Dean's World

I can't watch the entire debate tonight, but the first half I saw and listened to in the car has to be the most substantive and interesting Presidential debate I've ever seen.

Both Stephen Green and Glenn Reynolds are live-blogging the event if, as like me, you can't catch it live.

* Update * N.Z. Bear is Liveblogging too. He notes that CNN is quoting comments they're seeing on blogs. Even if they are anti-Bush comments. Heh.

The Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage throughout the U.S. failed in the House today, which anyone who knew much about politics knew would happen. It couldn't even must a bare majority when they tried to get it through the Senate. Now the House managed to vote it a a bare majority--and in both cases you need a 2/3rds majority to pass it, not just a simple majority. THEN 3/4ths of the state legislatures would have to ratify it.

It's time for conservatives to acknowledge that it is nearly impossible to pass this amendment. There may be other amendments that could pass--even gay Congressman Barney Frank said he might well vote for an amendment that allowed one state to refuse to recognize gay marriages from another state, which seems unfair to some gay people but at least defuses the issue and allows gay activists to slug it out on a state-by-state level rather than try to force the whole country at once to go in a direction it's not ready to go on.

Kevin Aylward thinks he's on to something singificant.

And on, it's no joke. Though we might point out that perhaps the professor was merely trying to see if it's possible to forge such a document?

The My Pet Jawa and some other bloggers broke a story that MSNBC used but did not give credit for--and he can prove it.

We've seen a little of this before, and I imagine we'll see more as. I think the real problem is that the pros are afraid to credit freelancers, and really aren't sure how to say with a straight face on the air something like, "My Pet Jawa reports...."

But I think they're going to have to get used to it. Heh.

Just finished a lengthy interview with Mr. Odell. Will be editing it and possibly sending him some followup questions and requests for clarification via email, so look for this to be published either this weekend or possibly on Monday. I'm also trying to locate a photo of the guy.

I think I managed to get in most of the questions you guys suggested, and in the cases of Walter Sobchak and Penny Wit, I got in some of theirs practically word for word. I will have some opportunity for email followup, too.

I'll give you all one teaser: he confessed that Karl Rove tells him what to say, and is paying him millions of dollars to lie and that you're all suckers to believe him. Oh, and he's also a member of the Trilateral Commission and the Secret Chamber of Zionazis who really control the country.

So, you know, it should make headlines.

(That's a joke son, and if I have to explain that to you you should be in a padded room. He was actually quite a thoughtful and soft-spoken gentleman.)

In all seriousness, I'll give you one little teaser:

DW: If John Kerry offered to shake your hand, look you in the eye, and apologize for his actions after returning from Vietnam, would you accept his apology?

VO: I would accept his apology.

DW: That's it? You'd just accept it?

More to come. Stay tuned. Mwaahahahahahahaha.....

Bill Hobbs has begun a special project I'm sure we can all get behind this election season: The Voter Fraud Project, a grass-roots effort to watchdog possible incidents of voter fraud.

I have a suggestion for Bill that should make it an even better campaign: Make it the Voter Fraud and Intimidation Project. The last couple of elections there have been widespread accusations of voters being intimidated and scared away from the polls. However, no one has ever so far as I've seen come up with a single documented case of voters actually experiencing this. What with all the bloggers out there with cheap digital cameras, I'm sure we must be able to find some incident somewhere of voters actually being scared and intimidated by cops, thugs, or what have you.

We want everyone to vote who has a right to, and no double-dipping or fraudulent voters, right?

This seems like a great project for citizen journalists everywhere to take part in!

Welcome to the world, Sadie Rose Ellis and William Isaac Woodlief.

Bloggers are reproducing at a growing pace. Watch out Dan Rather!

Jewish World Review has a pretty good selection of political zingers by Argus Hamilton. Just about everyone who follows politics will laugh at them I think.

Our friend and hero Citizen Smash will be appearing on KPBS radio tomorrow between 10 and 11 Eastern. Details on how you can hear Smash over the Internet right here.

Sadly, I won't be able to call in and razz him because I'll be interviewing Van Odell of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth at that exact same time. There's no reason for you not to listen to Smash, though, since my interview won't be appearing until early next week.

However, if you want to hear more bloggers on the radio, I thought I'd mention that I will be appearing on a segment of "Pundit Review" on WBIX AM 1060 in Boston on Saturday between noon and 12:30 Eastern Time. I'll be talking about Operation Give and our ongoing efforts to get Tabby over here to the States for treatment. You can listen to their show live when it airs right here on the WBIX home page, or, you can probably listen to the archived audio when it becomes available. The archive of last week's show, featuring Matt Margolis of Blogs For Bush, is here on the Pundit Review weblog.

The New Media does Talk Radio. Dig it.

By the way, does anyone know of any Michigan talk radio shows I might be able to call into to get some attention for Tabby's plight? Or any other radio or TV shows that might talk to us, for that matter?

INDC Journal interviews prominent CBS personnel about their recent story about a supposed re-instatement of the draft.

These guys are a lot less dodgy than Rather ever was, I must say, but I have to agree with Bill's conclusions. CBS used bogus documents, failed to note that only two minority-party congressmen have ever proposed reinstating the draft, and failed to note that the woman they identified as merely "a Republican" is actually the head of a political group seeking to have the U.S. unilaterally withdraw from Iraq.

