Kerry was a politician in Massachussetts, representing Massachussetts, we had no stake in that game. Now that he wants to be Commander In Chief, we have a big stake in the game. His actions over the years were despicable and dishonorable. It's now a national position that he's seeking.

DW: The Boston Globe's Michael Kranish accused you of changing your story on Senator Kerry, and claimed you retracted part of your accusations. Can you tell me about that incident?

GE: Yes. When Michael Kranish called that day he had my affidavit which was required to be signed in order to get the book published and to get the commercials on the air. And he referred to a phrase in that affidavit where I said that I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded Viet Cong in the back. Now those words "shot in the back," those words sort of stuck in my craw because it was reminiscent of Warsh's words that all he had done was execute a Viet Cong. That was the sole issue I had. Quite frankly it was a true statement even with that in there. I was never informed he had simply shot a wounded Viet Cong in the back. But again the phrasing had the harshness of a war crime.

However, if you read Kranish's own interview with John Kerry as published in the Boston Globe, or the biography of John Kerry by "the reporters who knew him best," on page 102 you will read in Kerry's own words in describing the events of that day, and there is no way any rational person could conclude that John Kerry did anything other than shoot a fleeing man in the back.

DW: And that would be a crime?

GE: No, absolutely not. Even given that. This is a combat situation, the man was armed and the fact that he was shot in the back has nothing to do with anything other than the tragedies of combat, at least for that guy and his family. It is not a war crime.

DW: Wait. As I read the Kranish piece (Editor's Note: The referenced interview may be read here on the Boston Globe web site), Kerry specifically denies shooting the guy in the back.

GE: Kerry says "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it." Now, unless the man was running backwards and poised to turn around I conclude there is no way a rational person could conclude that John Kerry did anything other than shoot a fleeing man in the back.

I had read the Boston Globe biography of John Kerry and the incident did not register at the time. However, Michael Kranish took my words and implied that I said it was a mistake to sign the affidavit against Kerry. But that's not what I was talking about, and Kranish knew at the time that there should have been no concern about those words because he had written them himself.

Like I said, being a cagey reporter he had no obligation to tell me that and he didn't when he wrote his story.

Now the story that he wrote, the words that he has in the story that are in quotation marks, those are words that I said. So I was not misquoted. What he did however is, following the words in quotations, he has reached conclusions that misrepresented my feelings and they are not quotations or words that I said. Those are his conclusions. That's what I took issue with, they in fact did not reflect my true feelings.

DW: I'm still a little confused.

GE: He took words that I actually said, put them in quotations, they were all correct. For example, in his story Kranish goes all the way back to 1996. One of the sentences in his story was something like "The affadavit also contradicted earlier material.... saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star." Now that is a true statement. But that does not contradict the fact that there has been a lot of information to come to light since then to shed new light on that action.

This is the same argument that people have used against me when they bring up that I wrote a decent fitness report for Kerry in 1969 and now have changed. Certainly it would change given what's been published...and other things that have since been disputed.

Brinkley's book Tour of Duty brought an awful lot of things to light that people who served with Kerry had no idea about.

DW: I've heard it suggested that you and others are merely being manipulated and misled by a group of big-money Republicans. What do you think of such allegations?

GE: Well I have spoken in public several times, I have had several interviews, I have had calls and talked to reporters on many occasions. I have never had anyone ever tell me what to say. I am told by our steering group members that yes, we have received some fairly large donations on occasion but those donations come with a caveat from us, "look this is our campaign, this is what we're saying, we are not taking any words from you. We'll create our ads and do everything ourselves." And I believe those guys. I don't believe we need anyone to tell us what to say. We are all saying what we believe.

I would also tell you that we now have over 100,000 individual contributions via the internet through our web site. Those are not 100,000 big money Republicans. These are people whose average donation is somewhere in the 60 to 70 dollar range. John O'Neill said once on television we would certainly take some of George Soros' millions if he'd like to send some our way.

DW: Do you endorse everything in John O'Neill's book about the Senator? For example, specifically in chapter 4, the book accuses him of more or less murdering a child in Viet Nam.

GE: The Sampan Incident? Sir, I can put you in touch with the man who actually pulled the trigger on that child that night. He's now one of our members. His name is Steve Gardner. His testimony of the event is the basis for that part of the book, and I believe O'Neill characterizes it as a tragedy, but it was also a false report that John Kerry submitted about that incident.

DW: Do you intend to keep speaking out against Kerry if he is elected in November?

GE: Once it's over it's over. I have no reason to continue, the American people will vote and make their choice. I don't know that I---I would not continue to oppose a sitting American President if the people put him there.

DW: Has the Senator ever apologized to you for his statements about war crimes and atrocities supposedly committed everywhere with the full support of all levels of command in Viet Nam?

GE: Never.

DW: If he did apologize would you accept it?

GE: If he tried to apologize between now and the time of the election, no. Win or lose on the 2nd of November, if he were to stand up and apologize to me and the hundreds of thousands of other veterans that he has offended over the years, I would accept his apology.

DW: Do you think that anyone who protested the Viet Nam war was fink? Are you simply mad at Kerry for protesting the war?

GE: Of course not, of course not. Every American's born with the right to criticize their government. Even Jane Fonda, she didn't have to fight to earn that right, it's a birthright.

What is not a birthright is lying in order to support your protest. And there's absolutely no question in any of our minds that John Kerry lied when he was before Congress. There's no question that he met with the enemy in Paris. And these are things that he does not have a right to do.

DW: Would you use the word "treason" to describe any of that?

GE: No I wouldn't go that far, but in my own mind it comes damned close.

DW: Have you received much support from other vets not in your group?

GE: Absolutely. Not only vets but just ordinary people. Relatives of men lost in Viet Nam or family members who had someone who served. I have received important support from everywhere. A lot of people, not just the 100,000 who donated but the many who have supported us and continue to.

DW: How about harassment?

GE: I haven't had too much of that actually. A couple of radio interviews, you get call-ins that try to drown you out, but I wouldn't consider that harassment. A few pieces of mail, but as long as they sign their name you don't take it too criticially. They have their views.

There's a lot of letters on both sides in the newspapers, and some of those are very negative but many are factual and in support of us.

DW: Is there anything else you'd like to add?

GE: I don't know if this is the place to put this, but, there's one thing that concerns me very greatly, and that is the approach taken by what's currently known as the mainstream media. And I am not saying this to bash the mainstream media, but I think that if they continue to act in such a partisan way that it's not good for this country.

A free and unfettered press is an absolute necessity for this country to survive in the manner that was intended by the forefathers. But if the mainstream press continues acting in such a partisan way that they lose the support of a major part of the population, who is going to get us the real trut? Who is going to beat on the doors of congressmen and secretaries if various departments to answer the people's questions?

You see much of the population veering away from the three TV networks. Of course I don't believe everything on the internet but there's a part on there today about the ABC News director which, if it's even halfway true, it's very telling.

I have very grave concerns about the American people being able to trust what the mainstream media says unless something changes. Maybe our swift boat guys, maybe this will be a greater legacy, will be what we've exposed about the mainstream media than anything we've said about Senator Kerry. I'll give you an example. The closest example to our cause is the fact that CBS admits that they've been five years chasing down President Bush's national guard records. And they haven't spent five minutes trying to find John Kerry's records!

He has not released his records. The last I heard him say on the news was "I have released all the records I have in my possession." He always has a caveat for anything he says like that. But you will notice that one telling piece of paper that hasn't been released is the original writeup/recommendation for the Silver Star. He did release a recommendation that I wrote for the Bronze star. That's out there. The Silver Star recommendation is not there.

Even a reasonably competent news person would in my view ask "where is that?" It's as controversial as the bronze star. It's not there.

Where are his discharge papers? He has not put up a copy of his discharge from the naval reserve. That should have taken place in 1978 when his service in all forms was completed.

The press seems to have no interest in this.

They continue to call us liars when we mention these things. The facts in John Kerry's own words, as written in Tour of Duty from his own diaries, indicate to anyone who'd look at it twice can see that the third purple heart was a fraud. The shrapnel wound was admittedly from throwing a grenade into a bin of rice. They joked about getting shrapnel and rice into his butt. That's in his own book, Tour of Duty. So why are we liars to point it out? And why are reporters so interested in Bush's National Guard service but willing to call us liars when we've got eyewitnesses, sworn affidavits, and Kerry's own words backing us up? What is the world coming to if the people can no longer trust the press to tell them the truth and look at all candidates equally?

The Swift Boat Vets for Truth have recently merged with another Viet Nam veterans group, POWs for Truth. The latest ad from the combined group, featuring statements from the wives of former POWs, can be found here.

To see all the ads put out by the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth, click here. If you would like to sign a petition urging Senator Kerry to release his military records and come clean about his military and post-war activities, you can find that petition right here.

A book documenting the group's claims about young Lieutenant Junior Grade and later Senator Kerry is now available. It is written by the man who took over Kerry's boat after Kerry left Viet Nam, and with the full support of a majority of the men who personally served with Kerry. It is entitled Unfit For Command, and can be purchased at any reputable book store, including Amazon. It is currently a national bestseller.

For those looking to learn more from the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth, I will soon be interviewing Steve Gardner, the longest-serving member of Kerry's swift boat in Viet Nam, and asking him about some of the more inflammatory charges brought against and by this group. --Dean

Despite some people's efforts to sneer at them, polls are scientifically valid and highly accurate, when in the hands of trained professionals using solid methodologies. Most polling does not meet those rigorous standards, but there are a dozen or so nationally recognized polling outfits who consistently do good, solid, reliable work--although even then, you should only trust their polls if they also show you the underlying data behind them. Transparency is the key to understanding whether a poll is worthwhile or just stupid fluff. (So is the willingness to put aside what you want to believe versus whatever the poll actually shows.)

The polling company I look to most often is Gallup. They're the oldest and best known. I remember growing up as a kid hearing about this or that "gallop poll" in the news, and I always wondered what kind of poll galloped. I remember when it finally clicked in my brain that a guy named George Gallup had founded the company that did these polls. Then I finally got it.

Other polling companies whose work I generally follow and find reliable are Harris, Zogby, Pew Research, Mason-Dixon, Rasmussen, and Marist. There are a few others but I mostly don't watch them. But even for those that I find most accurate, I repeat what I've said above: you should always look for the underlying data before you simply accept what the top line of the poll tells you, because how a question is asked and what their methods are always matter. (For example, polls taken over the weekend are always more suspect than polls taken on weekdays, at least in political matters.)

In recent years one particular polling company has garnered a reputation for being more accurate than any of the others: Zogby. John Zogby runs that polling outfit, and in 1998 he turned in some impressively accurate polls on the congressional elections. He also seemed closer than anybody in predicting the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election. Since then he's ridden a tide of almost mystical worship among some poll watchers.

However, the folks at Kerry Spot have a comparison of how the various polling houses did in 2000, and note that Zogby's performance was excellent but not really heads and shoulders above anyone else in 2000. And Daly Thoughts notes who the most and least accurate pollsters were in 2002. The most accurate was Mason-Dixon. Three guesses as to who the least accurate was?

None of this of course means that any of these polling houses are bad by any means. Zogby's had some terrific years and some not-so-terrific years, but always does solid, professional work. Still, anyone who tries to tell you that Zogby, or anyone else, is the "best in the business" should be automatically suspect. A scientific poll done by a reputable professional organization is usually valid, period, no matter whose name is attached to it. But they're not omniscient, they're not perfect, and they all have a margin of error and a confidence interval, neither of which is ever perfect.

Me? If I want to watch polls, I usually look at Gallup. I peek in on the others. Gallup's always got the most interesting variety of stuff up, and usually has lots of details. They also have terrific videos that look at historical data and trends that's always fun to look through.

It also tends to be sobering stuff, by the way: no matter how convinced you are that you're right about an issue, it's always humbling to see that 60 or 70% or more of the population just plain doesn't see it your way, no matter how much that bugs you. But polls are scientifically valid, at least when done right, and by learning about them and following them, you can learn a lot about how to accept when you're in the minority on something--and to think about what the best way to persuade large numbers of people to change their minds might really be.

Now I'll reverse myself on one point: Oddly enough, although I utterly stand by the general validity of scientific polling, I'll actually say that I think this year is probably going to be a bad year for the pollsters. Why? Too many unusual trends. Both major parties have embarked upon unprecedented efforts to register new voters, and it's not clear who's registering more, nor is it clear that the polling companies have a handle on that either. The Democrats are also spending more money than they ever have on getting their voters to the polls, but Republicans are doing things they've never done in that regard too. Plus, a growing number of voters are voting absentee now, and so there are millions of people who have already voted and can't change their minds.

In other words, while the polling companies are usually pretty good, none of them are entirely sure what they're measuring at the moment or exactly how representative it is of who'll show up on election day. It'll be interesting to see which polling company and (more importantly) which methodologies produce the best results this year.

But in any case, the polls released on Halloween this year will probably give us the most accurate numbers possible: they'll be the ones taken during the last full work week before election day. But then, of course, there may be a surprise over the weekend, like the Bush DUI story that Fox News broke four years ago on that same fateful weekend before the election.

Man November 2 can't get here fast enough for me. I still just want it to be over. But like a tongue poking incessantly at an aching tooth, I just can't stop constantly looking to see what's happening. It's a sickness, I tell ya.

I hope you will all give a big thanks to the following excellent bloggers:

Teen Pundit Andrew Quinn

Mad Dog Casey Tompkins

Weekend Pundit Dale Eddy

Goldie the Drama Queen

General Jane of the Armies of Liberation

Katie of the incomparable Resplendant Mango

My long-lost sister Margi Lowry

The incredibly dangerous Mary of Exit Zero

Bitch-Queen extraordinaire Mog

Staunch iconoclast Molotov of Booker Rising

The impossible Zsallia Marieko

The astounding Talk Glass of Milk

The Fearless Tim Kelly

I also hope that if you maintain a blogroll you'll add them to yours. I thank them all for doing such a terrific job. Dozens of articles and almsot 400 comments to wade through. My you all had quite the party while I was gone.

My little sojourn away from the blog produced some most excellent blog postings, but I'd be especially remiss if I didn't note the discussion between Mary of Exit Zero and Hatcher of Crossroads Arabia. It was such a good discussion I put it in our Best Discussions archive.

It was unfortunately a terribly angry discussion they had, but both were so filled with references and well-stated positions it qualified as must-reading. If you read that entire discussion you'll come away knowing more about both Saudia Arabia and the varying perceptions of it here in America than you will from any other source I've ever seen.

I just wish Hatcher and Mary could have found a way to be nicer about it. But in this case, much light was produced along with the heat. The entire discussion is here, and I frankly recommend setting aside a chunk of time and just reading the whole thing.

As I say: A lot of heat, but much light produced along with it.

Citizen Smash, a Gulf War II veteran of the U.S. Navy, notes that today is the anniversary of an important terrorist attack, and why all voters must remember this.

Yesterday was another important anniversary, by the way.

Don't miss Winds of Change's media-watch roundup.

Computer geeks will find a lot to laugh at on the Computer Stupidties site (sent to me by Paul Burgess.

You should absolutely not miss the story of a brave soldier named Jessica Clements (sent to me by Marc.)

The guys at Pundit Review have some intersting interviews with webloggers Donald Luskin and Hugh Hewitt you might want to listen to.

Gay Patriot is annoyed at how Democrats often get away with gay bashing, and has yet another example of it.

Red State notes that the last Swift Boat Vets ad was recently completed, with over 60 vets who served with Kerry partipating. Apparently the Swifties are going to use all their remaining funds to get this last ad as much play as possible. Those who've seen it say it's the most devastating ad yet.

On a related note, I will be publishing my interview with Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam, George Elliot, tomorrow, and that I'll be talking to gunner Steve Gardner, who served on Kerry's boat longer than anyone, later this week.

Some Democrats are crying foul over that documentary, but I have yet to see them engage in a serious effort to refute the film.

Jeff Quinton notes troubling evidence of voter fraud.

The Wall Street Journal has more info on union thugs intimidating Republicans.

JibJab's latest cartoon video, It's Good To Be in DC, is pretty funny. So is their earlier "This Land Is Your Land effort, available on the same page.

Baseball Crank has a pretty good essay on what international credbility really entails which I mostly agree with.

The National Debate is still being harassed by CNN, and other bloggers are mirroring his CNN parody page in response. I'd do it here on Dean's World but I'm having trouble figuring out how at the moment.

I'll have a post up to thank all our guest bloggers from the last few days later today. I guess that'll be all for now. ;-)

Science magazine has put together an excellent forum for our Presidential candidates' view on government's science-related policies. Definitely worth a read.

Political scientist Larry Sabato argues that tonight may be Bush's last chance to avert a Kerry victory.

Last week I noted that CNS claimed to have obtained extensive documentation from government contacts in Iraq showing undeniable association between Saddam's government, terrorist organizations, and plans to kill Americans. At the time I said that if these are phony, CNS is going to have at least as much egg on its face as Dan Ra^ther, but I guess I'll have to retract that; instead of asserting openly that the documents are real, they are now making them available for public scrutiny, and inviting anyone who can read Arabic or with document forensics skills to examine them.

I'm not sure the blogosphere can do the heavy lifting on this one like it did with Dan Rather's forged memos. Proving that something is fake is a lot easier than proving that it's not fake. Nevertheless, the documents are there, and open for inspection for anyone who wants to have a look.

This week's Carnival of the Liberated is a sampler of the work of Iraqi bloggers over the last week. We've read the posts of nearly 100 Iraqi bloggers to give you some idea of what life is like there and what people are thinking in Iraq today.

There's only one word that describes Ahmed of Life in Baghdad's post A different approach—wow:

I would like to know of any practical idea on how Iraqi civilians like me and normal Americans can help? Many have blamed Iraqis of not reporting about terrorists and criminals. Well, terrorists and criminals are not walking on the streets carrying signs that they are bad people so that we can report them (paraphrased from Salam Pax). So let's put this option aside.

There shall be no more complains. There shall be work.

To Rose of Diary from Baghdad: you don't need permission. Read what she has to say in What Iraqis need to learn.

There's an interesting analysis from Omar of Iraq the Model of Sistani's latest statement on Iraqi elections. Meanwhile Mohammed reports A major disapointment for Moqtada al Sadr and his followers:

In what looks like a massive recession for Muqtada and his followers; "Mehdi Army" decided to give in all their medium and heavy weapons to end their violent activities and obey the laws as a first step enter the political and electoral process.

There's quite a spectrum of opinion among the Iraqi bloggers on the American military presence in Iraq. Some are hopeful for the opportunity they see. Some dislike it but are resigned to it because of the current state of disorder. Some dislike it and can find no reason, no upside, no silver lining. Secrets in Baghdad represents that strain of Iraqi thought.

Alaa of The Mesopotamian reports on an interesting development. A new television station has started up:

A most important development in the media sphere is this new T.V. channel called "Al-Fayhaa" that started recently transmitting from Dubai, U.A.E.; despite its humble financing and capabilities. It is able to beam only 3 hours per day each afternoon with repeats in the evening. Despite that, its popularity is skyrocketing.

I'll be keeping an eye on a new blog, Iraqi Humanity. The blogger is a medical student at Al-Nahrain University in Baghdad. Hat tip: Iraqi Blog Count.

Finally, neurotic iraqi wife has been pretty busy. She has a money-making idea—selling T-shirt with this on it:

PERFECT STRESS RELIEF PROCEDURES:
GET MARRIED
LEAVE WIFE
GO REBUILD IRAQ
Read all about it.

Dave Schuler posts regularly to his own weblog, The Glittering Eye. The Carnival was originally conceived by Ryan Boots.

So what's the news? Well, as Art Chrenkoff notes:

"...another suicide attack, a shoot-out with armed militants, soldiers dying in an ambush, a man accused of collaborating with the hated occupiers executed by parties unknown, property destruction causing resentment among the locals, hostile noises from the neighbors, another condemnation from international community, and at home political instability and accusations of corruption at the highest level."

Oh, except that's Israel. And Russia, for that matter. Not too different from Detroit, now that I think of it.

Anyway, by comparison, Iraq is doing damned well, and is doing much better than most people expected two years ago. Which anyone who isn't a closed-minded reactionary or selfish partisan can see from just looking at the evidence.

What's going on that's good in Iraq? Beyond the lowest casualty rate of any armed conflict in American history, you mean? Besides an "enemy" now estimated as a few thousand among a population of millions, an enemy so powerless and desperate that all he can do is attack unarmed civilians? Beyond a general string of successes that make the occupations of Japan and Germany after World War I look like total disasters by comparison, you mean? What more do you need?

Well, if you do need more details, just head on over and check out the latest installment of Art Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq. He'll give you all you need and plenty more besides.

It's too bad our news media lacks the basic patriotism required to make this stuff front page news, isn't it? Why, you'd almost think the news media wants to make us think Iraq is a disaster, wouldn't you? Or that they really don't care one way or the other if America is successful? Or maybe they even want America to fail?

I guess that, lacking any definitive answers, we'll have to file it under Things That Make You Go "Hmmm."

Thanks to Dean for this opportunity, and thanks to everyone who commented on my incoherent ramblings and visited my site during the weekend.

On a final note, I won't be blogging about the debate tomorrow night. I won't even be watching. Come tomorrow night at 9:00, I won't give a damn who the President of the United States is - because I'll be staring at a baby who by that point will be about 12 hours old, and she's mine, all mine. Oh yeah, and Shelly's, too.

Via Brad DeLong I came across a video claiming that George W. Bush's speaking style has deteriorated in quality and coherence in the last ten years. You can view the video here.

This is nonsense of course. There have always been bursts of minutes, even tens of minutes, in Bush speeches when there are no malapropisms. You can pick out any 30 second spot from any point in his career and have him sound sharp, and carefully pick another 30 second spot where he sounds incoherent. Bush got his reputation for malapropisms as Governor of Texas, not as President

I have a lefty friend who looked at this and doesn't believe me. So, can any of you video heads put together a practically identical video for Kerry, one showing him lucid in th epast, and a later showing him stumbling and stuttering and saying some things that don't seem to make sense?

You can play this game on anyone. I guess it's kind of fun, it just annoys me when some people take it seriously.

Short fiction lovers may find much to enjoy in the latest Story Carnival.

This is a short post -- just to let Dean and Rosemary know I truly enjoyed reading all of the posts from the variety of individuals co-hosting with me this weekend.

I'd bet my lunch money that a party at the Esmays would never be dull.

It's been fun!

I just saw Shaun of the Dead this weekend, and it was great. The best (and most British) part of the movie was Shaun's love of the pub. Pubs are the most comfy places in the world.

We visited London recently, and while we there I thought that if I ever wrote a play about the end of the world, I'd set it in a pub. The regulars would chat, sip pints, eat crisps and peanuts while the zealots howled outside, mushroom clouds burst and the zombies stumbled by. A pub is a perfect hiding place.

Now they've gone and done it. If 'Shaun' is still in theaters, see it. Just close your eyes during the yucky intestine eating scenes.

So, many, many thanks to Dean for this chance to reach a wider audience, and to learn about some fine new blogs. Now back to Exit Zero.

"It's been a few weeks, but the greatest, most stupendous, most scintillating linkfest devoted to the windsurfing Senator is back!"

What's that, you say? Why it's the roundup of the most interesting of the latest tidbits about Senator Kerry, of course, right here at The American Mind.

On my final post of The Guest-Blog Gala Weekend here on Dean's World, I just wanted to thank him for allowing me the pleasure of writing to a larger audience on this tremendous weblog of his.

Apart from a run-in with what I have dubbed the "Idiom Troll," a commenter who bogs both myself and himself down in semantics while grossly overlooking the point I was trying to make, it's been a great experience.

Thanks again, Dean, and my stay here's been great. For now, it's back to...

See ya around.

Don't get me wrong, I'm quite a fan of 'quality' reality television.

And no, that's not an oxymoron. There's something about the id-like, hunter-gatherer tribal instincts that shows like Survivor bring out in their contestants that get amateur psychologists like me all hot and tingly.

Also, I'm not a prude by anyone's standards. In fact, some might think (and quite rightly too) that I swing quite significantly in the opposite dircetion.

However this.... this is taking things just, oh, about five steps too far.

Frankly, I think the word 'private' is the oxymoron in this instance.

Snicker.

Via Confessions.

What the hell has happened to our country we actually have occasion to rejoice because Congress passed an anti-torture Bill.

I mean, sometimes you just step back and go what the f**k has happend to this place?

Via The Moderate Voice, the following Andrew Sullivan excerpt was brought to my attention:

Bottom line: the race is dead-even. A month ago, it wasn't close. And the undecideds are leaning Kerry. Of course this is exactly the kind of moment that Kerry, like the Cubs, tends to screw up. And it's also a scenario in which Rove unloads his dirt-bomb. Uh-oh.

The race has tightened up noticeably, and I predict one of two things will happen:

The first and alltogether more likable scenario would be if the current trends continued. Kerry does well (spectacularly, even) in the final debate, keeps gaining ground in the polls, and Bush keeps loosing Mr. and Ms. Undecided. However...

A (sadly) equally realistic scenario would be Kerry faltering and Bush skyrocketing to a second term: as Sullivan describes. MY Bottom Line: We all know Kerry does better coming from behind, so how about we hide the polls from him and just let him read InstaPundit? Or Fox News? One is just as evidence-ignoringly partisan as the other.

The Iraqi government is rewarding rebels for posessing weapons:

Iraqis aligned with radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Medhi Army are trickling into police stations to exchange their weapons for coupons they can later use to get cash from the Iraqi government.

Indymedia is an alternative, 'progressive' voice, which is linked to by other progressive sites like Common Dreams, the Village Voice and Democracy Now.

The only thing I can say about this shutdown is: What took them so long?

I thought Indymedia would be shut down after they published the confession of cop killer Andrew McCrae and then promptly failed to report this confession to the police.

I thought they would be shut down when Portland Indymedia commenters threatened the life of a reporter who works for the local, liberal Willamette Weekly.

I thought Indymedia would be shut down after they published the names and personal information of thousands of delegates at the Republican National Convention.

I thought they would be criticized by their fellow 'progressives' when they published Holocaust denial material.

Of course, I never understood why murder, threats, intimidation, censorship and Holocaust denial were considered to be 'progressive'. Maybe this retrograde evolution is the 'two steps back' part of their agenda.

This action by the FBI originated from government agencies in Italy and Switzerland. According to David T. at Harry's Place, this may have happened because an IMC branch published photos of Swiss undercover police.

In any case, the fine line between Indymedia's 'progressive voice' and crime is quickly fading.

Booker's point about the flood of newly registered voters is well taken. As I read it, I also came across this item showing Kerry moving further ahead of Bush in Pennsylvania.

Everyone knows that no Republican has won the White House in 1,254 years or something without winning Ohio. But since 2001, Bush has all but staked his re-election on Pennsylvania. He's visited the state more than any other, eating cheesesteak like mad, learning to say "Picksburg Stillers," and, if I'm not mistaken, actually climbing down in that hole to personally rescue those miners a few years back.

One can only assume that the more people see Bush, they less they actually like him. With that in mind, I want to extend an invitation to the president to come to my house and hang out with my wife a bit, in the hope that she will finally come to her senses.

The Black Informant argues Bush hatred biases most black folks - who 9 to 1 believe that the Iraq war was a mistake - in examining its result: freedom for Iraqis. Drawing from history, he argues why black Americans should lead the charge in promoting liberty for others still suffering under tyranny and totalitarianism.

Sean McCray, a libertarian blogger, argues that folks are wrong that Sen. John Kerry lacks a foreign policy plan. Talk-but-little-action and the force of his personality IS his plan.

Hugo Chavez. Yes,Hugo Chavez.

Wacky award week continues, now that the conspiracy loving, tree hugging,Wangari Muta Maathai has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

"Libya Sunday awarded its annual Moammar Gadhafi human rights prize to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez for resisting "imperialism" and being a champion of the poor....His opponents accuse him of ruling like a dictator, persecuting political enemies and trying to turn the world's No. 5 oil exporter into a replica of Communist Cuba.

"I feel bathed in honor," Chavez replied, adding he hoped to visit Tripoli soon.

Previous winners of the prize, which has been awarded each year since 1989, include Cuban President Fidel Castro and South Africa's President Nelson Mandela."

Rumor is Clare Short is dissappointed she lost out to Hugo.

The modern world is quite irritating at times. More precisely stated, the people of the modern world can be quite irritating. You live not in a virtual utopia, but in a very real and tangible utopia, yet you still find reason to complain. This alternately amuses and astounds me.

There was a time when the challenges presented by every day life were a matter of brute survival. Misfortune could easily mean the death of the entire family or village. I submit to you that in this modern age (in the civilized world) this is rarely the case. Catastrophe when it strikes is generally a matter of a loss of standard of living- selling the second car and making do with one, or selling the house and resorting to apartment living. Hamburger with macaroni and cheese rather than broiled sea bass and a fine dry Riesling.

This constitutes a crisis?

Enough of jesting. As daily life progressed from a struggle for survival to striving for a better life much of the intensity once directed to that very real, very desperate circumstance of old was sublimated in to other arenas of human endeavor- religion, art, and most prominently, politics. This notion I present to you is admittedly over-simplified; however, it is essentially true in all respects.

Over the past two days I have found myself engaged in a most frustrating correspondence with a gentleman I shall call Albin. Albin is distraught at the notion of a possible John Kerry victory in the election come November 2nd:

MGB: Well, Churchill said "The Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, once all other options are exhausted."

Albin: Ok

Albin: then you are content to see America fail here, certain in the knowledge that we will eventually succeed?

MGB: Oversimplified, but essentially yes.

Albin: I'd rather avoid that if at all possible

Albin: silly, yes, but that's just the way I am

MGB: Understandable

Albin: because a Kerry Presidency will drive the butcher's bill so high that 1000 dead soldiers in Iraq will look like a fucking bargain

MGB: To me there exists a fundamental difference between this statement: "The President is evil and incapable of doing right"

MGB: and this statement: "I believe the President has made a fundamental error."

Albin: I don't think he's evil

MGB: I believe you

Albin: I think he is terrifyingly wrong

MGB: Meaning his ideas fail to mesh with your own...

Albin: he believes his own press and expects us to believe it, too

Albin: and when he does surrender, and he will, he'll have the press and Hollywood out in force to spin it as victory

MGB: He will make the case for his new policy, yes

Albin: and he'll get away with it

MGB: You seem to equate disagreement over policy with a crime

Albin: until we suddenly have thousands or god help us millions dead in a major city

Albin: then he'll blame bush

MGB: Hmmm, that would seem possible, assuming such a catastrophe were to fall early in his administration

Albin: and maybe the voters will oust him, and maybe they won't, but it will still be 2008 before anything can be done about it

Albin: it is a thought that fails to fill me with any sense of joy

MGB: Your nation has survived quite a few truly terrible Chief Executives. Should Senator Kerry prove to be another, you shall survive him as well

Albin: nothing personal, but you're pretty irritating, did you know that?

The conversation was quite a bit longer, but I do believe this expresses the tone and nature rather well. My correspondent was so deeply and emotionally invested in the outcome of a simple election that it struck me as being rather over the top. Then I visited this site and read the comments of Australian leftists bemoaning this Saturday's overwhelming victory by John Howard's Liberal Party in the national elections. Of course they are as distraught as Albin was at the thought of a Kerry victory.

That bit of symmetry used to be taken for granted in American Democracy; that one side would be elated in victory and the other somewhat dejected in defeat. Hard on the heels of that realization there followed the fundamental recognition that despite the differences both sides were unified under their shared identity as citizens of the United States of America. This timeworn adage has held together for some two hundred and twenty-eight years; however, some believe it has finally begun to come apart under the strains of modern-day partisanship.

People are unusual in the way they perceive history. For some, anything that occurred in the years before they became sentient, autonomous entities is compressed in to a very short narrative replete with the major highlights of days gone by. Assassinations, catastrophes, a smattering of great quotes and memorable names- that constitutes the historical perspective they bring to bear on modern events. For others, history is a living, breathing thing, the tendrils of which shape the present day. For these people the Teapot Dome Scandal is as relevant to today as it was to the Harding Administration, and the orations of Greek philosophers and Roman Senators waft through the halls of power in every democracy. They are able to draw historical parallels with ease and make their arguments all the more gravid and persuasive (or intimidating, dependant upon one's own point of view) for the ties they make to the past.

Neither of those types is particularly adept at diving what was occurring at the grass roots level. Even the devoted historian is faced with a daunting task should she choose to make such an investigation, but should she do so she would likely come to understand that modern day partisanship is a milquetoast version of its predecessors. There was a time in America where the election went to the one who brought the most whiskey and best food to the polling places. For that matter, simply research the election and presidency of Andrew Jackson in 1828 where John Quincy Adams and his supporters painted Jackson as a bloodthirsty tyrant in the model of Caesar or Napoleon whose election would spell the death of the republic.

Should you detect a haunting familiarity in those characterizations I assure you it is with very good reason.

The partisan rabble-rousing currently under way in this American Presidential Election season seems more strident due to its immediacy. Words spoken in Denver are accessible nearly instantaneously across the entire nation and the world. I have offered the notion before in this very forum that cheap long distance communication and the Internet have combined to allow the most strident voices on the political fringes to interact in such a way as to magnify their volume. Volume being power in this media age they have taken on the facade of a political movement; however, those fringes remain outliers no matter how great an Irish toothache they engender from beating their chests and proclaiming their historical inevitability.

Your nation does not face a revolution. It does not face imminent collapse. It does not face the greatest calamity since the Second World War. No, the only thing your nation faces is a choice. The selection you are offered is rather stark: Preemption in the form of proactive military confrontation with or without the blessing of old allies, or a return to what many are convinced is a more civilized approach to threats posed by extra-national entities. This may seem overly simplistic, but I submit to you that both candidates' positions on other topics of interest are either essentially the same, or are of such a nature that despite their most fervent hopes they have no real prospect of finding success in the Congress. The War on Islamic Fascist Terrorism is the sole topic of concern here. On this subject both candidates are quite clear regarding what their stance is, advertisements to the contrary notwithstanding.

Americans have a choice to make. Those screaming on the fringes wish to influence your thinking, and that is their God-Given and Constitutionally Protected Right. What many people seem to fear is the notion that these groups hold some inordinate sway over the electoral process, but they do not. The American voter is a far more intelligent and engaged entity than either side is willing to credit. The people will choose, and that choice will reflect the mind of the electorate. Should Senator Kerry prevail the American people will have made a clear statement that preemptive war is not a strategy they are willing to endorse. That being the case it is incumbent upon those who feel otherwise to stand behind the new president and do whatever they can to make his new policies effective, for you people have a vested interest in seeing your government prevail in its endeavors. Should President Bush prevail, the same message is sent- the American people have spoken and endorsed a proactive strategy in combating terrorists and the nation-states that support them. Once again, that being the case it is incumbent upon those who feel otherwise to stand behind the president and do whatever they can to make his policies effective, for you people have a vested interest in seeing your government prevail in its endeavors.

It is that last point that engenders the most fear in partisans from both sides- the notion that those in opposition will not be content to engage in "civilized" opposition, but will move to demonize their opponent and cripple his ability to govern effectively. This has been a reality of American politics since the ratification of the Constitution. The modern world merely brings the strife to the fore where it can be seen and commented upon by all.