They can't keep calling their critics right-wing cranks forever, can they?

So, apparently a lot of people are up in arms over an ad showing a Republican congresswoman pickpocketing soldiers in combat. Even our friend Andrew Quinn, no Republican, is offended.

Hrmph. This ad doesn't offend me. It really doesn't. A few days ago Joe Gandelman was incensed over a Republican ad which showed Kerry's face and also showed the face of some terrorists, with an ad message basically saying that we would be at greater danger from terrorism if Kerry won. Which infuriated some, but didn't infuriate me either.

I am slowly coming to the reluctant conclusion that what offends me in campaign advertising is not what offends other people. I just can't seem to explain precisely what that difference is. But I guess I'll try.

Take the ad with the Republican congresswoman picking soldiers' pockets: okay, its' harsh. But no one literally thinks she's doing that (at least no sane person with an IQ above room temperature thinks that). Similarly, okay, here's Kerry's photos quoting things he's said, here's some terrorists. Does any sane person think that means Kerry's a terrorist? Or do they get the message that Kerry's got the wrong attitude and will enact the wrong policies? I just don't see how anyone would conclude that the congresswoman really picks pockets, or that Kerry really is a terrorist.

Ads that infuriate me are ads that outright lie. Or ads which outright suggest that America's leaders are flat-out evil (i.e. calling them Communists or comparing them to Hitler, saying they brought us into war just to make themselves rich, etc.). Ads that say someone's a racist or a murderer or endorses murder are truly revolting. Those are the kinds of message that inflame me.

Saying "Kerry's soft on terrorism," verbally or visually, may be a harsh statement but it's fair game. Saying "Republicans are short-changing our soldiers and not giving them the pay they were promised," well again it's harsh but it's fair game. They strike me as legitimate arguments, and I don't mind using strong visual imagery to get those arguments across. Especially since most people process data visually and not verbally anyway (I'm less visual than most people, but I recognize that I'm in the minority and that effective political ads must use effective visuals).

So here's my advice guys: chill out. Ultimately I think we all have to remember something I've said a thousand times before, but will say again: there is an elitist tendency we all have to assume that everyday voters are stupid and easily brainwashed. They aren't. Just because they don't follow politics obsessively doesn't mean that when election day comes around, their ability to sift out the message from the medium is crippled. No one's going to think this woman is really running around picking pockets. No one is going to think Kerry's a terrorist sympathizer, or whatever. They're going to glean a message from ads like this, couple it with the news coverage, the speeches they hear, the literature they receive, ponder it all, and make a choice.

The system's really not as broken as we sometimes think. We have a watershed political year here, where a lot of issues that have been debated the last two years will finally settle out one way or the other. Let's hope so anyway.

It looks like both Daily Pundit and Talk Left have had their accounts restored by PayPal, probably mostly due to the uproar that their actions caused.

I'm not sure what to think of this all. It strikes me that the real problem is that while PayPal may once have been a fairly visionary outfit, they simply don't understand blogs or the blogosphere as yet, and the trouble some of their policies can cause them and perfectly innocent people. Just five years ago a site containing links to beheading videos would likely have been a highly questionable site, but bloggers, the news commenters and political activists anyway, really should be treated differently as they are news and comments sites. What I'd like to see PayPal do is update and clarify their policies. They also, frankly, need some kind of external scrutiny. They are skirting the banking laws, and in part that's a good thing--they wouldn't be able to do what they do if they were subject to all the rules, regulations, and laws involving banks. Yet this incident obviously shows that they are a little too powerful in what they're allowed to do with money they're holding for people.

I have no answers but I expect that PayPal's going to take some serious publicity black eyes if it doesn't come up with some smarter and more fair policies soon, policies that match the realities we're working in today rather than 5 years ago.

A second group of Vietnam veeterans opposing John Kerry has been POWs for Truth. They recenlty merged with Swift Boat Vets Truth, and are combining their resouces to buy up the right to run ads just like this one. From the group's web site:

Admiral Hoffman, the gorup's founder, was quoted as saying, "We welcome the POWs to this battle on behalf of truth, the real truth of who John Kerry is and how he betrayed his fellow veterans. His visits to Paris to meet with the enemy – and his subsequent public endorsement of their so-called 'peace plan' — only served to encourage our enemies and prolong the captivity of our POWs," said Admiral Roy Hoffmann, founder of Swift Vets and POWs for Truth.

"For John Kerry to now claim that his activities were part of an effort to help solve the POW problem is absolutely ludicrous. Kerry encouraged the North Vietnamese to keep us in captivity longer which meant more torture, more lost years (there was no slave labor) and, sadly, more death," said Vietnam POW Ken Cordier, who was held captive for six years and three months and was awarded two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart among other decorations.

The new ad will air in three states as well as on national cable and is the most expensive media buy the group has made to date.

Should I even bother to point out for the umpeenth time how Senator Kerry could have dealt with these guys months ago quite easily? Amazing that he hasn't.

You realize, though, that these guys will probably continue to dog Kerry all throughout his administration until he signs that blasted 180 and issues some retractions?

Sometimes I hate working midnights. I wound up sleeping through Spaceship One's second successful space launch.