As the Twentieth Century rolled on past World War II the "new media" of Television dramatically altered the dynamics of political debate and discourse. Human beings are highly visual in their cognitive processes and such immediacy of information coupled with visual cues designed to evoke visceral responses proved an intoxicating tool for those who would shape the national conscience to their liking. For a time they did wield this power fairly indiscriminately for the flow of information was controlled by some few select entities. As the century wore on many became deeply dissatisfied with the state of affairs, and when cable television began its spread across the nation new, rival information sources came to the fore. The Internet is yet another manifestation of this. Designed originally as a tool to provide redundant and reliable communications for the military it became available to the public, setting off an organic process whereby information could be widely and cheaply distributed. In just a decade it has become the tool of choice for thinking individuals to validate facts presented as truths by Politicians, Special Interest Groups, Main Stream Media and any other entity that seeks to influence the national debate for any purpose whatsoever.

This is a frightening pace of change regardless of where one sits. All of this information, all of this access to facts and details and varying accounts of events would seem to be conducive to a better informed and more engaged electorate, and I submit that it is, for the most part. The problem one faces is that this is an unlovely solution, sorely lacking in the area of controls and filters. The Internet is brought to you raw, and it is up to you to sift through the deluge of information and choose what to believe and what to dismiss- a daunting challenge for even the most dedicated information addict. Regardless of one's preferences, in the back of your mind where that primitive beast still lives, there is a sense that this is very, very dangerous. Bloggers and other entities have begun to provide those missing filters, each holding to some area of expertise or simply offering an admittedly biased, but critical aspect of the information people seek, while the Internet itself remains in raw form, always available to those who might feel the need to challenge what is presented as fact or opinion.

In the end, this massive overdose of information both enlightens and frightens. It offers clarity, but threatens to obscure. It also fails to provide immediate context, for a single individual can easily build and maintain a site that seems as authoritative and reliable as one run by say a professor of history, or a panel of lawyers. This is where the fringe thrives. This is where rationality finds its voice. This is where you are forced to sift through the vast and ever-changing sea of information and attempt to come to a reasonable decision. This is where you find comfort, fear, love, anger, hate and reconciliation.

You have a decision to make. You have only 22 days in which to make it. This is your current iteration of the "struggle for survival". It is not a crisis. It is merely a test.

Dale Eddy recently put up an interesting post which made the case that John Kerry is really an old-style Republican.

He was incorrect on one point of fact: Germany did declare war on the United States first, but -as one writer has asked- does that mean that North Africa was a diversion after all?

From The San Fransisco Chronicle:

And perhaps no one has attracted more attention than MoveOn, the Internet- based group whose television ads and in-your-face opposition to Bush has driven right-wingers crazy, even as its small-donor fund-raising model has challenged Big Money's hold over democracy.

Right -- no Big Money donors to MoveOn.org...

(by The Resplendent Mango)

This Time piece emphasizes the sketchiness of ties between those working for Kerry and the 527s. I'm not sure it means to though. The article calls Steve Rosenthal "The Democrats' Mr. Results" and then goes on to say,

The Dems' Mr. Results One of the tips Steve Rosenthal gives his new foot soldiers is this: When you come to a house with a fence, rattle the gate before opening it. Why? "Big dogs," he says, laughing. These are the things you learn when you have been at the get-out-the-vote game for more than two decades. The son of a shoe salesman, Rosenthal, 51, grew up on Long Island, N.Y., and got his start in politics organizing unions in New Jersey. Few in Democratic politics have shown the kind of results that Rosenthal did as head of the AFL-CIO's political operation from 1996 to 2002. In the 2000 election, union members accounted for only about 16% of the voting-age population but produced 26% of the votes; two of three union votes went to the Dems.

Now the rumpled Rosenthal is trying to work the same magic for the Democratic Party as a whole. He has $125 million at his disposal—including $10 million from billionaire George Soros—which is about seven times what the national Democratic Party spent getting out the vote in 2000. Rosenthal's America Coming Together is the largest of the new political-advocacy organizations known as 527s for the section of the tax code that created them. On Election Day, Rosenthal expects to have 45,000 paid workers on the streets rounding up every Democrat they can find to vote. The secret, he insists, is staying in touch with those he has signed up. "You talk to people about issues they care about. You talk to them a lot," he says. "You get as close as you can to them."

Boy, if I didn't know better, I'd think there was coordination between the Dems and the 527s. But that can't be the case, because it's illegal, right?

(By The Resplendent Mango)

Carnival of the Cats is up at Watermark, who hoo! Lots of kitties to look at and no cat poop to clean up. Best way to do it.

Hey, with eight cats, cat poop is a big deal. Virtual cats are the way to go.

Nobel peace laureate claims HIV deliberately created

"It's true that there are some people who create agents to wipe out other people. If there were no such people, we could have not have invaded Iraq.

We invaded Iraq because we believed that Saddam Hussein had made, or was in the process of creating agents of biological warfare.

In fact it (the HIV virus) is created by a scientist for biological warfare.

Why has there been so much secrecy about AIDS? When you ask where did the virus come from, it raises a lot of flags. That makes me suspicious."

~ Kenyan ecologist Wangari Maathai, the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize

A conspiracy theory that will never die and one I'm not fully convinced of, but I certainly have not ruled it out. Also one of the reasons I have previously speculated that there is a cure for this...

What say you about this...?

Number of people killed by Atomic bombs: 240,000

I visited New York a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Streets in Chinatown and the Village were still guarded by soldiers. The sewers of downtown New York were still clogged with the ashen remains of the dead. The air was still acrid with smoke.

Back then, I wondered what kind of culture could inspire this act of pure hatred. What culture could hold such contempt for human life? What culture could believe that this was a valid expression of their beliefs?

I did some research and learned about the hate that inspired 9/11. We call it terrorism, but most people around the world call it Wahhabism.

Before 9/11, I didn't know much about Wahhabis. I thought Saudi princes were civilized, cosmopolitan types who looked cool in their kaffiyehs and sunglasses. Of course, the only news I cared about then was stocks and tech news. It was 'peacetime'.

According to Former Ambassador to the United Nations, Dore Gold:

Islamic scholars, in particular, have traced the underpinnings of the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to a very specific creed of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia, known in the West as Wahhabism...

The Saudi Royal family, the mullahs, and most of the population are Wahhabis, and as such they all hold these extremist beliefs.

In the name of Wahhabism, its adherents were extraordinarily brutal toward noncombatants, including women and children, delegitimizing them as mushrikun, or polytheists, who did not have any right to live. Most notably, in 1802 Wahhabi armies slaughtered thousands of Shiites in their holy city of Kerbala.

Such brutality is, in fact, at the core of modern terrorism, for the early Wahhabi warriors acted on - often based on the imprecations of mainstream Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia - is precisely how Osama bin Laden's mass terrorism works.

Saying that hate can be a weapon sounds awfully touchy-feely, and no, I'm not going to say 'all we need is love.' In Rwanda, hundreds of thousands of people were murdered by hate. Hate, inspired by traditional European prejudices and the Thousand Year Reich, was responsible for the deaths of millions. History proves that love, peace and understanding do not stop hate-inspired genocidal warfare.

Our Wahhabi allies and their philosophy slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans during a time of peace.

Our Wahhabi allies and their philosophy are killing innocent people every day. Our response to this has been the application of soft diplomacy, the expressed hope that our Wahhabi allies will change and the implied threat that we will retaliate if our they use some sort of scary weapon (nuclear, biochemical, etc..) to slaughter more thousands of Americans.

We ignore the fact that the hate spread by Wahhabism has already claimed the lives of more than a million innocent people.

We (well, some of us) know how an atomic bomb works, but we don't pay enough attention to the Wahhabi weapon. How do they spread hate? How has this been done before?

According to the House Committee on International Relations' Rwanda Report:

In three short, cruel months, between April and July 1994, Rwanda experienced a genocide more efficient than that carried out by the Nazis in the Second World War. The killers were a varied bunch: drunk extremists chanting "Hutu power, Hutu power;" uniformed soldiers and militia men intent on wiping out the Tutsi inyenzi, or "cockroaches;" and ordinary villagers who had never themselves contemplated killing before, but who decided to join the frenzy.

The murderers, and their ebullient abettors, were turned into ghastly marionettes, consumed by a manic wrath. Men and women, young and old, religious and agnostic, became killers. They killed with radios in one hand and machetes in the other. They killed in churches, at traffic lights, in supermarkets, and in homes. They killed after taunting, after savage beating, and, often, after raping.

In Rwanda, the Hutus spread hate by radio, the Saudis spread hate through mosques, universities, political donations, diplomacy.

The Hutus used whatever weapons were at hand, as the Wahhabi-financed mujahideen do.

Diplomacy, love and a belief in human rights did not stop the Rwandan genocide. But it could have been slowed by an application of military force - and by stopping the radio broadcasts at the source.

We don't have to worry about what will happen when the extremists are in charge of Saudi Arabia - they already are. We don't need to worry about what will happen when the extremists get their hands on a WMD. They're already using one, and it's killing people every day.

We need to stop the broadcasts at the source.

John Kerry has adopted some of the worst, failed Republican ideas from the last century.

In the 1930's, Hoover and the Republicans passed the protectionist Hawley-Smoot legislation to protect manufacturing jobs - contributing to the Great Depression. Now Kerry wants to try protectionism.

For 40 years, on a bipartisan basis, free trade has been US policy, starting with John F. Kennedy, and culminating with Bill Clinton's leadership in passing NAFTA. Now Kerry wants to revise NAFTA.

In the 1950's, Republicans were concerned with a balanced budget, and the top tax rate was 92% under Eisenhower. In 1962, Kennedy lowered taxes for all, saying that a rising tide lifts all boats. In 1982, Reagan emulated JFK; in 2002, President Bush copied both. The economy improved all three times. But now, it is called "tax cuts for the rich." Kerry's proposal to raise taxes is reminiscent of 1950's Republicans: it will slow the economy, resulting in fewer jobs.

In the late 1930's, Republicans were isolationist, and did not want to fight to replace a ruthless dictator names Adolph Hitler, FDR stood up for democracy and preemptively declared war on Germany and Italy* - even though they had not attacked America, were not an imminent threat, and did not at the time possess "WMDs." Roosevelt was correct in standing firm for democracy and freedom. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, in his inaugural address, said America "...will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, to assure the survival and success of liberty."

Kerry makes no secret of his administration and desire to emulate JFK. Yet unlike FDR, Truman and JFK (who championed the cause of democracy worldwide), Kerry consorted with Jane Fonda and veterans against the Vietnam War.

While Republicans in 2004 appear to have learned the lessons of history, Kerry is committed to repeating the failed policies of the past. To paraphrase Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, "...for those of us who were alive when John Kennedy was president, we knew JFK, and Mr. Kerry, you are NO JFK."

After you gourge yourself on the great posts here from my very talented fellow guest hosts, here's a few snacks available at Armies of Liberation:

"Osama's Cause is Just:" Clair Short

In China it's not Google, its Goo***

Darfur: In three months a report

Gambia: The Saga of the Missing Diamonds

Imminent Execution in Iran

Al-Jazeera: Striving for Objectivity?

John Kerry Characterizes Our Fighting Forces

While I have the advantage of Dean's forum, I want to generate a little national interest in the U.S. Senate race down here in South Carolina.

To summarize this week's action in the U.S. Senate race between Republican Jim Demint and Democrat Inez Tenenbaum:

• Inez continues to pound Demint - and score points - on his national sales tax proposal
• Demint offended gays (again), single mothers and school teachers all in a single week
• RSCC has hard-hitting ad comparing Inez to John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton - and says Inez is worse than all three.  (If they have video of Inez sharing a joint Jane Fonda and some gay dude, it's over)

Anyway, here's a roundup of weekend newspaper coverage of the race.

• Greenville News: Democrats, DeMint tangle over taxes
• Greenville News: Inglis' '92 race ignited DeMint's political fire
• The State's Lee Bandy: DeMint's missteps give boost to Tenenbaum
• The State's Brad Warthen: DeMint's education ad hurts all of S.C., not just his opponent
• The State: Graham goes to bat for DeMint in new ad
• Post and Courier: Anti-gay rhetoric not new among S.C. Republicans
• Sun News: Textile industry switches allegiance
• Times and Democrat: S.C. political power couple compelled to public service
• Times and Democrat: Fringe issues having impact on DeMint

We believe this Washington Times article strengthens our prediction that Sen. John Kerry will win next month. A prediction that we made back in July.

Don't hate the messenger, as we're voting for Bush. Yet we worked on a voter registration campaign. Given what we've seen on the ground, we're calling it as we see it. Next month, some folks may be in for a surprise and wonder how this result came "out of nowhere." It didn't.

Up today on its website about the Supreme Court's youngest jurist, based on more than two years of interviews with his colleagues and friends.

"Thomas's Across-the-Aisle Aid Puzzles Even the Beneficiaries"

"Thomas v. Blackmun"

"Yale Law Lacks Portrait — And Thomas's Goodwill"

Keep reading - this is not really a story about baseball. Maybe I'm being overly sentimental, because it's Sunday, or because my daughter is going to be born in three days, or maybe just because the coffee was good this morning and my ten-year-old daughter made pancakes. Whatever, this story got me all misty-eyed, and you deserve to read it.

Devin Brailsford — like generations of Summerton children before him — has never really played organized baseball. (There have been teams, but not steadily — year in, year out.)

In the United States, there are 8,375 leagues and 168,925 teams right now, according to Little League Baseball and Softball. More than 2.1 million children are playing organized baseball, Little League, in the United States and 2.7 million worldwide.

Baseball is a rite of passage, says Lance Van Auken, spokesman for the organization. "Baseball teaches that everyone fails. Everyone strikes out, but there's always another at-bat whether it's later in that game, the next game, or the next season."

Not in Summerton. Not until now.

This is the story of six Summerton grandmothers, one Columbia coach and more than 110 children who crave the reassuring rhythm of America's favorite pastime.

Go on. Read the rest of it. And send those nice ladies some more baseballs and gloves.

on the historic Afghan elections and 341 pictures of the polling at American War Monger.

Revenge of the Hamster, an Australian black blogger, describes how she celebrated Prime Minister John Howard's historic fourth term win yesterday.

"Girlie Man" but somehow "Faggot" slipped out instead. Four Times. (No, I'm not going to refer to Pennsylvania as a swing state. That's New Jersey.)

Fascinating to watch missile attack on Iraqi insurgents thanks to Jay for finding and sharing. Full article here.

Must keep up with the latest in military technology now.

(show)

Kerry has a plan but don't hold him accountable for it.

In the past three debates, we've gotten a pretty steady dose of the Kerry-Edwards mantra, which seems to be, "We have a plan..." The trouble for them seems to be that Bush has a dream -- a dream of liberty and peace and all sorts other neat things. He has plans too, but he's got a reason to have plans -- he's got a dream. I don't think a plan can beat a dream and a plan, at least not in America. Sure, we're practical people, but we're also largely descended from people who travelled a long way, often under the worst of conditions to come here, with very little of a plan for what, exactly, they'd do once the got here. They just knew they needed to come. I may be wrong, but it seems the American people usually don't just want an administrator, they want a leader with a dream and a vision too.

(by The Resplendent Mango)

Saudi Arabia

Bangladesh

Egypt

The Carribean

Beijing

The Pagan Case for Re-Electing President Bush.

There is one issue that is important for all Pagans: separation of church from State. On this issue, I believe that George Bush - who after all once said that he did not think Witchcraft was actually a religion - is easily portrayed in scary tones, but actually not at all dangerous. Why is this? Because President Bush believes in individual Liberty.

Read the rest at Caerdroia.

[H/T to New Daddy Jay at Accidental Verbosity.]

Here's an interesting question, continuing on my abortion theme for the day: Embryos at a fertility clinic, if kept frozen indefinitely and never implanted: are they "life"? How is destroying them different than keeping them frozen for the next 100 years? Discuss.

(by The Resplendent Mango)

Since I already touched on abortion, let's really open the whole can of worms. I'm feeling feisty. What follows is an argument for abortion that is fairly offensive. Think the 21st Century version of "A Modest Proposal." If such a thing is likely to raise your blood pressure to unsafe levels, cause you to yell until spittle short-circuits your keyboard, or make you send me nasty "babykiller" emails or comments, this probably isn't the post for you — just scroll down past it and continue with your day.

Now, for those of you who chose to stay, a few disclaimers. First — I have no real position on abortion, largely because I can see about 14 sides of the issue and that makes it very hard to take a strong position. I'm both religious and a pragmatist, and that also makes taking a firm position challenging. Second — I don't think I believe the argument I'm about to make, but every time I try to swing myself fully over to the pro-life camp, this is the niggling chorus that plays in my mind. However, it just seems too awful to be true. Anyway, without further fanfare, here's my really terrible idea.

*******************************************

Most argument against abortion comes from Christians, mostly from the denominations and congregations (often referred to as Evangelicals or Fundamentalists, which are two different things, but this by no means limited to these groups) that believe that there is some group of people that is going to hell because they are not "saved." (Oh, and we're leaving hard-core Calvinists out of this too...) We'll call these folks the SGH-Christians — the Somebody's Going to Hell Christians. We are not, mind you, using this in a derogatory way — I'm a SGH-Christian myself.

Now, the SGH-Christian argument against abortion is something along the lines of, "Life begins at conception, fetuses have souls, abortion is killing a soul." Fair enough. But is that necessarily bad?

SGH-Christians don't believe that babies go to hell. If something happens to a newborn, that baby's soul goes to Heaven under the "God is merciful" and "Age of Reason" clauses, as far as I've always been taught. Presumably, if the unborn have souls, then those souls go to Heaven too. So, mathematically speaking, if we have 100 unborn babies and all 100 are aborted, then we have 100 souls going to heaven and 0 going to hell.

But let's say they don't. All 100 are born and go on to lead fairly normal adult lives — just what you'd expect from 100 random people. But out of 100 random Americans, maybe only 30 of them ever are actually "saved." So then, when they die, the 30 saved ones go to heaven and the 70 unsaved ones go to hell.