If they can do another in just two weeks, they'll have won the X-Prize for the first successful reusable spacecraft designed and built entirely through private enterprise. And will earn a place in the history books alongside Orville and Wilbur Wright.

It might also mean that Richard Branson and Paul Allen are making a very smart long-term investment.

On the other hand, there were some troubling technical difficulties. Rand Simberg has more. There was a minor control issue on the earlier launch this summer but it wasn't a show-stopper. Let's hope this is similarly minor.

Well since today seems to be "talk about blogging day," here's a tip: popular conservative weblogger Jeff Quinton, who is pretty high up in the Ecosystem and gets great traffic, is looking for a guest blogger for the next few weeks.

If you're new to blogging, or have been at it a while but haven't gotten much attention, guest-blogging on one of the more popular blogs is always a good way to get a little more attention for yourself. Why not go drop Jeff a note?

The pseudonymous "Billmon," a fairly typical Daily Kos writer (you know: mean-spirited, bitter, bilous, shallow, small-minded, resentful, and rage-filled?) had an editorial recently about how weblogs are selling out, are no longer populist, are being corporatized by the media, etc. I wasn't surprised. Guys like him represent a dead and dying ideology, one that John Stuart Mill would almost certainly have described as reactionary and conservative, people without ideas so much as irritable mental gestures that seek to resemble ideas. Anyone who gets too close to success is automatically suspect with guys like that.

Michelle Malkin (who I often disagree with) has pretty much the definitive take on it. Although I noted to my mild dismay that somehow, I didn't make the list of "Top 125 political bloggers" that she linked to. But that's a trend I've noticed lately: Dean's World almost never gets mentioned in listings of top political weblogs. And you know what? Somehow, I'll live. When I started this blog, I got a few dozen readers in a month. Now we get that in an hour. We've done nothing but slowly grow over time, and our growth continues. And I'm not doing a damned thing different from when I first started, except for bringing in some others to help out now and then.

Anyway, it is true that sometimes smaller bloggers get overlooked, and there's nothing wrong ith pointing them out. LaShawn is asking for info on small to medium-sized bloggers who may have assisted in the Rathergate investigations. If you are one of them, or know any, shoot on over there and tell her about it.

Just to start I'll add one: INDC Journal made major early-on contributions that usually get overlooked now.

Wolverines are the largest member of the weasel family (which Michigan State fans will probably find amusing to hear). They're not as well studied as other large predators, partly because they're sort of hard to track down. But researchers at the Bronx Zoo's Wilderness Conservation Society recently collared one who, over the next three weeks, roamed over 550 miles across three Western states.

Quoth Robert Inman, the lead author of the study, "This particular wolverine not only covered some incredibly long distances and rugged terrain, but also a variety of land ownerships including three states, two national parks, four national forests, tribal lands, a U.S. Sheep Experiment Station, and private lands. While these data come from only one individual, they suggest that wolverine populations may function over a huge geographic scale.

Rosemary and I used to keep ferrrets, which are fairly close relatives of wolverines. They're funny, funny little animals, they really are. Fierce predators, fearless fighters, and constantly roaming and getting into things. They never seem to keep set patterns of their peregrinations, but always to just be randomly looking for something to get into. They'll also stop and sleep just about everywhere, rather than seeking a favorite spot. While I suppose the comparison is a little shallow, somehow it makes sense to me that Wolverines are much the same.

Remember that guy who attacked a soldier form behind at the Toby Keith concert last week? Looks like they caught him.

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

People who run weblogs that focus on political events (either full-time or part-time) often suffer from what I call Instapundit-envy. The Instapundit (a.k.a. Glenn Reynolds) runs a hugely popular weblog, and he often links to other bloggers. When he links you, you get what they call an "insta-lanche," as thousands of his readers come to your site. No other high-profile weblogger does this as often as he does. (I probably link other bloggers as often as he does but I'm not in his league in terms of traffic.)

One of the things I've often told up-and-coming bloggers is to get over instapundit-envy. It's a waste of time. It's fun to one day get thousands of readers you never had before because he linked you. But that rush quickly goes away. Most of his readers will come by, read one thing you wrote, and then leave never to return.

One of the advanced stages of Instapundit-envy is when you see some people complaining that if the Instapundit "favors" you, you get a lot more traffic and are more popular. I've always thought this was a bogus claim. It just doesn't make sense: when Instapundit links you, you get a rush of several thousand readers, and then they all go away. After all, they're interested in reading him, and not you.

Anyway, now Dave Schuler seems to have confirmed my suspicions. He recently did an interesting analysis of the Instapundit's linking habits. Look at it carefully. Guess what? Out of 959 different sources the Instapundit linked in September of this year (the month's not out but this is enough data anyway), he linked most of his sources only a tiny number of times, and the ones he linked more than a handful of times are mostly professional organizations like the New York Times, the Washington Post, or Reason magazine.

What I found most assuring of all, though, was Dave's conclusion: there is no relationship between how a blog is ranked in the ecosystem and how often it's linked by the Instapundit. Which is no surprise at all to me, but it's neat to see Dave confirm with numbers what I'd always been pretty sure must be true.

Bottom line: Instapundit is not a kingmaker. The success or failure of any weblogger has nothing to do with whether he links you or not. He can give a nice rush of attention to some people, but that's the end of the story.

Mind you, he's a good guy. I hope to meet him some day since he inspired me early on, as did several other bloggers with far less traffic than his. But he's not the hub of the blogosphere. He's just not.

If you want traffic, you do it the old fashioned way: do good work, and network with others.

Gee, come to think of it, isn't that good advice for most of life's endeavors?

Sean Hackbarth of The American Mind, which hails from Wisconsin, is seriously concerned about widespread voter fraud in Wisconsin this year.

In reading it, I already have a headache. If November is a close election and Wisconsin turns out to be the decider like Florida was in 2000.... oy!

Online Journalism Review has a fascinating RoundTable discussion by Iraqi bloggers and coalition soldier bloggers in Iraq.

Indeed, while they don't agree on everything, it's interesting (if unsurprising) that they're all agreed that the mainstream media routinely misses things that are important to everyday people.

Also, as we have seen so many times, while the situation in Iraq is of course not perfect, it is wildly different from what the mainstream media typically wants us to believe. After all, they aren't interested in anything but selling gloom and doom. And, of course, certain political hacks deeply want you to believe that gloom and doom, since it helps them forward their own agenda. Speaking of which, Christopher Hitchens notes just how bad this deplorable attitude has become.

This is no way to win an election.

Jesus! CBS News recently did a story using fake, long ago debunked documents that claim Republicans are planning on bringing back the draft if Bush is re-elected.

The story is utterly false. Not only has it been repeatedly denied by people all levels of the Bush administration, but also by the Republicans leadership in the House and Senate. Furthermore, the only efforts to reinstate the draft this year have been Democrats, and they've been shot down at every attempt. But CBS News didn't even mention that! Nor did they mention that their primary "witness" over this thing was in fact the head of a group that advocates immediate withdrawl from Iraq.

More about the story right here.

What's next? A lengthy expose on how Dick Cheney "may have outed an undercover CIA agent as an act of political revenge?"

It's time to start firing people over there. Either that or just declare CBS News to be an openly partisan political news organization.

After listening to this radio spot, I no longer feel I have any need to vote for Bush.

John Kerry obviously believes everything I believe. And he's so nuanced!

(Via the evil ones.)

You know, some of this Right Wing Stuff is annoying, but I admit it, some of it's pretty funny.

Pennywit, who runs a fine moderate-left weblog, has just joined the "Real Bloggers" club, having received his first piece of hate mail.

Cheers mate! You're in the Big Leagues now!

[Sniff!] I'm so proud.

Now, mind you, this is only Penny's first foray into "the show." He's still on rookie status. To become seasoned veteran, you need at least one lawsuit threat and one death threat. But I know Penny can make it if he tries!

Those of you who read short fiction for fun would probably enjoy the heck out of the latest Storyblogging Carnival, showcasing fiction from many up-and-coming writers. You might want to give it a look.

I was rather stunned last night when George Soros applied for an ad on Dean's World, with a request that it not be released until noon today. I see only two possibilities here:

1) He is either cluelessly buying ads on random blogs, not caring if some of those blogs are strong and unwavering supporters of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan (the cynical view), or

2) He's genuinely interested in a dialogue and is inhesitant about trying to draw the attention of war supporters like myself, hoping to persuade us.

If it's the latter, I apologize in advance for my cynicism in advancing the former.

Anyway I had a doctor's appointment so I just got back and released his ad (it's about 1:30 pm). How very interesting the ad, and the associated site, is.

Just so Dean's World readers will know, Soros is the multibillionaire financier who backs hard-left groups like Media Mattes, MoveOn, and other Bush-hating organizations. He seems dedicated to the (in my view profoundly wrong) notion that America causes terrorism against itself by taking an aggressive posture in the War On Terror, and for taking a leadership role when the U.N. (which is dominated by thugs, theocrats, fascists, and communists) will not do it. He also seems to believe that if enough people hear his arguments, they will be persuaded.

In my case, I've been hearing arguments exactly like his non-stop for three years. I'm intimately familiar with them, and I reject them as the views of defeatists and naive doves who foolishly believe that if we're just nicer to people, we won't have a terrorist threat.

Still, free speech is a wonderful thing. I've looked over Mr. Soros' site and, while I may have missed something, it doesn't appear to be filled with Michael Moore-style racism, hate speech, and lies. So I'm happy to take him as an advertiser (I got a whole twenty bucks of Soros money burning a hole in my pocket now! Woo-hoo! Envy me you lesser mortals! That's TWENTY-FIVE GEORGE WASHINGTONS. Don't you wish you were me? I know I do!)

Anyway, if you get a chance, check out George Soros' anti-Bush web site. Who knows? You might learn something.

Although if there's something on his site that you'd like someone like me to examine and rebut, feel free to leave me a comment and let me know. I am genuinely content to let most people read George Soros' site and make up their own minds, for I truly reject the notion that most American voters are sheep. Go ahead, look at Soros' arguments. Do they resonate with you? They don't resonate with me, and I think he's horribly misguided, if sincere. What do you think?

On Thursday I will be interviewing Van Odell of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. You can view their latest anti-Kerry ad right here.