So which is better? From a heavenly "butts in seats" perspective, the first one. The only trouble is that taking it to its logical conclusion would lead to extiction.

************************************************

So there's my awful argument. It's refutable, but interesting.

Alright, feel free to freak out now.

(by The Resplendent Mango)

Last night in the debate, in reference to the final abortion question, John Kerry said, "You don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise."

Whether or not you think the constitution affords people the right to an abortion, this statement is insane. First of all, based on current constitutional interpretation, we're afforded the right to an abortion -- in other words, if we want one, the constitution says, "You go girl!" (And before ya'll get worked up about my advocating killing babies, because I'm not, let me just state -- I'm neither pro-choice nor pro-life and I'm just making an argument.) The constitution doesn't promise to provide for said abortions, however. In other words, it says that we may but not necessarily that we can.

Think about this quote in other constitutional contexts. Apply it to the second amendment -- poor people are afforeded the right to bear arms, therefore the government should pay for them to have arms, shouldn't they? Apply it to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Should the government be sending the poor to Disneyworld every year to pursue happiness? How much happiness? Let's go farther -- we have the right not to have soldiers quartered in our homes, but some people don't have homes and therefore they don't have that right. We'd better get them homes! In Massachusetts, the constitution gives gays the right to marry. What about poor gays? Should the state pay for the flowers and champagne?

Sure, these examples are absurd, but no more than what Kerry's suggesting.

(Resplendent Mango)

Apparently this has been common knowledge to some for quite a while, but personally I was shocked this morning when I learned that George Bush is consorting with the French in the worst way imaginable.

He has a freakin' French tailor named - get this - George de Paris, and I just bet the sniveling little clothier insists that that name be pronouced "Shorshe de Pareeee" or something suitably-sissified-"Fronch" sounding! They even trotted him out Friday to say that wasn't a communications pack in the President's suit last week, but a, and I quote, "pucker in the seam."

Yes, that's right, President Cowboy not only has a damn Frog tailor, he's walking around in public with his seams all a-pucker and bragging about it. Shameless! Crack the Bell

The Conservative Brotherhood is an ad hoc group of black conservative and moderate bloggers, with a motto "Keeping It Right" (vs. the widespread "keeping it real" mantra). What were on folks' minds this week?

La Shawn Barber takes aim at the use of Ebonics in anti-Bush ads targeting black voters. Anyone who has seen the BreakBushOff.com ads played full throttle on BET knows what she means.

Michael Bowen discusses whether partitioning Iraq into three separate countries - for Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites - is a good idea.

Michael King asserts that conservative policy promoters and black media opinion leaders must dialogue more often in order to reduce liberal dominance of black media.

Ambra Nykol argues that voting is a privilege, not a right.

Juliette Ochieng criticizes Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel's retreat from his own 'bring-back-the-draft' bill.

Samantha Pierce and her husband are expecting their baby anytime soon, but she blogs about how to suffer from a Christian perspective.

Damon Thornton no longer no longer watches much broadcast TV.

Hip hop conservative Avery Tooley wonders why soul is gone...and not just in music.

Scott Wickham discusses abortion on demand.

Booker Rising's response to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's call for (yet another) commission to address Africa's problems and our 6-point free-market-and-liberty solution has rubbed our leftist brethren the wrong way. They vociferously make their points in our comments section.

President Bush's staunch ally, John Howard, has been re-elected as Prime Minister. The election was widely seen as a referendum on Australia's continuing committment to Iraq. Howard recently said: "If Australia were to cut and run from Iraq, it would send a very bad signal to the world." His opponent, Labor leader Mark Latham, had promised to withdraw the troops.

In case you've been living under a rock (or watching far too much election coverage), October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, and as such, the Third Annual Blogger Boobie-thon is on again to raise money for the Susan G. Komen Foundation and breast cancer research.

What is a boobie-thon? Well here's a little history to get you started. Basically, bloggers of both the male and female variety submit their tits, either tasefully covered or full frontal for the 'sealed section' (which costs $50 bucks on the door to get in), in order to attract donations.

And why bare my boobies? Well, breasts and cancer are two subjects that are *ahem* close to my heart. Earlier this year, my 25 year old sis was diagnosed with a brain tumour the size of a lemon, which was successfully removed two weeks later. I don't think I've ever lived a longer three weeks in my life.

So frankly, what's a little lingerie between friends (and multitudes of strangers for that matter) if it takes us one, two or three steps closer to a vaccine or a cure?

My pic should be up there soon (if it's not already). You've got two more days to get over there, check out the pics or submit your own, and make a donation. Who knows... it could be your own life you're saving.

The accepted translation from the Latin is A new order of the ages.

A rather appropriate aegis, I think, for the first democratic election in Afghanistan.

As the United States obsesses over last night's presidential debate, and the incessant wrangling over Iraq, a small miracle has slipped under the mainstream media radar: Afghanis are voting for their first representative government.

While we're talking about it, here's another small miracle the MSM missed: 13 million eligble voters registered, out of 28 million people.

The first corallary of that statement is that -obviously- quite a few women registered.

Since some of the ballots will be transferred from Hindu Kush voting stations via mule, the final result won't be known until late October; but we know who cast the first vote: the young lady -and science student- Moqadasa Sidiq.

Is it too soon to nominate Ms. Sidiq as the 21st Century's new Lady Liberty?

This article was originally posted on the Gantry Launchpad.

Can we please stop with the distainful use of "the wealthy" when referring to people who make $200k+ a year? I mean, yes, they do have a lot more money than, for example, I do, but to refer to them in that same tone of voice one uses to describe armadillos and syphllis is perhaps a little extreme. It's class warfare and worse, it's dumb.

I think we need to stop referring to this income bracket as "the rich" and start referring to them as AEAs -- Americans Employing Americans (or whatever...) so that people might begin to grasp that wealthy people spending money are good.

Relatedly, I felt very patronized when Kerry made his comment about how, from the looks of them, no one in that hall besides him, Bush, and Gibson, made more than $200,000 a year. This should be obvious, but $200,000 a year doesn't look like anything in particular. Not that these guys necessarily fall in this specific income bracket, but my dad's a muffler salesman and he knows some guys who can pull a wad of hundreds big enough to choke a horse out of the front pocket of their overalls. They may have their names on their shirts, but that doesn't make them card-carrying members of The Poor. Then again, compared to John Kerry, everyone's poor.

Tonight, I was invited to watch the debate with some friends in the East Village. Being that they're all uber-lefties, I declined for the sake of our continued friendship and collective blood pressures. And also so I could yell at my C-Span feed in peace.

I think Bush won, even though he was not as articulate as I'd have liked, especially for the first two or three questions. Nonetheless, he owned the debate. For those of you who don't know me, I'm a grad student studying Musical Theatre Writing and living in New York. One thing that they tell us all the time is, "If you can't say it, sing it; if you can't sing it, dance it." Bush danced this debate. He may not have the words, but he has IT, whatever IT is. I think IT is that quality of being a Titan and knowing it. Like Ethel Murman as Mama Rose. IT. Bush had the audience with him; he knew that and played accordingly. The best moment was after Kerry talked about Bush's earnings from his timber company and Bush said, "I have a timber company? That's news to me." And then, in a bit of choreography that had to make Jerome Robbins moulder green with envy, Bush dropped his head, walked about three steps downstage, raised his head, looked at the audience, and deadpanned, "Need some wood?" It was beautiful.

It's a pity that Bush can't say it. I know what he means, most of the time, and I agree with that. He's not a great communicator, but it's what behind the mangled words that gets me. I realize this is a bit esoteric, but I don't care. As far as I can tell, the man can't speak, but boy, can he dance.

Tim: I guess I'll call it a draw. Bush certainly didn't look as stupid or mean as last time, but I think Kerry did fine. Both pretty much said the same thing as last week on Iraq (duh), and since Kerry killed Bush on that last week - and events continue to undermine Bush's basic position - it's probably still a plus for Kerry.

Also, I think Kerry beat expectations on handling the format, which is a really bogus freakin' thing to judge a debate on, but I don't make the rules of punditry.

Shelly: President Bush was in top form tonight. He was comfortable and confident. On Iraq, I think we all get the point that there are no weapons of mass destruction, but hey, everyone thought there were. I really think the Iraq issue been debated enough. I wanted a healthy debate on taxes, health care and jobs, and I think the President delivered.

Other Random Thoughts:

From our son Jack (see previous post): "I hate this movie!"

On Bush's answer on who he would appoint to the Supreme Court: I think it's safe to say the Supreme Court won't revisit the Dred Scott case anytime soon, and Bush got enough of their votes in 2000, didn't he?

Best Kerry line I Heard, on enough troops in Iraq: "It's the military's job to win the war. It's the president's job to win the peace.

Best Bush line I heard: "Tell Tony Blair we're going it alone."

So much happens while I'm sweetly sleeping approx 7,783 miles away in the antipodean colonies of Aussie-land.

For a start, I wake up nice and hungover refreshed from a Friday night's sleep, only to find the keys to Dean's World in my inbox *in awe*. Then I find that keys have been cut for quite a few of us, all of whom have been merrily posting away on an amazing array of topics as I snored.

So I sat here for a bit, wondering with my fuzzy, undercaffeinated brain... why would the fabulous Dean have bestowed this particular honour upon me? He knows I'm non-political, in either an Aussie or a US sense (the farthest I go in that arena is reminding all your Aussies out there to vote for a Prime Minister today, cos if you don't the Electoral Commission will give you a wedgie and fine you for not undertaking your compulsory duty to this fine, fine country).

And he also knows I'd rather write about the fluffiest and trashiest more lighthearted topics than the serious.

So I've come to a conclusion: I'm the Naughty Cheerleader here at dw for the next while, while Dean and his lovely QoAE get some RnR. Stay tuned for trash, fluff and innuendo galore, dq style.

BABY!

I listened to about the first 35 minutes of the debate on XM Radio, and I'm now home watching. But our four-year-old son Jack just had the best comment by far, and I dare anyone pundit or blogger to top it. He walked from our den - where the debate is on - to our bedroom, where the debate is on, grabbed his head and said, "I hate this movie."

Smart boy. Crack the Bell.

From today's NYTimes Op-Ed Page:

What I Really Said About Iraq by L. Paul Bremer III

In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context. In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task.

The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President Bush's Iraq policy.

This effort won't succeed. Let me explain why.

(show)

I promised Mr. Esmay I would endeavor to avoid eating anyone. Only time will tell...

Thugery, Bribery, Implausability, Ambition, And just plain mean.

Before I go, I'll just share the sentiments expressed by the Young Curmudgeon and Virginia Postrel. I live near NYC, where cars are a real pain. Garage space costs a bundle and the subway is easier and faster. So why do I keep a car? Because life without road trips is no life at all. Cars expand possibilities.

From a NYT article by John Tierney:

A car is not merely a convenience but one of history's greatest forces for good, an invention that liberated the poor from slums and workers from company towns, challenged communism, powered the civil rights movement and freed women to work outside the home. Their arguments have given me new respect for my minivan. I still don't like driving it, but now when the sound system is blaring "Thunder Road" — These two lanes will take us aaanywhere — I think Bruce Springsteen got it right. There is redemption beneath that dirty hood.

Was [Saddam] so fixated upon Iran as an enemy that he could not bring himself to appear disarmed? Did he so discount the West, the United Nations and the Coalition as enemies? From my initial read of the report, Saddam failed to understand the gathering storm out of Washington. He was still fighting the Iran - Iraq War. He saw Gulf War I as a victory for himself, not the loss we all thought it was.

It goes back to my contention that the Tikrit Thugocracy was a criminal gang, not a ruling and governing group. Saddam saw Iran's mullahs as a rival gang. They were fighting over the same turf. We, the U.N. and the United States, were inconsequential to him precisely because we did not want his turf. Gulf I was a victory for him because he remained in power. Capone was concerned with Elliott Ness but it wasn't G-Men he slaughtered on St. Valentine's Day.

Our greatest intelligence failure was our failure to understand just how much the government of Iraq was about one man and his gangsters. Saddam was somewhat unique among dictators in many respects, so much so that it may be pathological on his part.

A clearer understanding of Saddam, his culture, and an open mind when it came to interpretation of his public and private statements could have produced a different picture of Iraq and of its ruling thugocracy. It may be that, like Hitler, he actually meant what he said on far more occasions than we thought. Our assumptions that he was lying or playing to the crowds may have assigned him far more complex motives than he actually had.

From his perspective: I'm in power. I want to stay in power. Who threatens my staying in power? The United States and the United Nations had demonstrated that they were no threat to his remaining in power. Iran, however, was a threat.

Do yourself a favor and check out the latest Carnival of the Recipes. It's being hosted by Angela of Fresh As A Daisy. Come for the Pork and Apple Supper. Stay for the pie.

What It Means To Be An American

Little did Dean realize that when gave us the keys to the blog that he was unleashing the Puppies of Heck upon the blogosphere! (I'm not a big enough blogger to have Hounds of Hell, so the next best thing will have to do.)

Hopefully I and the other members of the blogging collective that is Dean's World will be able to entertain you even if we can't keep you informed about really important stuff. At worst, we'll keep you up to date on totally mundane events and useless information.

On the other hand, the chances are good that you'll find a gem here and there that will please you. If so, it means that Dean just might invite us back.

Some people think we're all crackpots:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. presidential campaign between George W. Bush and John Kerry has prompted a frenzy of gossip and conspiracy theories among Internet bloggers, hybrid online sites that blend news, gossip and opinion.

As Bush and the Massachusetts Senator slug it out in a neck-and-neck race ahead of the November 2 election, partisan bloggers have flooded the Internet with alternative views about both candidates, which they hope will help sway voters.

Experts say much of the gossip on the Internet is as loony as supermarket tabloid stories claiming Elvis Presley lives, but that it still has a role to play in the campaign.

Personally, I think it's a conspiracy by gigantic media companies desperate to keep information gathering and dissemination all to themselves. But that's just me.

Crack The Bell

Well, in about an hour I board a plane with my 8th-grade classmates and set out for our nation's capital.

I'll spend less time sleeping, at night, and more time writing narratives to blog upon my return on Monday morning. Possibly some photos too...

So thanks for the comments (more on three articles than ever on my own blog), opportunity (you rule, Dean), and hopefully I may get another chance such as this!

Ciao, Andrew Quinn, Teenage Pundit

Here's a piece by blogger Michael "Cobb" Bowen (and my fellow Conservative Brotherhood mate) outlining how President Bill Clinton held similar views about Saddam Hussein as President George W. Bush, which liberal Democrats willfully overlook when criticizing Dubya's initiative in Iraq.

Oh, let me introduce myself. My name is Shamara (aka "Molotov"), one of the resident bloggers at Booker Rising. Named after educator Booker T. Washington, we're a daily news site targeting black moderates and black conservatives. Thank you Dean for inviting me to guest blog!

It's here! It's here! The October Surprise! Check out this headline!

Fellow guest Jane may want to check out the rest of the story on those school diagrams on computer disks. From CNN:

The FBI is examining the materials, but a Department of Homeland Security official said the intelligence community determined there was no threat.

The military retrieved the disks in Iraq within the last couple of months, and they were turned over to the FBI, one official said Thursday.

"There is no threat associated with this," another government official said.

...

The Department of Homeland Security official said the material was associated with a person in Iraq, and it could not be established that this person had any ties to terrorism. He did have a connection to civic groups doing planning for schools in Iraq, the official said.

From the AP wire:

Feces was up to six inches off the floor and crime scene technicians had to put on protective clothing...

For a minute there, I thought the AP had again pre-posted its debate wrap-up, but it turns out the story is about some poor dogs. But I still want to know how that poop got six inches off the floor.

The NYTimes is reporting today that computer disks were found in Iraq with the layout of numerous US schools, diagrams, and emergency evacuation information. "It had photos of schools in about a half-dozen states, including New Jersey, Florida and California."

Update: Tim (above) is noting the disks were in possession of a civic planner according to CNN. The Times reports a federal official as saying: "We don't know what any of it means, and we don't have any information on actual threats to U.S. schools," said a federal law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But we take everything seriously these days, and we wanted to ascertain where this information came from, so the schools could help us with that." I'm all for that.

Update: ABC News reports the source was an Iraqi insurgent. More

Says so here. Well, if it's my kid, definitely. She'll earn a post at my blog when I get over perusing this very different blog software. The "insert html" duplicated what I wrote three times, won't use that. It is long on instructions. That's helpful. Ooo, I like the 'insert symbols'. I'd like it better if they inserted where I want them instead of at the beginning of the post. "Link recent" inserts in the beginning too.

Interesting format, not as polished looking as WP or eee! but different, will have to play a bit more. Shows some promise. Still, it's no WordPress.

Course, what would you expect from a WordPress user/lover. Don't worry, I diss eee! too. For further info how that system got that name, see Jay.

And speaking of bitches, Martha's in jail now.

Preview doesn't work so here goes nothing.

Update: Now that I've had more time to play, I do believe the problem with inserting stuff and stuff not working has to do more with my browser. Works correctly in Camino. Fubarred in Safari. Solution, don't use Safari for posting as it doesn't support the javascript used.

Originally Posted to Teenage Pundit

I am absolutely in love with tiered classes. I'm sure you're all familiar with the concept, even if the name doesn't ring a bell: From kindergarten through most middle school, classes are not selected or divided up in any manner. This basically means that Baby Sheakspere would be in the same classes with somebody who doesn't even care to learn how to spell "February". This "lumped-together classes" strategy is quite ineffecient, as far as actual education goes.

Take my schooling for an example. I have a natural talent for learning stuff. I'm not trying to brag, I just rarely find English, Maths, History, or Science terribly difficult. Thusly, I was put through several years of educational Hades: extremely basic math classes, See Spot Run (in the FIRST GRADE, for goodness sakes), and virtually nonexistent History and Science curricula. I was naturally fairly bored in school.