Odell was a Gunner's Mate (an enlisted man's position) in a swift boat that served alongside Kerry's boat. He knew Kerry personally. You can read earlier stories involving Mr. Odell here and here.

I can already tell you some fairly obvious questions I'll be asking Mr. Odell: "Have you had any contacts with the Bush campaign?" "Are you being paid for your efforts against Senator Kerry?" and "If President Bush asked you to stop speaking out against Senator Kerry, would you stop?"

By the way, you can hear a debate Mr. Odell conducted on live radio with Del Sandusky, a fellow swift boat vet and Kery supporter, right here.

I am open to suggested questions--from supporters or detractors. I am giving him a somewhat sympathetic interview since every single Vietnam veteran I know despises John Kerry, and I do support President Bush this year. Yet I do not intend to give him a "love letter" interview, and if someone wants me to ask him an uncomfortable question, I will ask, and I'll let readers decide what to think of his response.

You have until Thursday morning to let me know your suggestions.

Yesterday I made note of the sensible security assessments of General David H. Petaeus on the situation in Iraq. But I failed to mention something that the excellent Pundit Review recently noted: General John Abizaid's recent interview with Tim Russert.

It was fascinating to watch Russert (who, while he is a truly excellent interviewer and a man of high integrity, is a lifelong partisan Democat) hit Abizaid with a long string of negative assessments about Iraq, and to watch Abizaid shoot them down, one after the other, and even show Russert how he had been Dowdified. You can read the entire transcript of the interview with Abizaid right here.

You know, if you read General Abizaid's statements, General Petaus' statements, and couple all that with General Tommy Franks' assessment, and add what the overwhelming majority of Military bloggers have to say (many of whom have served in Iraq), and throw in what so many of the Iraqi bloggers have said (who are sometimes negative and pessimistic but often optimistic and positive), and, well, to me, it would seem that the picture of Iraq is a neverending "quagmire" that has been completely screwed up by American intervention is---well, let's just say a touch pessimistic and defeatist.

Indeed, it would almost lead some of us to ask a simple question: do those who claim that we are failing in Iraq say so because they honestly believe we are failing--or do they say it because they want to believe we are failing?

I am pleased and thrilled to learn that Virgin's Richard Branson and Microsoft's Paul G. Allen have recently made major investments in Burt Rutan's Spaceship One project. Virgin is trumpeting this as much as Scaled Composites is.

They're hoping to develop a serious--fledgeling, but serious--space tourism business.

Scaled Composites made history with the first private manned space flight back in June of this year, and is planning on winning the X-Prize on September 29th of this year.

For all that we're obsessed with the election now, I must say that September the 29th of 2004 may be a bigger and more important day in human history than November 2nd.

(Via Gerund.)

Gay Patriot says that he and his partner was physically attacked for backing Bush.

If anyone would like to give me examples of Republicans acting like this I'll be happy to point them out. I'm sick of people acting like this. It's not acceptable, and the respective campaigns should be embarassed whenever it happens.

Probably the most egregious assault on the 1st amendment in my lifetime has been the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" law that President Bush so shamefully signed a couple of years ago. There were those of us who warned what the inevitable results of this free-speech-trashing law would be. We said that it would make campaigning nastier, more bewildering for voters, and would make it impossible to hold politicians accountable for campaign ad contents. We also predicted that not only would these negative effects become inevitable, but that when they happened, the so-called "reformers" would then call for even more draconian laws to suppress free speech. We were right about every one of those things. The system is nastier, more byzantine, and more unaccountable than it ever has been. And to my horror, I learn that Senator McCain, someone I have often respected, is proposing still further "reforms." He now wants to shut down all advertising by independent groups in the months leading up to election day, to criminalize such ads, as Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth, one of many independent 527 organizations, notes.

Despicable. Deplorable. UnAmerican.

Shame on you, Senator McCain.

Eugene Volokh has a pretty good defense of the GOP "liberals want to ban the Bible" mailing that I complained about earlier. The basic argument: Using the American Library Association's definition of 'book banning,' you can make a case that liberals do indeed want to ban the Bible. He also notes that it's no more dishonest than saying that conservatives "oppose a woman's right to choose."

Interesting argument. I'm not sure what I think now, except that it's still the kind of hyperbole I dislike. Then again, I may be guilty of what I so often accuse others of: assuming voters are sheep who can't think for themselves.

Bush is leading in the famous Halloween Mask race, which has a pretty good record of picking winners over the last few decades.

A more serious analysis is by econometrician Ray C. Fair of Yale university, whose economic predictor has correctly predicted all but on election in the last century without being substantially altered. Interestingly, using economic numbers alone, he predicts a Bush landslide of 57.48% of the two-party popular popular vote in November.

The economy strong favors Bush, in his model. Note that he is a depressed Kerry supporter.

I'll be very interested to see if his prediction pans out.

Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine has posted a new entry in his Issues2004 series that we've talked about before. This time his subject is energy policy.

Know something about energy policy? Got an opinion? This is a good opportunity to air that opinion. Or learn something. Or both.

The latest Carnival of the Capitalists is available for your reading pleasure.

If there are groups that disagree with the government and want the military forces to get out, why don't they participate peacefully in the upcoming elections and then achieve their goals? If Iraqis want them, they'll choose them.