Come my third-grade year, though, a beautiful white light came shining down. Metaphorically, of course. Actual "advanced track" classes were finally in my schedule, albeit only Maths and English classes. And to this day, I've been very happy in both classes. I'm finally being challenged.

Despite all that, my favorite class is actually History. I'm not sure why, exactly, except that I seem to have a built-in obsession with the subject, in a manner of speaking. I love politics, history, studying about wars, and just generally learning about government, politics, and history. Very sadly, however, there aren't any "tracks" in Social Studies and Science. I really don't understand the logic behind this. It really doesn't make much sense to "segregate" (heehee) certain classes and not others, as most of the so-called downsides to this "segregation" take effect as soon as the first class is "tiered up". These include one of the more commonly-pushed cases against divvying up the students: "The less advanced children will feel sad!" Wrong! Seriously, the intelligent kids will get more grief ("Nerd! Geek!", which is really saying "You're smarter than me and for some reason I find that funny!") from the football-playing fools who seem to relish their own ignorance and immediately pounce (socially) on anyone who shows a glimmer of academic interest. Simply put, nobody gains from the mixing of advanced and less-advanced students within the classroom.

This is actually, contrary to the beliefs of many, a negative to the less advanced students as well. In a desperate attempt to stretch their teaching styles over such a broad skill range, the educators end up teaching material too advanced for half the class, and too basic and slow-moving for the other half. The children more skilled in any given department are bored out of their minds, while their peers are being frustrated and upset with a class moving too quickly for them. "Who wins?", I ask you. Who wins?

All right, it's time to put a personal spin on this. I am simply sick of it. I am sick of ten kids getting literally nothing out of a class because the other fifteen need concepts reviewed and reviewed and reviewed. I am tired of two classes fulfilling my educational needs while the other two classes, my favorite subject included, continue to be rendered nearly ineffective for ALL students!

In closing: I apologise if I came off intolerant in the preceding rant, but please try and imagine my viewpoint and frustration. 1 am well aware that many kids struggle with classes and do not take out their frustration via insulting other students, but that number is dropping quickly. I realize that these learners cannot help what they are talented in and what they aren't, but I ask you: Why should it affect me?

If President Bush doesn't do well in the debate tonight, things may just tip in John Kerry's favor. And Gordon has the handy dandy guide for all of us in the VRWC who will need lessons on how to survive in the land of the moonbats.

Prerequisites

A Cause:

Just about any cause is good as long as you remember that it doesn't support the dominant paradigm (see Terminology), capitalism or anything approaching true democracy.

Terminology

Democracy: Just a system where everyone works according to their abilities and consumes according to their needs.

Worldview:

America Is Always Wrong. This point is so simple it shouldn't even warrant writing about. Socially, spiritually and physically, America is the disease.

Find this and all other necessary information at the home of the Cranky Neocon.

This guidence provided by Armies of Liberation

1. About 1,800 felons removed from voter rolls in 39 counties
2. Democrats Challenge Fla. Voting Policy
3. NAACP sues elections chief over early voting
4. Florence man charged with voter fraud
5. Voting in schools debate broadens

1. Secretary of State wants answers on absentee ballot allegation Florida Voter Registration Fraud

Make it stop moving!

I am incredibly tired and need a break. So what to do about this? Just softly slip into quietude?

Hardly. That's not my style. Indeed, I'd die first. So, cry havoc, and let slip the blogs of war!

Your guest-bloggers for the next three days, posting whatever they want, whenever they want, on whatever subject the want, will include the following superlative webloggers:

Teen Pundit Andrew Quinn

Mad Dog Casey Tompkins

Weekend Pundit Dale Eddy

Goldie the Drama Queen

General Jane of the Armies of Liberation

Katie of the incomparable Resplendant Mango

My long-lost sister Margi Lowry

The incredibly dangerous Mary of Exit Zero

Bitch-Queen extraordinaire Mog

Staunch iconoclast Shamara of Booker Rising

The impossible Zsallia Marieko

The astounding Talk Glass of Milk

The Fearless Tim Kelly

From now until Tuesday morning, the blog is theirs. To do whatever they want. Whenever they want.

Be gentle girls (and boys). It's my first time. :-)

Screw the Washington press corps - for hard hitting political coverage, I always turn to "Live with Regis and Kelly." Pitbull Kelly yesterday threw this curveball at Sen. John Edwards:

On "Live With Regis and Kelly," host Kelly Ripa suggested actor Tom Cruise play Edwards if a movie were made of the 2004 campaign. Edwards then cast Cheney in a scene from "A Few Good Men," the 1992 courtroom drama in which Cruise's Navy lawyer confronts old-guard Marine Jack Nicholson.

"Can't you see it now?" Edwards cracked. "Cheney saying, 'You need me on that wall! You need me on that wall!' And me saying, "You can't handle the truth!"

The AP also notes that Edwards turned up on "The View."

I want to thank Dean for giving me the opportunity to guestblog in the Big Leagues for a couple of days. I'm Tim Kelly, the Democrat half of Crack the Bell, and no, I'm not nearly as intelligent or good looking as the Republican half over there.

I'll be posting a couple of times a day at Dean's World this weekend, and I'll try my best to keep the debate on the high level you expect from Dean.

Just because. Name the author, and name the guitarist:

Well they gave him his orders at Monroe, Virginia,

Said: "Steve, you're way behind time,

This is not 38, this is Ol' 97,

Put her into Spencer on time."

Then he turned around and said to his black, greasy fireman,

"Shovel on a little more coal!

And when we cross that White Oak mountain,

Watch Ol' '97 roll."

And then a telegram come from Washington station,

This is how it read:

"Oh that brave engineer that run ol' 97,

Is lyin' in old Danville dead."

"'Cos he was going down a grade making 90 miles an hour,

The whistle broke into a scream!

He was found in the wreck with his hand on the throttle,

Scalded to death by the steam."

One more time...

Oh, now all you ladies you'd better take a warning,

From this time on and learn!

Never speak hard words to your true-lovin' husband,

He may leave you and never return.

Poor Boy.

For background, see the original story here.

I recently did an apperance on Pundit Review Radio in Boston to talk about Operation Give and Tabby's case. If you'd like to listen to it you can just click here. We're 98% of the way with Tabby.

If you'd also like to hear an interview with Scott Johnson of Powerline, and how the Rathergate story was broken by bloggers, you can click here to hear it.

The Pundit Review guys will be talking to some more webloggers tomorrow (Saturday) just after noon Eastern, and you'll be able to hear it live on WBIX in Boston.

Joe Zwers recently sent me an email with what I think may be the best name for the so-called UNSCAM story: "Oil For Atrocities."

I can't think of anything better. I'd now like to officially propose to the blogosphere community that this be the phrase we use to refer to the "UNSCAM" or "Oil For Food Scandal" issue.

It's the Oil For Atrocities scandal. For that's really what it is, no?

This time, they're bombing people in Egypt, and while they're targeting Jews they're getting more non-Jews.

The Egyptians seem unlikely to take this in stride to me.

Tremendous!

Are you going to vote for [support, in my case] John Kerry even though you find him unpleasant, annoying, arrogant, waffling, misguided, or just generally unappealing in some profound way? Then you've come to the right place!

Link via InstaPundit.

According to this CNN piece, both Republicans and Democrats are trying to spin, spin, spin the latest report on Iraqi WMD's.

A day after the chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer delivered his Iraq Survey Group's report to the Senate, President Bush acknowledged that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time he ordered the invasion but said Saddam Hussein was "systematically gaming the system" and the world is safer because he is no longer in power.

"He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program once the world looked away," Bush said. "Based on all the information we have to date, I believe we were right to take action."

John Kerry, spending the day in Englewood, Colorado, preparing for Friday's second presidential debate, spoke to reporters about the report: "Mr. President, the American people deserve more than spin about this war," Kerry said.

"They deserve facts that represent reality, not carefully polished arguments and points that are simply calculated to align with a preconceived conception."

This report just confirms my disgust at many of the recent events: this was highlighted by the potshots taken by one Vice-Presidential candidate at the other during the latest debate. At least 70% of both mens' rebuttals began with "Sorry, ___, but you've got your facts wrong."

At what point does one begin to wonder that, if voters are to make an educated decision regarding their choice for the offices of President and Vice-President if the candidates cannot even agree on a set of valid facts? It's a sad day, truly, for America and Anmerican politics in particular when the candidates cannot debate the issues; they can't even agree on numbers and documents and basic data!

How long until American politicans evolve into caricatures similar to the now-infamous former-Iraqi Information Minister? One candidate will be claiming that thousands of Americans are dying overseas, and his opponent will be claiming that the troops aren't deployed at all!

I'm not sure exactly how to fix this problem, but something surely needs to be done. How on Earth is the American voter to decide for whom to vote if the two are making totally different claims regarding simple matters of record?

UPDATE: Commentor Arnold Harris writes:

In the end, Americans vote for the national leader whom they trust, combined with the policy they think will protect their interests and the interests of the country as a whole.

My own view is that it is a mistake for the candidates on either side to agree to a joint live showdown on stage, with moderators feeding them blind questions which they are compelled to answer in two minutes, with even shorter rebuttals. Public policy on complex issues frequently require in-depth explanations, and these so-called debates supply nothing like that. The debates themselves are the cause of the endless spinning in the media.

Interesting point; I'm inclined to agree. Sensationalism is indeed a growing concern, and I believe the very short "rapid-fire" debates are just feeding into the public's "More HEADLINES, less details" trend.

...the big time! The blogospheric limelight! The access to an audience that every pundit-hopeful dreams of as he clicks his first "Create Blog" switch on BlogSpot, or sets the CHMOD on his very first Moveable Type installation.

I, thirteen-year old Andrew Quinn (alternatively, The Teenage Pundit am extraordinarily honored to be given an opportunity to guest-blog on one of the most popular Web logs on the Internet. A little bit about me: I refer to myself as a "reformed leftie-moonbat." I have, in the past few months, gone from a borderline socialist Kucinich supporter to a fiscal conservative/social libertarian/all around well-behaved Moderate. The only stop I've never gotten off at (thusfar) is the extreme right. Oh, and one more thing: I'm also an atheist. I don't believe in religion, and I hold no small amount of anger toward religions such as Catholocism which attempt to govern the thoughts and opinions of their followers.

And finally: I'm pretty hard to offend, like Dean writes about himself. Kindly refrain from any prejudgement based on my age, but I'll welcome intelligent debate. I thrive on it!

I have been assigned to blog tonight and tomorrow; however, of all weekends, I leave Friday afternoon on a school trip to our nation's capitol. Therefore, I'll write on overdrive tonight and post what I can tomorrow, between frantic laundry and packing. As an aside: My tour group gets to traverse "the Monument Tour" at night! Spotlights on the Lincoln Memorial... I'm excited.

So, in conclusion... thanks to Dean for this wonderful opportunity. Wish me luck!

Burning Kerry signs in Louisiana. Broken windows at a Democratic office in Galveston.

None of it's as as violent or hateful as Republicans have been subjected to this year (see my links below), but it's deplorable and inexcusable nonetheless.

I continue to blame the same people I mentioned before.

(Links via Dolphin.)

In November, voters in Colorado are considering a fairly foolish ballot initiative, one that would switch their state's nine electoral votes from "winner take all" to being given out proportionally. This would mean that if one candidate took 55% of the popular vote and the other took 45%, they'd split the electoral votes 5-4.

Some claim this would benefit Democrats since Bush is ahead in Colorado now. That way Kerry would be guaranteed to take at least four of those nine. I suppose they're right, although long term it's not clear that it would help the Dems in a major way.

But more to the point: as I wrote last year, the electoral college system is not broken and does not need fundamental reform. It works exactly as it was intended to work. Like the Senate and the state legislatures and governorships, it is a balance of centralized vs. decentralized power, and it is a force for moderation in our Presidential candidates. Without it, Presidential campaigns could concentrate entirely on our largest urban areas, or pitting one ethnic group against another, and ignore the entire rest of the country.

Oh and by the way, if you thought Florida was a mess in 2000, can you imagine what it would have been like if we hadn't had an electoral college? We wouldn't have been recounting in a few counties in Florida. We would have had court fights in all 50 states, in every sincle precinct where there were even a few minor questions about the ballots.

Cripes, Clinton would probably still be in office right now waiting for them to finish arguing over who won.

I don't dispute that that Colorado can make this change, since the Constitution explicitely says that electoral votes will be given out however the state legislatures specify. Although come to think of it I guess that's another headache: if this initiative passes, it will immediately face a court challenge since the U.S. Constitution does say that it's the state legislatures, not citizen ballot initiatives, that determine how a state's votes will be distributed.

In facdt, now that I mention it, I'm suddenly having nightmares. Imagine this: Close election in 2004 just like 2000. Now Colorado's the deciding factor, and the Supreme Court has to come in once again and decide whether this ballot initiative is Constitutional or not. Dear God, I can't imagine anything more ruinous to our national political pysche after everything we've gone through the last four years.

So, let's see, a ballot initiative that would effectively make Colorado an irrelevancy in most Presidential elections, but might just put Colorado at the center of a firestorm even worse than Florida in 2000--with no benefit to Colorado at all.

Hey Colorado: please think twice.

Glenn Reynolds notes that John Kerry's foreign policy collapsed into complete ruin this week, with findings that, no, Saddam didn't have vast stockpiles of WMDs but yes, did retain small quantities along with other forbidden weapons and, more importantly, retained programs to reconstitute them as quickly as possible. Most damning of all, he also had substantial bribery systems in place with officials in places like France and Russia to help him to that end--and to guarantee that they would veto any attempt in the U.N. Security Council to take him out. Read the rest here.

Powerline has even more compelling details.

It remains to be seen whether Bush is articulate enough to point all this stuff out for himself. Obviously, those who called him a "liar" have been made to look like partisan hacks and fools. But how to say so without seeming, y'know, angry about it?

Jerome has a pretty good piece on a street art presentation he recently encountered, and the fool who made it.

Val has a more personal piece on the same subject.

The old phrase "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is familiar to most people. It's a mantra you can hear countless people say in everyday life. The problem with it is that it's not true. At least, in America it's certainly not true.

By the way, I don't mean "it's not true this year," or even, "it's not true this decade." It hasn't been true in my lifetime or yours.

Try to tell that to some people and they'll actually get angry. But that doesn't make it any less so. It's got nothing to do with whichever politicians are in charge in Washington either. Pick your President of the last 50 years, and it never happened under him. Wired magazine has more on it. And note the date on the piece: nothing's really changed since then. (I noticed the link over as Sasha's, by the way).

If you'd like an even more complete treatment on the subject, with the social and spiritual ramifications of same, may I suggest that you check out Gregg Easterbrook's excellent The Progress Paradox? Fascinating book, I've been meaning for months to write a review of it. Maybe after election season's over I'll finally do it, but it's a superb book, it really is.

Archaeologists believe they are close to finding the actual grave site of Ghengis Khan. Secular Blasphemy has the relevant links.

Very cool find if so. The find of a lifetime, in fact.

Tanya is tired of hearing that Bush banned stem cell research..

So am I. He did no such thing.

Blaster proves it.

The Patriette has a wonderful story you should read.

Chris Lawrence reports: You decide.

The Queen and our little prince made it to another Bush rally in Michigan yesterday. Michigan is still leaning toward Kerry but Bush is within striking distance here and appears to be making a serious effort to take the state.

Note: still no sign of those rumored "loyalty oaths" the moonbats keep claiming you have to sign to get in to a Bush rally.

Lisa has designed the political shirt of the season.

Has anyone read Richard Weisman's Is America Nuts??

I can't tell from the description whether it's a novel or a tract, whether it's satire or serious. It looks interesting though....

The Chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party claims a group of 50 or so Kerry supporters rioted at a Republican campaign headquarters recently, and claims that three homes in Madison recently had Bush/Cheney signs torn from their lawns and swastikas burned with acid on their lawns.

Of course, there is no independent corroboration of these incidents.

(Thanks to Bill Hennessy for pointing this out.)

The folks at Move America Forward have several new ads you might want to see.

Carroll Andrew Morse writes:

An American serviceman was ambushed last month. This ambush was especially noteworthy because it did not occur in Iraq or Afghanistan; it occurred within the borders of the United States. PFC Foster Barton, recipient of the Purple Heart, was on a two-week leave, recuperating from injuries sustained while on duty in Iraq. While leaving a concert in Columbus, Ohio, he was attacked. According to a local television report, his attacker reportedly "was screaming profanities and making crude remarks about U.S. soldiers."

I suspect that PFC Barton does not want to be part of any larger story or lesson about the war on terrorism. He is, most likely, a soldier who wants to do his job well, carry out his mission, and protect his buddies as best he can. However, a soldier does not always pick the battles in which he is involved. Circumstance has placed PFC Barton front-and-center of the war that transcends even the "clash of civilizations." Foster Barton was attacked by the common enemy of all civilizations.

The whole piece is pretty good.

...goes to Annika.

I'd like to get her and Margi Lowry into the same room.

As I've mentioned before, whenever you hear about the "UN Oil For Food Scandal" it doesn't sound very intesting. Oil/Food/Scandal/UN/blah. Sounds like just another case of bureaucrats caught with their hands in the till, doesn't it? Happens all the time. Blah blah, investigations, blah blah, a few people go to jail, woof woof whatever.

Those who've followed the story closely know that it's a much bigger deal than that. I'd like to suggest that part of the problem here is that the name for it is misleading. That being the case, I'd like to suggest that those in the blogosphere stop calling it the "UN Oil For Food Scandal," which sounds like typical bureaucratic money games, and start calling it what it is:

THE UN'S IRAQI HOLOCAUST FUNDING SCANDAL.

What do you think? Does that maybe more clearly define what we're talking about here?

Anyway, a good site that regularly updates on this issue is Friends of Saddam. I've been meaning to link it forever and keep just plain forgetting. I've finally fixed that, thanks to prompting.

(Prompting of my addled memory by Emigre of Iraqblogcount.)

After two Democrats (yes, Democrats) introduced bills to bring back the draft, the Republican-led House of Representatives today voted 402-2 against it.

Rumors of a reinstated draft are irrational nonsense. All four branches of the military service have been exceeding their recruitment goals for years, and the Air Force and Navy are actually turning people away and forcing early retirements because they're overstaffed. The notion that we're going to be needing a draft are utter nonsense.

Sometimes the Japanese have the coolest commercials, don't they?

(Via Gerund.)

Running Scared has several examples.

We have run into a major snag in getting Tabby over to the states--they're estimating a four week delay on getting her dad a visa. She may well die if we wait that long.

Chief Wiggles has more details.

May I suggest once again that you go to House.gov and Senate.gov, look up your congressman and your Senators, pick up the phone, and ask if they'll help with this situation? This girl doesn't have four weeks.

Art Chrenkoff notes the stunning series of recent positive events in the Islamic world, including:

* a liberal successor in Egypt,

* moderate wins in the first direct presidential election in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia,

* reforms on the agenda in Kuwait,

* some home truths from the Emir of Qatar,

* legal democratic wins for Turkish women, and

* Mossad gets a muslim helping hand against Hamas

All this on top of the stunning recent positive news in Afghanistan and Iraq. Read about it all here.

Roger Simon notes that the Associated Press published its wrap-up of the Vice Presidential debate 30 minutes before the debate ended.

No comment.

But while I'm mentioning Roger Simon, you really should read his piece on the UN Oil-For-Food scandal. A scandal which is a much, much, much bigger deal than it sounds like. Indeed, at times I wonder if the story doesn't get more attention simply because the name is so boring. "Oil for food scandal? How big a deal could that be? The UN wasting some money? Pfft."

No. It's a much, much bigger deal than you think.

I was delighted to read that there is still serious talk in the Congress about amending the Constitution to allow non-native born citizens to serve as President. Currently the Constitution requires that you be a natural-born citizen to be President or Vice President--the only office in the U.S. that I'm aware of which requires such a thing.

When this was first put into the Constitution some 215 or so years ago, it was not as reactionary as it sounded. The country was much tinier and more fragile then, and was worried about foreign powers possibly overinfluencing the chief executive. That was a long, long time ago though. Today no candidate arises to the Presidency without being scrutinized to an incredible degree, and the notion that, say, the Russians or Chinese would manage to infilitrate a secret pawn into the Presidency is just laughable.

Believe it or not, talk of this is not because of Arnold Schwartzenegger. It's actually been discussed ever since the first few weeks of the Bush administration back in 2001 (as I wrote last year on the subject). Funny thing is, I think just having Schwartzenegger now in the Governor's Mansion in California makes this amendment less likely to pass, since some would consider it "Arnold's Amendment" or somesuch and just sneer at it, and Democrats might object just on the fear of his charisma making him a shoo-in in 2008. That's too bad. There have been many terrific Americans born on other shores, and this seems to be the only part of our system of law that still openly discriminates against them.

It would seem to me that those worried that it's just a "Republican plot to make Arnold President" could easily have their concerns addressed: Simply have such an amendment not pass into effect until 2010. That's long enough out that no one could say "Oh they're just passing this so they can elect Arnold." And if Arnold's still around and politically viable in 8 years, okay, but that seems remote and not likely to be credible as an "appoint Arnold amendment."

Hell, our own Governor here in Michigan is Canadian by birth, and I don't see why she wouldn't qualify to run for President either. (I sometimes mockingly call her "Our Canadian Overlord" but she's not a bad sort, and certainly not incompetent).

(Story link via Bill Quick.)

Robert Cox of The National Debate is getting on my nerves. I've been blogging for two and a half years and gotten three lawsuit threats. He's been going for barely a year, and has already had two. The nerve! Young punk!

Worse? My threats came from hotheads who just dislike my political views. Moonbats, basically. Cox first got threatened by the New York Times, and now, he's got CNN after him over his CNN parody page.

Yeesh. I take some consolation in the fact that he still trails Dean's World in the "death threats received" department.

In other news, Aaron's Rantblog is being harassed by CafePress. Don't I seem to recall them giving Allahpundit similar grief last year? It makes one begin to wonder if the CafePress folks don't have a hidden agenda. I've been thinking about creating some Dean's World merchandise with them, but perhaps I need to rethink that.

Kelley's 4 year old boy recently lost his first pet in a tragic accident. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry reading about it. Maybe a little of both.

Shots fired into Bush-Cheney headquarters in Tennessee. A swastika burned into the lawn of a Colorado Bush supporter. Protestors ransack Bush headquarters in Orlando. A Bush campaign leader slugged in the mouth according to Gainseville police. Bush campaign signs vandalized in Maryland.

Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malking have the detailed links here and here. Reynolds also notes "peace movement" people cheering this stuff.

Reynolds says, "I blame Michael Moore." I do to. Well that, and his apologists and defenders. Not to mention Joe Trippi and Howard Dean.

The moonbats will undoubtedly blame Karl Rove for all this, just like they blamed Rove for the breakin at Bush/Cheney headquarters in Washington a few days ago. Cretins.

By the way, if anyone sends me documentation of Republicans behaving like this, I'll still be happy to link them. But talk about your "climate of fear." I'm seriously thinking of removing the Bush/Cheney stuff from our car and house. Yes, we're an armed household and won't hesitate to shoot of course, but I don't treasure the idea of something happening to Jake or Rosemary when I'm not home.

With the Presidential debates, I only saw the beginning and heard the rest on radio or read about it. In that, I thought the President did better than most people who watched the debates throughout.

In the VP debate tonight, I saw none of it, and heard almost all of it. I am biased of course but I thought Cheney did an excellent job of defending the administration and its policies and Edwards came across a little shrill but did make a good defense of his position (although Cheney rebutted him quite effectively several times). But again, I did not see almost any of it so I have no idea how it looked to those watching it. Allahpundit has a roundup of reactions, mostly from people saying Cheney kicked butt. I expect Joe Gandelman will be reviewing reactions from Kerry supporters as well as Bush supporters.

My short take: both men did fine, the debate was (just like last week's) entirely substantive and quite worth tuning in for. I think Cheney won on points but I don't believe that winning on points is how you "win" a Presidential debate, because most voters are more concerned with the issues than who's more eloquent. But I've believed that for a long time. All Edwards really had to do was hold his own here, a point that Tim Kelly (a Kerry supporter) makes fairly well. Perry On Politics says Bush could learn a lot from Cheney on debating skills.

* Update * Joe Gandelman's analysis is up, and he's got an excellent roundup of reactions.

Rodney Dangerfield has died.

Bummer.

Strategypage's prediction market had another seven correct predictions last month. They were pretty straightforward, simple predictions, but most were based on things that had been predicted in the press. As the StrategyPage folks note, the market results seem to indicate that "a lot of what passes of 'news' in the mass media is basically hype."

Interestingly, a couple of weeks ago, after columnist Robert Novak predicted that the U.S. planned to pull almost completely out of Iraq in the beginning of 2005, I put that question to the StrategyPage market. You can find that prospectus here. Note that it's currently running 35 pro, 496 con. In other words, the market so far is saying Novak's full of it. Which, to be honest, is kind of what I thought when I read his silly column.

More fascinating to me is that the market is also currently overwhelmingly predicting that there will be no major military confrontation with Syria in 2005, but--and here's where I gulped--it is openly predicting war with Iran by end of 2005.

Note that, unlike psychics, they do publish the market's correct and incorrect predictions, and their results are still correct over 90% of the time (to date).

* Update * I seem to have somehow misread everything. The markets are predicting the US will announce major withdrawals form Iraq in the first half of 2005, will NOT make war on Iran, but WILL have a major military confrontation with Syria. I wasn't paying close enough attention. I still think the Novak column was silly, but at least on the one part the market's backing him. ;-)

Documentary film maker Carlton Sherwood has an impressive resume. And his new movie about the Vietnam POW experience looks to be must-viewing. You can now order it on DVD or even just pay to view it online.

This week's Carnival of the Liberated has news, views, and insights from Iraqi bloggers. And cats.

Looking for something to read about the Muslim world? ihat of Iraqi Blog Count recommends Cities of Salt.

Aunt Najma of A Star from Mosul has an interesting comparison of life in Baghdad and life in Mosul.

Rose of Diary from Baghdad answers some questions from email correspondents. Her answers strike me as a pretty honest assessment of the situation. The good news: she doesn't know anyone who's been killed or injured.

I did not have the chance to meet or talk with any soldier, and so are the rest of my family, we are a peaceful, non-trouble makers, since Saddam's regime and now.

The bad news: everybody knows of someone who's been killed or injured.

Short time after Baghdad's fall, there was a battle near my mother's aunt house, one of their neighbors was hit accidentally in the battle, the neighbors tried to lift him and take him to the hospital, so they took my mother's aunt car, and few seconds after that, the USA army thought they were fighters trying to escape from them, so they shot them with a missile. They were all killed, the car burned completely. the next day they had 3 funerals in their street

Sam of Hammorabi has a clearer view of the War on Terror than some over here do:

The other example of those who are redundant against terrorists is John Kerry. During the debate with GWB he accused him that GWB was wrong in the war against Saddam. His explanation is that Saddam was not involved in the 11 Sep 2004! What a clever explanation which indicates that any one who has no connection with Usama Bin Laden is not terrorists or representing a danger for the security of the world.

Omar of Iraq the Model has some interesting news:

From Al Sabah:

Four tribes' chiefs promised to declare a threat to the militants in Fallujah that they should turn themselves to the authorities peacefully or the tribes will fight them. At the same time many citizens in Fallujah stated that they are willing to participate in the upcoming elections. Meanwhile Ayad Allawi gave a statement about a military action in Fallujah to be taken soon.

He also directs us to an interesting blog Untold Iraq:

Untold Iraq features the stories of Iraqis and Americans who are building a secure, stable and democratic future in Iraq. These stories, rarely shown on American newscasts, provide a powerful first-hand account of Iraqis' gratitude for their newfound liberation and commitment to working with the Coalition to build a brighter future.

neurotic iraqi wife is a woman of unexpected depths. Don't miss The Political Me. She also points us to a blog that's new to me: Iraq Today.

Only one thing is seen in Mosul these days: That most people here are in horror from the bad situation that we are in: kidnapping, explosions, killing in a savage ways, car bombing and others. The explosions and car bombs are not new for us, it started in this city since the end of last summer. But, what made the people in horror is the kidnapping, the killing of people in the savage ways by some terrorist groups, with addition to some other behaviors of the terrorists.

He concludes: "Pray for us all, my dear readers, pray for us all."

May of A Family in Baghdad translates for us:

I want an answer to my daily question: what will happen if the occupation forces pulled out of Iraq?? And my answer is: The conditions that occurred after the occupation forces entered Iraq, the disbandment of state institutions, the Army, the Police Force, and the security forces. All that created a void, giving way to an escalation of crimes, the entry of terrorist foreign forces, and the occurrence of daily clashes. The Iraqis no longer know friend from foe? All these things happened, either by the stupidity of the occupation forces, or else by prior intent and planning. If it would have happened because of mismanagement, poor planning, and confusion, it could have been overcome with time, then corrected....but the program is going on stubbornly, persistently, with the same cadency... a weak interim government, guarded by the occupation army... a weak Army and Police Force, with old weapons, and no technologies.... The American army roams the land and skies of Iraq, using the most sophisticated technology... and the Iraqi police carry an ancient Klashencove, and so is the Army, driving small, miserable, pathetic vehicles, so that one missile could make all passengers fly in the air... while the tank, Helicopter, and Humvee could give more protection to their passengers against accidents, and reduce causalities?? So, there is some contemptuousness and marginalizing to the Iraqi Army and Police... or a plan to keep them incapable of taking control of things...in constant need of another, strong, backing force, to rule the country.

Abu Khaleel of A Glimpse of Iraq offers us more than a glimpse at The Art of Compromise in Iraq:

It is always amusing to listen to people (including some Iraqis) accusing the Iraqis of not being able to compromise. These people evidently know little of Iraqis!

Anyone who has seen a tribal arbitration council [Fassul] in the countryside cannot help but smile at this. When a problem reaches the stage of arbitration, it usually means that the two sides involved are ready for it. No such council can be held without the consent of both parties. This usually happens after a long-drawn process of mediation conducted by acceptable intermediaries- either from well-doers' initiative or from the efforts of one of the parties that wants to contain the conflict... or, sometimes, after both sides have had enough of the conflict! This usually involves the intermediaries to listen to the same story and claims several dozen times!

I like to end each week's Carnival of the Liberated with something a little on the lighter side. I'm not much for cat-blogging but for those of you who are take a look at Baghdad Girl's blog. All I can say is that this little girl really loves cats. And, to my friends at Iraqi Blog Count, I did find this blog through you.

Dave Schuler posts regularly to his own weblog, The Glittering Eye. The Carnival was originally conceived by Ryan Boots.

The latest Carnival of the Capitalists is available for your reading pleasure.

Little Miss Attila has an interview with Michael Medved, one of Hollywood's few un-closeted conservatives. (Although their ranks are beginning to swell impressively.)

Captain's Quarter notes some blockbuster news about substantial WMD and Al Qaeda links uncovered in recent Iraqi intelligence documents.

Not that there's any real surprises there. It's just yet another refutation of the "Saddam and Al Qaeda had no links" and "there were no WMDs" crowd.

** Dean's World Exclusive **

** Must Credit Dean's World **

I've been trying for some time to obtain an interview with one of the members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I most wanted to talked to one of the enlisted men who served personally with Kerry, and after much trying, I finally managed to get a phone interview late last week with Van Odell, who served as a gunner's mate in the same unit as John Kerry and who served with him longer than anyone else did in Viet Nam.

Van runs his own small business in Texas as a professional woodworker, making custom furniture and speciality jewelry boxes. He also does some work for the Boy Scouts of America. He has no professional or formal background in politics. We spoke last week, and then exchanged a few emails for clarification, whereupon he sent me the above photo of his swift boat on patrol in Viet Nam. That's him in the gun tub (click on the image to see the full size photo).

As I spoke to Mr. Odell, I decided to ask him the most blunt questions I could think of, wondering at times if he might become offended. He never did. He is a soft-spoken man with a mild demeanor, and displayed an easy temper and a gentle sense of humor throughout.

I spoke to him via telephone on Wednesday:

Dean's World: Thanks for talking to me, Mr. Odell. Can you tell me when and where you served in Viet Nam?

Van Odell: I served from January 1969 to January 1970. I was in Coastal Division 11 which was the hottest division in Viet Nam at that time. I served along with John Kerry for the short 3 months he was there. He had a month of training in Viet Nam and then he transferred about a week before I did and we served together in the combat zone after that.

DW: Are you receiving any sort of compensation for your campaigning against John Kerry?

VO: No compensation. My expenses are covered by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. If I have travel or out of pocket expenses they pick that up. If I fly out to Washington or need to stay in a hotel or need to spend some money on my Swift Boat Vets for Truth activities they will reimburse me for that, but nothing personal and no compensation.

DW: Have you had any contact with Karl Rove or members of the Bush campaign, for advice or other support?

VO: None whatsoever.

DW: A couple of your group's members claim to have had their statements distorted by papers such as the Boston Globe. Have you experienced anything like that with any press you've talked to?

VO: The distortion that I have seen is that they say that my claims are unsubstantiated, specifically to the March 13th incident, even though we've got 10 other eyewitnesses who tell the same story I do.

I have also been taken to task as a liar by the New York Times and the Washington Post by journalists who've never talked to me.

DW: But no direct distortions of your words by reporters?

VO: I haven't read them all so I can't say for sure but the main thing seems to be that most of the reporters who have not talked to me from Washington Post and the New York Times have called me a liar without ever having talked to me. After anything I say they always have a disclaimer that these are unsubstantiated allegations, even though everything I say is substantiated by multiple eyewitnesses on different boats.

DW: What do you say to those who say that because you were not on Lt. Kerry's boat, you did not serve with him?

VO: I say two things: right now they're trotting out a guy named Rich McCann who didn't serve on Kerry's boat, they appear to feel what he has to say is valid.

But really, our boats served in combat together, we went on missions together, we knew each other intimately and fought together. This is like saying Major Reno and Captain Benteen did not serve with General Custer because they did not ride on the same horse with him.

DW: The impression I get from news reports is that Kerry's actual crew are standing by him, while those criticising him are other Swift Boat skippers and their crews. If true, what is your best guess as to why that should be so?

VO: It's not true. Steve Gardner served on Kerry's boat longer than anybody else and he's one of our guys. He served with Kerry longer than any other crew member with Kerry, knew him better than any of those guys.

I would also say I don't know how Kerry cultivated those guys two years ago. When I knew them in Viet Nam they couldn't stand him, and even if you read Kerry's book Tour of Duty, that even says his crew couldn't stand him then.

We don't know how much they support him. Of those who are with him, the only one that will come out and talk to the press is Del Sandusky. The rest are never in the press. Whereas all 60 of us who served with Senator Kerry in our group are all out on the road and talking about why we oppose the Senator.

DW: Do you consider the members of Kerry's crew, who have backed his version of the story, to be liars? If not, why do you believe their perceptions of the events in question differ so widely from your own?

VO: No I don't consider them liars. I consider them led by Kerry right now. One of the incidents that I can talk about, why I think their story differs, is that Rassman said he heard gunfire from the bank. I didn't see any gunfire and I was at the highest point of the field. I think Rassman just heard our gunfire, and when we realized we weren't under fire we stopped.

You would otherwise have to ask them why they think their memories are different. So far only Del Sandusky has been allowed to talk to reporters, so we really don't know what the others have to say.