But there are Arab and foreign countries who do not want Iraq to heal and be rebuilt for many purposes and cooperate with the terrorists to destroy our country.

They are the real enemy of Iraq, if they are not, so they could guard their borders and help Iraq to arrest those terrorists who harvest the lives of innocent Iraqis...have you ever heard that one of our `neighbors' arrested terrorists who were trying to enter Iraq?

I'm not against American people or even their army, I know they are only doing their jobs and they are misled by their government but I'm against the American policy which makes the things worse to its people.

I was channel-surfing yesterday evening- trying to find something interesting to watch. I flipped vaguely to Al-Arabia and Bush's inane smile suddenly flashed across the screen. Now, normally, as soon as I see his face, I instantly change channels and try to find something that doesn't make me quite as angry. This time, I stopped to watch as Allawi's pudgy person came into view. It's always quite a scene- Bush with one of the alledged leaders of the New Iraq.

I've been surfing the net yesterday and I found a post on Riverbend's blog via another blog that I can't remember now that was really interesting. I never wanted to criticize my fellow Iraqi bloggers but there are things that I just can't ignore; telling lies. The blogger noted that our perspectives and those of Riverbend's were always extremely contradicting each other and he seems more inclined to believe Riverbend than us, and I'm just fine with that, as there are many people who have the opposite attitude and this is all just normal. The problem is that they are believing `poetry' not realities and facts. The scarce amount of "observations from the ground" you can find in all Riverbend's post and especially the last one are actually frank lies, and I wish there was a polite way to put that, but lies are lies and it's ironic that she chooses “liar, liar” as a title for her post.

What is happening in Iraq is a tragedy. Every day tens of Iraqi people get killed either by mistake from American army or by some suicide bombers who found Iraq a fertile land to their acts against USA and their allies and somehow the Iraqi people became the victims instead of the US army.

The teacher said: `we learn those kids the morals and ethics of Islam, how to respect the people, we are studying the Koran, and learn it by heart, the pupils here are so happy and proud of their future as they'll grow as good men'

Till now, I asked myself: `so what?..what's wrong with this system, since it is an ordinary school, and does not hurt anyone, let them learn what they want to learn, but without harmful outcomes'..

But I knew that there's something after this nice introduction.


The movie went on, and I watched some scary scenes, those kids were sitting and reading the Koran loudly and hysterically with rapid forward and backward moves and above this, the teacher was holding something like a small piece of a hose and was beating them while they were reading the Koran frantically!

And here the black face was shown up.


The reporter asked one of the pupils about his life in this school, and the kid said that they are there from the morning till late evening, they don't do anything but reading and studying the Koran (according to their teacher's way) for years.

Future troubles began to be clear half an hour from the beginning of this movie.

The kids were talking about the Jihad and how they are ready to be one of AlMujahideen, their parents were so happy with their `courageous and strong' boys, and that they would get AlJannah (the paradise) sooner or later.

However nowadays there are many Muslim thinkers and writers who adapt a similar pattern of thinking to that of the Moa'atazilla and they are oppressed too. They look at the words of Koran as a beginning not a limit. They are just broad lines that we can start from without fear and without restrictions, and they believe so also because the most frequent command in the Koran is, "THINK"; think and look around you and question everything.

I believe that these thinkers are the hope to reform Islam, to save it and get it back from the hands of those evil and ignorant Mullahs and clerics. Such pattern of thinking can open all closed gates between Muslims and the rest of the world. We really believe that all religions are one and that they all come from the same source, so why fight and why quarrel? And I don't mean this in the same superficial way we always hear from clerics who just want to sound moderate. It's that we can, and should, have our own ways in praying and communicating with our creator and it's not anyone else's business.

Citizen Journalist Bill of INDC Journal has a brief interview with CBS correspondent Bob Schieffer on memogate.

Simon has a roundup of stories on Asia, including entries on China, Taiwan, the Phillipines, Japan, Thailand, North and South Korea, and more.

So much to read, so little time...

The GOP has admitted to sending out letters saying liberals want to ban the Bible.

Idiots.

It looks like Dan Rather will be retiring soon.

I have no sympathy.

Defeatism and pessimism, not to mention obsession with negative events, continues to dominate news coverage of Iraq. This of course hampers our efforts to succeed there, but our efforts are still having clear and unequivocal successes of rather breathtaking proportions. You can learn more about all the good things happening in Iraq (and there really are an incredible number of good things happening there) by reading the latest Good News From Iraq roundup by Art Chrenkoff.

For an interesting historical perspective you might also want to check out this link I got from Ned Ludd, Allen Dulles on the Occupation of Germany.

As they say, history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

* Update * General David H. Petaeus has a great piece in the Washington Post about impressive progress on building up Iraq's native security forces that shouldn't be missed. Unlike the Bush-hating obsessives who seem to think that the way to get Bush out of the White House is to trash the phenomenal work our people are doing in Iraq, Petraus (just like the vast majority of people I've talked to who have served over there) knows how real progress is measured, without being either a Pollyanna or a political cheap shot artist.

Sean Kinsell notes that John Kerry is very clear on at least one issue. Sean thinks Kerry's pretty on the money here, and so do I.

Kerry's also clear, unequivocal, and correct on medica marijuana.