I don't know why these guys' memories differ, you will have to ask them. I only know that over 60 who served in An Thoi--and we had about a hundred men in our division at any one time--we've got 60 people from there who say his service was questionable in Viet Nam and who take him to task for lying about us as murderers and war criminals when he came back in 1971. That stacks up to only 7 of his own swift boat people that follow him.

DW: Some have said that by questioning Kerry's valor in combat, you have diminished all who served and were decorated. Do you have a response for those critics?

VO: We're not questioning anybody else's service, we're questioning John Kerry's. To say that you can never question one guy's service is wrong. Kerry fudged and faked things that happened. In a six week time period, he received three purple hearts, a bronze star and a Silver Star. That's faster than Audie Murphy earned his medals in World War II.

What we're questioning is that the way he manipulated his Viet Nam record, the way he came back and called us all war criminals, and the way he's behaved since then, which shows me that he's not fit to be Commander in Chief.

DW: Are you a Republican?

VO: No I'm an independent. I usually vote both sides of the ticket.

DW: Some have suggested that you guys only questioned John Kerry's medals because that was the best way to get attention. That your other issues wouldn't have made as much news if you hadn't done that. Do you have any response to such accusations?

VO: We question both equally. We find that his actions after the war are extremely despicable because they cast aspersions on all veterans that served in Viet Nam. But at the same time you have to look at how he treated the Navy and the system in order to gain as many medals as possible to further his own career. And that goes to his character.

There's a lot of officers who served with us who were there longer and did more, and no one gathered so many commendations in so short a time. Most of the people who earned that many medals spent a hell of a lot of time in a battle zone, and didn't write the reports that allowed them to get those medals.

That's why we're not questioning anybody else's medals, only Kerry's. I did not realize, none of us realized, that he'd gotten all these commendations until just this last year or so.

DW: What have the reactions from your fellow veterans been like when you've encountered them since you started your campaign against Senator Kerry?

VO: The ones that I've had are mostly people that I've known, my relatives who served, and they're so happy that we're doing this. I even received a letter from a lady whose husband was killed in Viet Nam and she said "thank you for doing this, this man should not be our President, and I thank you for bringing out the truth about him."

The reactions from veterans and veterans' wives has been overwhelmingly supportive of what we're doing.

DW: Not much negativity then?

VO: I have had no negative encounters and I don't know any in our group who have.

DW: Would you say it's really Kerry's combat record that disturbs you most, or his testimony and actions after coming home from the war?

VO: I would have to say it's both. You have to take Kerry as a whole ball of wax, you have to look at what he did in Viet Nam and what he did after coming home.

But deep down, viscerally, when he went before the Senate and called me a killer, a murderer and a rapist, I couldn't believe one of our own service members would get up and lie about us like that. I was there for 12 months, not just the 4 months that he was there, and I never saw or participated in any atrocities, nor anything like he described, while I was there.

DW: Do you think all Viet Nam vets who came to oppose the war were finks?

VO: No! As a matter of fact, everybody has a right to protest a war. What they don't have a right to do is to lie about their fellow soldiers in such a fashion that it affects them in the field of battle and affects them in a prison camp.

Things that POWs were tortured to be forced to say are things John Kerry said freely to the Senate and to the TV cameras and guys were sometimes tortured back in prison camps showing them that.

I would say that any American has a right to say anything he wants about a war they want to but they do not have a right to lie about what soldiers are doing in the field.

DW: In the past you and others in your group defended Kerry. Did you guys just not know about his congressional testimony and statements about war crimes before this?

VO: Well, I have never defended John Kerry. The two who did are Adrian Lonsdale and George Elliot. And they defended Kerry against war crimes charges by his opponent in 1996. They were more interested in the truth getting out than in defending John Kerry.

What they did is that his opponent kept charging him that he was a war criminal by his own words in the Senate. Lonsdale and Elliot got up and said he was not a war criminal, and I would say that those guys were committed to the truth and not John Kerry himself. But I have never defended John Kerry for anything.

DW: If President Bush were to publicly call for your group to pull its ads and to stop campaigning against Senator Kerry, would you stop?

VO: No. No. No. We're not part of the Republican party, we're not trying to elect Bush, we're Democrats and independents and Republicans across the board. The Navy didn't send Republicans to Vietnam, they sent men.

All 60 of our group who served with Kerry in Vietnam, and the others who served there and have joined us, we want the American people to hear our story. Personally, I also want this story to be known to historians....

We're not tied to any campaign. We're a group of private citizens who've formed a 527. We're going to tell our truth to the American people up until November 2nd. We don't want his lies recorded as truth in the history books.

DW: Are you going to quit on November 2 even if Kerry wins?

VO: Well, yeah, the American people will have spoken. Just speaking personally, I'll return to my job, start making money again, and move on. But by that time our story will be out.

That's personally for me. I wouldn't go back to this after the election. I don't want to say for the other guys. We're doing this day by day right now.

DW: You have received some big money from a few wealthy Republicans.

VO: Yes. The wealthy Democrats haven't been flooding us with money. But the biggest donor we have is the American people. We have received over 5 million dollars in small donations. I think the total number of people who have given us money have been around 70,000, in donations of $20, $30, $50, sometimes $200 or $500.

Sure some big money Republican donors gave us money, and we thank them, but we let them know up front that we would not be accepting any input from them on what we had to say. When we go out there and speak or put out statements or new ads, we meet together just us Vets, without any input from the donors, to talk about what we'll say.

DW: Some of President Bush's critics allege that he avoided the draft by having political strings pulled to get into National Guard service. Some say that's a bogus charge. If it were true, would it bother you?

VO: I didn't serve with George Bush, I'd rather not even comment on that. That's for people who served with George Bush to comment on what he did or didn't do. I did serve with John Kerry, and I'm concerned with talking about what I know of him and his service and his statements.

DW: If Kerry had not built so much of his campaign around his service, would you still attack him for it?

VO: We would still be out there telling the story, yes. I don't think we would have had as big an effect if he hadn't brought it up. But the first few months of his campaign we kept hoping someone else would be the nominee. [But] the way he made his Viet Nam record such a big part of his campaign made it clear that we had to say something, that we had to let the American people know what we know of this man and to help them see what he really is.

DW: If John Kerry offered to shake your hand, look you in the eye, and apologize for his actions after returning from Viet Nam, would you accept his apology?

VO: I would accept his apology.

DW: That's it? You'd just accept it?

VO: I'd still keep telling my story. Basically I would accept his apology but it's about 35 years too late. It's essentially too late to the men who died since we got back, the men who never got back, and the families involved.

But knowing the man the way I do, he would never apologize.

DW: You've obviously been very busy with this campaign. How have you and your family been holding up? Have you had trouble with harassers?

VO: Early on we had quite a bit of harassment and it was very rough, but we got so much good positive feedback from people that that helped us through. And a couple of times that I was rather down, when we were getting beat to death pretty heavy, and I was thinking about how much the cost was to our family, my wife said "Just suck it up, think about what the prisoner of war guys went through. You just keep on trucking." My wife's been my biggest supporter and when things got tough she's always told me to keep going and supported me.

DW: Is there anything else you'd like to add or say to our readers?

VO: I would just like to say that I am extremely concerned now having children that are military age and soon will have grandchildren of military age that someone like John Kerry who doesn't respect the people, the men and women of the military, to be Commander In Chief, that concerns me to the point where I have taken a large amount of my life to tell the story of how Kerry behaved in Viet Nam and how his statements in 1971 affected veterans and the people he served with.

DW: Thanks for your time.

To see all the ads put out by the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth, click here. If you would like to sign a petition urging Senator Kerry to release his military records and come clean about his military and post-war activities, you can find that petition right here.

A book documenting the group's claims about Senator Kerry, written by the man who took over Lt. Kerry's boat after he left Viet Nam, and with the full support of a majority of the men who served with Senator Kerry, is entitled Unfit For Command, and can be purchased at any book store, including Amazon. It is currently a national bestseller.

I am now seeking an interview with George Elliot, the man who claims he was misquoted and distorted by reporters at the Boston Globe. If I am successful in that endeavor, I will then seek an interview with the reporters and editors responsible for the story at the Globe, since that one story has been used repeatedly to try to discredit this man and his associates. Stay tuned.

Finally, in closing, I'll mention that if any of you have any questions--skeptical or otherwise--for Mr. Odell, you can leave them in the comments here. I cannot promise he'll answer, but I will forward any reasonable questions to him to see if he has any response, so long as we are not deluged. --Dean

They won they won they won!!!!

So did the human race. :-)

A major moment in history this morning. If all goes well, the Ansari X-Prize will be awarded for the final certification of the world's first 100% privately created, reusable spacecraft. The big event begins at 10am Easter. You can watch a live webcast here.

I hoped to live-blog it but I have some errands I must run. I'm going to do my best to get home to see it all. I'm sure Rand Simberg will have much to say one way or the other.

I'll also have a big interview to release later this morning. Stay tuned.

Quote:

After working in Iraq for nine months doing focus groups and polling and advising Ambassador Bremer on Iraqi public opinion, Steven Moore returned to the United States in May 2003. Upon returning, he was astounded to find how sharply his experience in Iraq differed from that being communicated on television. Even more staggering, were some of the questions being asked by average Americans who genuinely consider themselves, well-informed:

Aren't we just shoving democracy down the throats of the Iraqis? Are all the Iraqis rallying around the "freedom fighters" fighting the US forces? Wouldn't things be going much better if we had gotten United Nations support? Don't the Iraqis just want to be ruled by clerics?

These were questions asked by well-read, intelligent, middle of the road people. Having spent nine months living among Iraqis, working every single day to understand the Iraqi mindset, Moore believed he had unique insight into the Iraqi people.

More about it on this important site: The Truth About Iraq, which you should not only read but show to as many people as you can.

You should be especially sure to see the Media Bias page, and its description of how Jihadists intentionally manipulate the press on a daily basis. Or the Myths & Facts page. There are also links on a few pages to show the commercial they're working on--you should see that too.

(Via The Gantry Launchpad.)

Our friend Andrew Ian Dodge has recently published The Gathering Dark, a tale based on Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos. I hear good things about this book....

The conversation is getting interesting right over here.

Don't just read the article. Read the comments. I left a few and there are some others chiming in worth reading.

Scott Goldstein has a book out arguing that democracy in America is broken, and crediting folks like Joe Trippi and Howard Dean for helping to start a renewal, and says we need even further efforts in that direction.

Well I can't say I agree with a word of that really. Indeed, I think Dean and Trippi did incalculable damage to our democratic system in 2003 and 2004, and especially a lot of damage to one of our most important political institutions, the Democratic Party. Still, if any of you check out his book, be sure to let me know what you think.

It's back to my own modest little blog The Moderate Voice. Enjoy the two debates this week!

Electronic voting has come under fire in many parts of the United States and among some political partisans.

But there is a group that thinks it's great.

Do you have one?

Tomorrow may be a huge day in human history. Scaled Composites, Inc. will be sending Spaceship One on her third manned mission into space. If successful, the famous X-Prize for building a private, reusable, spaceworthy vehicle will be won.

Takeoff is scheduled for 7am Pacific, ignition at 8am Pacific, and landing at 8:30am Pacific. If you live near Mojave in California, you can get details on attending the event here.

You will also be able to view a live webcast here.

I'll probably try to live-blog it.

....and here he is.

....or you could die of "health."

It was mentioned in passing in the Presidential debates this week. But it almost seems off the radar screen in terms of being a vital issue (it is) and one that the news media should be covering and giving prominent display (it isn't).

The issue is Iran. The blog Stop The Bleating notes here in some detail that there is good news: there are demonstrations against the government -- and a government retaliation in the form of arrests and at least 120 public hangings. And the bad news, it notes, is this:

No one in the West seems to be paying attention. And whatever we're doing (I can't believe we're doing nothing), isn't enough. We're right next door. We ought to be buying weapons hand over fist -- AKs, RPGs, grenades, blasting caps, C4 -- and shipping them east to the protestors/insurgents as fast as we can get our hands on them. Can anyone say Special Forces training camps for would-be Iranian insurgents in eastern Iraq?

STB also offers some quotes from National Review's Jonah Goldberg on what this all means -- and what a threat Iran could be (and is).

Indeed a few things can be said about all of this:

(1)We have long had a crisis-coping news media but it has gotten worse. The "news holes" for foreign news have shrunk over the years due to perceived lack of reader interest plus rising costs to keep bureaus overseas. More and more news outlets rely on stringers (I used to be one) who get paid by the piece and can file as regularly as staffers. The difference is, a news organization feels an obligation to use stories on X country if it has someone assigned and living there (the cost) versus having to just pay someone already there by the piece (the writer has no salary, no benefits, usually gets no or partial expenses).

(2) Foreign newspapers or the most underrated and serious newspaper The Christian Science Monitor cover significant foreign stories a lot better tha most American papers and definitely better than TV/cable news, which goes for the high-profile stories and ignores the other ones until they are crises.

(3) Iran seems to pose a problem for U.S. policymakers and it is not a question of politics. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a sophisticated Army and there is a "there" there. Plus there are still hopes that change can come from within. The U.S. barely speaks to Iran but there are movements in that direction.

(4) Iranian reformers are under fire. There's a case going on now of one prominent reformer cabinet official who looks like he's about to get the boot and part seems on actual policy but part seems to be on his stance on government reform. If reformers are purged (no matter what the pretext) it will make change from within more difficult.

And people can (and do) differ over what the word "moderate" means.

But this guy is not a moderate...

St. Helen's is being watched since the situation there is a lot worth than they originally thought:

Mount St. Helens on Saturday sent its most ominous signals yet of a new eruption, trembling and shaking more intensely than at any time since its lethal 1980 blast.

If you forgot about 1980 and the science behind the problems at St. Helen's, you can click here (you can even buy a t-shirt...). But we digress:

Exactly one day after Friday's steam and ash explosion, the mountain withstood a powerful and sustained noontime tremor, coupled with brief venting of steam, the emission of a rotten-egg odor and the discovery of carbon dioxide. That, along with the development of a new crack in the crater's lava dome, led scientists to conclude for the first time since quakes kicked up recently that superhot, gaseous magma could be pushing its way to the surface.

The result, scientists said, could be an explosion that spews rocks and volcanic ash farther than previously thought, possibly within 24 hours, or around noon today.

Federal officials acted quickly. They elevated the Level 2 Volcano Alert issued Friday to a Level 3, the highest possible, and a formal warning that an eruption was imminent.

Is Tom Ridge in charge of that, too? (Where are the colors??)

They also evacuated an estimated 2,500 people from Johnston Ridge Observatory, five miles to the northwest of the mountain, and closed nearby Loowit and Windy Ridge viewpoints.

But scientists were unsure what kind of eruption would occur next. They said there was a 50 percent chance the eruption could involve fresh magma full of the gases that would cause more violence than Friday's venting, which spewed mostly steam and some ash 10,000 feet into the air.

"I have been told that this is similar to monitoring and predicting a tornado," said U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who toured the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument on Saturday. "You can't say exactly what is going to happen until something does indeed happen."

The most dire threat was identified by federal officials as clouds of ash that could reach thousands of feet into the air, threatening airplanes, disrupting auto traffic and possibly causing breathing problems for surrounding residents.

That wouldn't be on the same scale of 1980 but would indeed pose a major health problem. More:

"Something's been trying to make a path for itself to the surface," said Seth Moran of the U.S. Geological Survey's Cascades Volcano Observatory in Vancouver. "Whatever it is, it's got a lot of oomph."

Magma poses the volcano's central mystery and is its lethal strength. Scientists were trying to decide whether older or newer magma was on the move upward toward St. Helen's crater. The answer could help in predicting the strength of future eruptions.

Is it older magma that rose to within 11/2 miles of the surface in 1998, when a vigorous swarm of earthquakes was detected? If so, the molten rock has had six years to release its gases, which would result in smaller eruptions.

Or is it fresh, gas-filled magma from a few miles beneath the volcano? This more volatile material may be trying to push its way to the surface, packing a greater punch.

"The bottom line is if there is new gas-rich magma involved, the potential for a larger eruption is higher," said John Pallister, a geologist with the observatory.

Someone broke in to Bush-Cheney headquarters in Washington and stole three laptops containing campaign plans.

Don't worry though, I hear it was just some plumbers...

When Senator Kerry said he wanted to wage a more sensitive, thoughtful War On Terror I really wasn't sure what he meant, but now I get it.

(via Weekend Pundit.)

With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president's lead in the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race.

Removing Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who draws 2 percent of the vote, widens the Kerry-Edwards lead to three points with 49 percent of the vote versus the incumbent's 46 percent. Four weeks ago the Republican ticket, coming out of a successful convention in New York, enjoyed an 11-point lead over Kerry-Edwards with Bush pulling 52 percent of the vote and the challenger just 41 percent.

Among the three-quarters (74 percent) of registered voters who say they watched at least some of Thursday's debate, 61 percent see Kerry as the clear winner, 19 percent pick Bush as the victor and 16 percent call it a draw. After weeks of being portrayed as a verbose "flip-flopper" by Republicans, Kerry did better than a majority (56 percent) had expected. Only about 11 percent would say the same for the president's performance while more than one-third (38 percent) said the incumbent actually did worse that they had expected. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans felt their man out-debated the challenger but a full third (33 percent) say they felt Kerry won.

Kerry's perceived victory may be attributed to the fact that, by a wide margin (62 percent to 26 percent), debate watchers felt the senator came across as more confident than the president. More than half (56 percent) also see Kerry has having a better command of the facts than Bush (37 percent). As a result, the challenger's favorability ratings (52 percent, versus 40 percent unfavorable) are better than Bush's, who at 49 percent (and 46 percent unfavorable), has dipped below the halfway mark for the first time since July. Kerry, typically characterized as aloof and out of touch by his opponents, came across as more personally likeable than Bush (47 percent to the president's 41 percent).