Alas, those are the only areas I can think of where he doesn't seem like he's trying to weasel out of giving a straight answer.

Jeff Quinton notes that George W. Bush volunteered to serve in Vietnam, and was turned down. Bill Hobbs notes the same thing.

Of course, anyone who had read the research that professional journalist Bill Hobbs put together over the last two years would know that this is unsurprising. We already had documentation that Bush volunteered to serve in an outfit that was well known in the National Guard to often be deployed there. We have also known for some time that Bush put in more than the required number of hours to complete his service, and was discharged honorably, and we know that those who serve with him remember him as a fine pilot and a fine officer. But you know, whatever. People will believe whatever they want, apparently. But since some people still don't want to give up this notion of "Bush AWOL" no matter how false it is (not showing up for weekend guard duty does not make you AWOL, but who cares right?).

With the debates coming up this week, hopefully all this Vietnam business will be behind us.

* Update * Instapundit has more.

As media analysts and journalists wring their hands over the fallout from CBS News' faulty reporting on documents purported to be from President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service, a new Gallup Poll finds the news media's credibility has declined significantly, with just 44% of Americans expressing confidence in the media's ability to report news stories accurately and fairly. This is a significant drop from last year at this time and reflects the lowest level of confidence in the media since Gallup first asked the question in 1972.

The Prescott Bush story has been condemned by both conservatives and some liberals as having nothing to do with the current president. It has also been suggested that Prescott Bush had little to do with Averill Harriman and that the two men opposed each other politically.

However, documents from the Harriman papers include a flattering wartime profile of Harriman in the New York Journal American and next to it in the files is a letter to the financial editor of that paper from Prescott Bush congratulating the paper for running the profile. He added that Harriman's "performance and his whole attitude has been a source of inspiration and pride to his partners and his friends".

The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."

However, one of the country's oldest Jewish publications, the Jewish Advocate, has aired the controversy in detail.

More than 60 years after Prescott Bush came briefly under scrutiny at the time of a faraway war, his grandson is facing a different kind of scrutiny but one underpinned by the same perception that, for some people, war can be a profitable business.

Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-range "strategic missile" and delivered it to its armed forces, saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even the "big powers."

Iran's new missiles can reach London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia, according to weapons and intelligence analysts.

"This strategic missile was successfully test-fired during (the recent) military exercises by the Revolutionary Guards and delivered to the armed forces," Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani was quoted by the state-run radio as saying.

The missile is believed by intelligence analysts to be an updated version of the Shihab-3, improved with the help of the North Koreans.

The news comes shortly after Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards staged military maneuvers near the border with Iraq, seen as a signal to Washington Tehran is prepared to fight back against any attempts to prevent the development of a nuclear reactor that could be used to make weapons-grade plutonium.

The radio said Shamkhani refused to give details about the missile for "security reasons," but said Iran was "ready to confront all regional and extra-regional threats."

Shamkhani last month said Iran was working on improvements to the range and accuracy of the Shihab-3 in response to Israel's moves to boost its anti-missile capability.

Today's announcement came days after Israel said it was buying from the United States about 5,000 smart bombs, including 500 one-ton bunker-busters that can destroy 6-feet-thick concrete walls.

Analysts say such bombs could be used to destroy Iran's nuclear reactor before it goes online. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor before it went "hot." Iran may be only weeks or months away from activating the reactor.

The 2,000 pound "bunker-buster" bombs are part of one of the largest weapons deals between Israel and the U.S. in years. The bombs include airborne versions, guidance units, training bombs and detonators. They are guided by an existing Israeli satellite used by the military.

In addition to the 500 one-ton bunker-busters, the purchase includes 2,500 other one-ton bombs, 1,000 half-ton bombs and 500 quarter-ton bombs. Funding will come from U.S. military aid to Israel.

On Tuesday, Iran defied the International Atomic Energy Agency by announcing it is producing uranium hexafluoride, the material for centrifuge enrichment.

Kurtis Cooper, a U.S. State Department spokesman, declared: "Although Iran has repeatedly asserted that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes and its pursuit of uranium enrichment technologies are to fuel a planned civilian power program, Iran will have no peaceful use for enriched uranium for many, many years. ... The rush to convert 37 tons of yellowcake into feed-stock for centrifuge enrichment has no peaceful justification. ... Thirty-seven tons of yellowcake is not a test. It is a production run."

TEHRAN (Reuters) - A senior Iranian military official said Sunday Israel and the United States would not dare attack Iran since it could strike back anywhere in Israel with its latest missiles, news agencies reported.

Iranian officials have made a point of highlighting the Islamic state's military capabilities in recent weeks in response to some media reports that Israeli or U.S. warplanes could try to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities in air strikes.

Iran last week said it carried out a successful test firing of an upgraded version of its Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile. Military experts said the unmodified Shahab-3 was already capable of striking Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf.

"The entire Zionist territory, including its nuclear facilities and atomic arsenal, are currently within range of Iran's advanced missiles," the ISNA students news agency quoted Yadollah Javani, head of the Revolutionary Guards political bureau, as saying.

"Therefore, neither the Zionist regime nor America will carry out its threats" against Iran, he said.