In fact, Kerry's numbers have improved across the board, while Bush's vulnerabilities have become more pronounced. The senator is seen as more intelligent and well-informed (80 percent, up six points over last month, compared to Bush's steady 59 percent); as having strong leadership skills (56 percent, also up 6 points, but still less than Bush's 62 percent) and as someone who can be trusted to make the right calls in an international crisis (51 percent, up five points and tied with Bush).

Meanwhile, Bush's approval ratings have dropped to below the halfway mark (46 percent) for the first time since the GOP convention in late August. Nearly half of all voters (48 percent) say they do not want to see Bush re-elected, while 46 percent say they do. Still, a majority of voters (55 percent versus 29 percent) believe the president will be re-hired on Nov. 2.

Neither man was seen as a particularly stronger leader (44 percent Bush, 47 percent Kerry), more negative (37 percent Bush, 36 percent Kerry) or more honest (43 percent Bush, 45 percent Kerry).

A newly energized battle for the White House heads into a crucial two-week period with John F. Kerry planning to capitalize on the momentum from a strong debate performance by shifting the focus to President Bush's economic record, while the president revives his attack on Kerry's foreign policy credentials, according to officials with both campaigns.

Angela Winters has started a great new blog called Politopics which she describes as "Centrist Political Commentary From An African-American Perspective." I blogrolled her on my blog The Moderate Voice (you know, that's the blog Democrats say is Republican and Republicans say is Democrat and someone said is a vile, evil force -- but I don't listen to my mother anymore). Winters's posts are true to her word since they're thoughtful and not packed with political rhetoric and angry adjectives hurled at this candidate or that. Read this post titled "BLACK REPUBLICANS MAKE A CASE FOR BUSH," then look at some others -- and you'll see why I now make it a daily read.

The key is: you don't really KNOW what she's going to write on an issue until you read the whole post...because she's thinking about the issue, not pitching a party line or trying to elect someone or keep them from being elected. There is hope for the Blogosphere yet...

Donna DeCesare's photo essay about the ill-fated life of Edgar, born in San Salvador, witnessing the death squads. Growing up in L.A. gangs. Going back to find some family roots.

Then read the epilogue, and you'll be haunted forever.

(When you click on ENTER and it shows you the multiple pictures, click on a picture then scroll sideways to see the photos and read the text, then go back and do the next photo and repeat the process. And don't forget to read the epilogue).

They're definitely better now then when I went to school.

Ben Kepple notes an Old Media columnist who disses bloggers, and has an excellent fisking in response.

You know, here's the thing: professional reporters and bloggers could be incredibly helpful to each other. Some of the old fogeys in the news business still haven't figured that out, and feel much too defensive. They're also, frankly, kind of used to not being scrutinized too closely. But you know, if you're going to be a reporter, you should be willing to have people look at your work with a skeptical eye.

I think what's really going on right now is that many in the mainstream media are uncomfortable losing their cherished status of information gatekeepers. Everyday citizens now have the tools to work around that and decide for themselves what's important. But it can't be said enough: we will always, always need paid professionals in the news business.

The Old Media folks have two choices, as I see it:

1) Clap their hands on their ears, scream "lalalala I can't hear you lalalalala!" or,

2) They can admit that everyday people who do their own reporting and investigating and fact-checking are a potentially fabulous resource that the professionals could tap into.

Most in the professional media still seem content with #1. If more of them would embrace attitude #2, though, they could both increase their credibility AND make use of a fabulous free resource--pajamas or no.

Our friend Chris Muir, the Day By Day cartoonist, has experienced a terrible loss.

You and your loved ones are in our thoughts, Chris.

A key to strategy he has been made And into controversy I will wade...

Now they finally did it: the terrorists who have beheaded foreign hostage/victims have now beheaded an Iraqi who was working in a capacity to help his country's reconstruction — and done it with a flourish:

All the usual statements from the doomed victim before the act. All of it captured on video. The final defiling of the victim's body, by placing the head on top of the body. Their final statement after they murdered this poor guy was a blatant warning for other Iraquis not to cooperate.

The best roundup and handling of this story can be found via James Joyner's Outside the Beltway so click here. You have a choice of how much you want to learn and see — but his post is comprehensive (as usual).

PS: In advertising they always said: "Sex sells." You can say that in terrorism "beheadings beget" — they beget publicity, they beget concessions, they beget fear. And all on a shoestring budget (overpower someone, keep him prisoner, keep him shackled then have a couple of people kill him for a video production that'll be seen all over the world).

I'll be appearing on WBIX radio, 1060AM in Boston, between noon and 12:30 Eastern today on the "Pundit Review" radio show. You can listen to it live right here. The show will be archived later.

* Update * Well that was fun. How'd I sound? Probably kinda hyper I'd imagine.

A big push military operation is underway to secure another troublesome area in Iraq:

U.S. and Iraqi forces began a major assault Friday to regain control of the insurgent stronghold of Samarra, trading gunfire with militants as they pushed toward the city center. More than 100 insurgents and at least one American were killed, an Iraqi minister said.

In what has rapidly shaped up as the largest battle in the insurgent war since the fighting in Najaf nearly three months ago, more than 4,000 troops from four U.S. and two Iraqi battalions faced a few hundred fundamentalists who had all but taken over the town.

The significance? Quite a lot:

Troops of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division, the Iraqi National Guard and the Iraqi Army moved in to secure government and police buildings in the city, 100 kilometers, or 60 miles, north of Baghdad. As they advanced, insurgents attacked with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms, the military said.

Samarra is important because, like Falluja, it has become symbolic of the growing number of places around Iraq that have fallen under the sway of various groups of insurgents in recent months and are no longer under the control of U.S. or Iraqi national forces. Samarra also is important because, again like Falluja, the city has become a hotbed for religious extremists, including some believed to be behind recent kidnappings of foreign nationals.

Putting Samarra back under the control of Iraq's provisional government would also go a long way toward dispelling growing concerns that the country would not be ready or secure enough to conduct promised elections before the end of January, as President George W. Bush has vowed they will.

This is one of several critical operations we'll likely see in coming months in an effort to secure Iraq for the upcoming elections. Keep an eye on where these operations are and how they're going and you probably have an idea as to whether these elections will be held as scheduled. The move to regain control of Samarra is a hopeful sign that elections will indeed be held when planned.

This time it's Fox News.

Well, you ARE:

Everyone in the world is descended from a single person who lived around 3,500 years ago, according to a new study.

DARN! And I thought I already had too many relatives hanging around on Thanksgiving..

Scientists have worked out the most recent common ancestor of all six billion people alive today probably dwelt in eastern Asia around 1,415BC.

Although the date may seem relatively recent, researchers say the findings should not come as a surprise.

Anyone trying to trace their family tree soon discovers that the number of direct ancestors doubles every 20 to 30 years. It takes only a few centuries to clock up thousands of direct ancestors.

Using a computer model, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology attempted to trace back the most recent common ancestor using estimated patterns of migration throughout history.

They calculated that the ancestor's location in eastern Asia allowed his or her descendants to spread to Europe, Asia, remote Pacific Islands and the Americas. Going back a few thousand years more, the researchers found a time when a large fraction of people in the world were the common ancestors of everybody alive today - while the rest were ancestors of no one alive. That date was 5,353BC, the team reports in Nature.

The researchers, led by Dr Steve Olson, stressed that the date was an estimate.

"Nevertheless, our results suggest that the most recent common ancestor for the world's current population lived in the relatively recent past - perhaps within the last few thousand years," he said.

He added: "No matter the languages we speak or the colour of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forest of north and south America and who laboured to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu."

So, you're ALL related to me! See what happens when cousins marry?

Attention Dan Rather Fans. Here's what you have been waiting for: Bill Burkett's new blog.

(Now, don't everyone immediately send out emails asking to exchange links...)

Consider it a call to arms:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - An audiotape that surfaced yesterday purportedly by al-Qaida's second-in-command urged Muslim youths to carry out attacks against the United States and its allies.

The tape, broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, identified the speaker as Ayman al-Zawahri, an Egyptian-born confidante of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

A U.S. intelligence official said that authorities were able to determine with "high confidence" that the voice was that of al-Zawahri.

The tape urged young Muslims to fight on even if al-Qaida leaders were killed or captured.

Does this mean the U.S. is getting closer? Or that with elections in Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S. it's time to go for broke? More:

"You, youth of Islam, this is our message," the speaker said. "If we die or are detained, continue the path after us, and don't betray God and his prophet, and don't knowingly betray the trust."

Dia'a Rashwan, an expert on Islamic militants, played down the importance of such remarks.

"According to his belief, being killed is normal and expected, especially in his case," Rashwan said. "This is not the first time he has said this. It doesn't mean they are close to being captured or killed."

There is a $25 million U.S. bounty for information leading to the death or capture of either bin Laden or al-Zawahri.

Rashwan said that al-Zawahri's comments appeared to be calling for a new strategy of pre-emptive strikes.

"He's saying Muslims should attack before their countries are occupied. He is calling for action, instead of reaction," Rashwan said.

So now we seemingly have pre-emptive strikes...to pre-empt the pre-emptive strikes...

....may have been too much.

With all the "live blogging" of the debates last night, I was sorry that I missed the best live blogger of all: Sharp As A Marble.

Highlight:

Disney has done a wonderful job with the animatronic Jim Leher - it almost looks lifelike! There's still a bit more to go on the technology, but outside of the slow, mechanical movements, you can almost believe he's alive.

OK, the debates are about to start. Leher is instructing the audience to sit down and have a nice tall glass of "Shut the F*ck" up or he'll have to open a can of whoopass. He's now introduced the candidates.

It gets better from there.

I'm not a sports fan, although probably the sport I most enjoy watching (at least in a stadium if not on TV) is baseball. Plus the best sports movies are always baseball movies.

So although I'm not a big baseball guy, I have to say that I think it's very, very cool that they're contemplating naming Washington DC's new baseball team after an old Negro League team, "The Greys."

Seriously, that would be too cool. I hope they do it.

(Via Boi From Troy.)

Navy veteran L.T. Smash says some things Senator Kerry should know about Afghanistan.

(Hint: He's annoyed.)

Thanks to your generous donations of money and Frequent Flyer miles, we got Tabby and her dad out of Iraq. This is a huge blessing: terrorists who targeted her and her family for the crime of seeking help from the Americans wanted them dead. You helped to get them out, and they're safe in Jordan now.

Now. Here's where we stand:

We have the surgeons and hospital care and after-care to take care of her once we get her to the US. Plus whatever expenses we need to put them up and keep them fed and safe while they're here.

In other words, we've passed all but at the last leg.

There is one last thing that needs to happen. We can get her the treatment she needs to live. But there is one last understandable but important barrier: The Department of Homeland Security.

She needs an emergency visa, along with her family. Once we get those, she's here and she's safe and she gets the treatment she needs.

We've been in contact with Utah Senator Orrin Hatch's office, and he's working to help us. But there are still mounds of red tape we need to cut through, and we don't have a lot of time. So now we would like to ask one more favor from you all. I know we've already asked a lot, but we need one more favor. Please go here: U.S. House of Representatives

...and also here: U.S. Senate.

Look up the name, address, and phone number of your congressman and your Senators. Then please pick up the phone and call, and tell them you need help to get a little Iraqi girl and her family emergency visas to get them here to the U.S. RIGHT NOW SO SHE DOES NOT DIE.

Time is of the essence. If you go to The Chief Wiggles Home Page you can get all the details you need. We need to get emergency visas expedited as quickly as possible to save a little girl's life. Once she's in the U.S. she's taken care of.

Go on. Follow the links and please get to it if you can. Be polite, don't be rude, just ask them if they know about the case and fill them in on the details if you can. We need help here, and your calls and emails can do it.

Thanks.

The Queen went to bed rather impressed with Senator Kerry's performance in the debates.

Then she woke up and... well, you can read it here.

Uhm, I think I may have in a roundabout way been trying to make a few of the same points, but in a more roundabout way.

(Yes sir, that's my baby, no sir, don't mean maybe...)

By the way, she does make, rather forcefully, a point I have been trying to hammer home to my Bush-hating friends for over two years: any idiot can look at anyone's job performance and find flaws. I mean, literally, a child can do that to practically anyone's performance on anything. The real test of your mettle is if you can clearly and unequivocally say, "this is what I would do instead, and here is why it would be better."

I wasn't going to say more, but it's been a few hours and, after reviewing the lengthy and thorough debate wrapup commentaries posted by Joe Gandelman and Allahpundit, I feel like I must be the only one remembering certain things. Since political history is my forte, I couldn't resist.

In 2000, in the immediate hours after the first Gore/Bush debates, most pundits and most viewers and most pollsters agreed that Gore had won easily. Within two or three days, almost everyone agreed that Gore had made an ass of himself and had lost. In 1984, in the first hours after the first Reagan/Mondale debates, almost everyone agreed that Mondale had won, but in retrospect all anyone remembers is Mondale going down in flames. I also seem to be the only one who remembers that in 1988, when Lloyd Bentsen laid out his famous "You're no Jack Kennedy" line in his debate with Dan Quayle, which everyone today remembers as some kind of political knockout punch, what actually happened is that the vast majority of people in the following few days thought Bentsen had behaved like a complete jerk. The Democratic ticket took am immediate nosedive in the polls. As a Dukakis supporter that year, I was mortified. It still astounds me that anyone ever remembers that as a good moment for Democrats.

My point is this, and it can't be emphasized enough: the real effects of this debate will not be felt for a few days. Yes I am a Bush supporter, but I'm not saying this to try to attack Kerry. I just think he didn't do himself more than a marginal amount of good, and may have hurt himself in the long run.

What I see is that Kerry seemed to come across as a credible challenger last night, and to inspire confidence. This is very much in his favor. But his rhetorical weaknesses are all still there, and he made several statements Bush could have hammered him for but didn't.

The thing is, the debate itself is not as important as what comes out of the debate the next few days, as people chew on it and the campaigns have time to say more about it. And in that regard, I think Kerry may have badly hurt himself. Case in point:

And what was that about experimenting with giving Iran nuclear fuel, anyway? Does anyone think that's not going to be talked to death in the next few days? The Bushies are going to go after it hard.

Bush, however, unless I missed something (and I might--as a Bush supporter I might be overlooking something big and if so you should let me know), seems to have avoided saying anything dramatic or going after his opponent too hard on more than a couple of things. In other words, he took no big risks, and otherwise appears to be exactly the same guy he's always been, only only a little more confident than he was four years ago. Like him or hate him, he's right where he's always been, with no surprises coming out. Which I suspect was his game plan going in.

Rather than take risks by throwing some haymakers and really mixing it up, he seemed content to go after two or three of Kerry's weaknesses, stay on message, and otherwise just bat away Kerry's most devastating attacks. He did all of that rather effectively.

In other words, he's the same Bush coming out that he was coming in, only seeming more confident, if perhaps a bit grumpier. Kerry, however, opened up new areas of vulnerability for himself.

I can't see into the future, but I will say that anyone who thinks he can say right now who "won" that debate is foolish. The real winner won't be determined for at least another couple of days--but I suspect that the Bush team will begin hammering away at Kerry for things he said in this debate.

Unless I miss something big, my guess is that Kerry will take a slight jump in the polls among women in the next few days, and then will start to flounder again. Because the only lines of attack open to Democrats will be... uh... well, all the same stuff they've been saying already.

(Cartoon by the estimable Cox & Forkum, who are just spooky fast today, aren't they? How do you do a political cartoon of that quality that freaking quickly? Wow!)

* Update * Gallup's post-debate numbers for Kerry are terrible. Yes, 57% say he "won" the debate. But look more closely at the numbers further below that assessment. In a few areas, he made tiny gains. In several others he actually lost ground. On crucial questions like who they agreed more with, who's more believable, who's toughest, who they found most likeable, and several others, Bush actually pulled ahead. Meanwhile, by taking risks, Kerry opened up areas Bush can exploit over the next few days, while Bush took no risks at all and just hammered home two or three messages people will remember. Mind you, it's still early--we won't really know for a couple more days--but I'm moving even now from thinking it's a minor win for Kerry to thinking it's just a question of whether this is a minor win for Bush, or a huge one.

There's a lot of yammering going on about who "won" the debate last night between Bush and Kerry.

I'd like to take a moment to remind people that, in every debate, initial impressions mean nothing. We won't know what most viewers really thought until roughly Monday, when it's had time to percolate through everyone's heads and they've chatted about it with each other.

My gut says both men did surprisingly good jobs. Bush was on point and aggressive without being obnoxious and of course was not the babbling stumblebum he's so often made out to be. Kerry was less boring and droning than usual, was appropriately aggressive without being an ass, and it was frankly the best Presidential debate I've seen in a long, long time.

My gut's telling me it's a win for Kerry because, frankly, he scared me less than I expected him to. He's still inconsistent on too many things for my tastes, and I think any fool can see that it's easier to criticize than it is to manage (you can criticize anything in retrospect). So we'll see if that's enough to give him an edge.

Again though--we'll have a better idea after a couple of days of thinking and discussion. I doubt much of the yammering right now about what it all means and who did better means much. The partisans will all say their guy was incredible and the other guy was a disaster. Feh. We'll have a more realistic assessment when reasonable people who aren't lock-step partisans have had a chance to chew on it.

* Update * I do have one thought to add. One of the big swing groups this year is the so-called "security moms." Kerry has actually been trailing Bush with women, and the "security moms" are the reason. Frankly, if Kerry accomplished nothing else tonight but to make himself more acceptable to them, then that's a big plus for him, even if everything else is a wash. Hell, I'll even go out on a limb--on Monday we'll see Kerry having picked up some support among women. Because I think he accomplished one key thing, which was to convince people that he wasn't a jellyfish. Mind you, I suspect that he is a jellyfish with no core convictions on how to proceed with the war effort, but I frankly think he probably came off well enough to diminish that image. But we'll see. And we'll also see if it sticks.