An attack on Iran "could only be carried out by angry or stupid people. For that reason, officials of the Islamic Republic must always be prepared to counter possible military threats," Javani said in a statement, ISNA reported

With a violent insurgency mounting in Iraq, the Bush administration hardly has time for another crisis overseas. Yet a barrage of warnings from Washington about Iran seems likely to erupt into a confrontation with the Tehran government, perhaps before the end of the year.

American anxiety is focused not simply on Iran's apparent efforts to develop a nuclear bomb. There are also signs, administration officials have said, of support by Iran for the insurgency in Iraq, which officials fear could grow if the Tehran government is pressed too hard on its nuclear program.

A parallel concern in Washington is Iran's continued backing of Hezbollah, which the administration and the Israeli government say is channeling aid to Hamas and other groups responsible for attacks on Israeli civilians.

Israel also warns that Iran's nuclear program by next year will reach a "point of no return," after which it will be able to make a bomb without any outside assistance.

Complicating the American response to all these concerns, the Bush administration is in considerable disagreement with its allies over how to handle the situation without making things worse.

Britain, France and Germany are warning that a confrontation could backfire, and that positive incentives as well as punishments need to be presented to Tehran, at least at some point down the road. Threatening sanctions, such as a cutoff in oil purchases, for example, is not viewed as credible or likely to get much support, European officials say.

European views cannot be dismissed, especially after the trans-Atlantic discord on Iraq, administration officials say....

Kathy Kinsley's doing a bangup job of covering the latest hurricane and of linking to other bloggers who are doing the same. Check it out.

I hope you guys are doing okay down there.

Jim Treacher has the scoop.

Hey all. Just a quick note--for some reason comments are being automatically disabled on most of Joe and Dave's articles. I've fixed it so you should be able to comment now, and we're looking into the cause of this so it doesn't keep happening. Thanks for your patience.

A quick update on the imminent elections - the October ones, not the November ones. The last few months have been a thrilling and astonishing time for Afghanistan. A Karzai victory remains the most likely outcome on October 9, but the implications of that victory look rather different now than they did at the beginning of the year.

First: the clear losers of this election are the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and rebels against the Kabul government. With just over two weeks remaining before the Afghan presidential elections, the malcontents have already lost. For months, they have threatened to create a generalized atmosphere of fear in which no one would dare go to the polls. It is safe to say that they have failed. They failed to prevent mass voter registration; the murders of many brave election workers did not deter millions of Afghans from registering for the vote (some more than once, but that's another story).

The handful of explosions and attacks that the Afghan insurgents have managed in the last few weeks are pitiful in comparison to (say) the daily uproar in Iraq. And they have run out of time. Whatever atrocities they manage to commit in the coming days, it is hard to imagine anything dramatic enough to deter more than a handful of likely voters. Another bomb or two before October 9 is not going to do the trick. The insurgents simply cannot affect enough of the country to manage widespread voter intimidation.

By contrast, President Hamid Karzai has been breathtakingly aggressive and effective over the last two months.

We don't yet know who will win the 2004 election, but we know who has lost it. The American news media have been clobbered.

In a year when war in Iraq, the threat of terrorism and looming problems with the federal budget and the nation's health care system cry out for serious debate, the news organizations on which people should be able to depend have been diverted into chasing sham events: a scurrilous and largely inaccurate attack on the Vietnam service of John Kerry and a forged document charging President Bush with disobeying an order for an Air National Guard physical.

With these events coming after the editors of two respected national newspapers, the New York Times and USA Today, were forced to resign because their organizations were duped by lying staff reporters, it is hard to overcome the sense that the professional practices and code of responsibility in journalism have suffered a body blow.

After almost a half-century in this business, I certainly feel a sense of shame and embarrassment at our performance. The feeling is not relieved by the awareness that others in journalism not only did fine work on other stories but took the lead in exposing these instances of gross malpractice.

The common feature -- and the disturbing fact -- is that none of these damaging failures would have occurred had senior journalists not been blind to the fact that the standards in their organizations were being fatally compromised.

The way to the top of journalism was no longer to test yourself on police beats and city hall assignments, under the skeptical gaze of editors who demanded precision in writing and careful weighing of evidence. It was to make a reputation as a clever wordsmith, a feisty advocate, a belligerent or beguiling political personality, and then market yourself to the media.

These hires were made by executives who themselves had little commitment to the solid and steady journalistic values that come from working a beat for a sustained period of time. They were looking for quick fixes for their circulation or ratings -- and they thought the star system or the "big story" would save them

When the Internet opened the door to scores of "journalists" who had no allegiance at all to the skeptical and self-disciplined ethic of professional news gathering, the bars were already down in many old-line media organizations. That is how it happened that old pros such as Dan Rather and former New York Times editor Howell Raines got caught up in this fevered atmosphere and let their standards slip.

Time was when any outfit such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that came around peddling an ad with implausible charges would have run into a hard-nosed reporter whose first questions -- before he or she ran with the story -- would have been, "Who the hell are you guys? What's your angle? What's your proof?"

Any Texan with a grudge against George Bush and the National Guard who suddenly produced a purported photocopy of an explosive 30-year-old order signed by a dead man would have been treated with the deep distrust he deserved by the reporters to whom he offered his wares. And no professional journalist would have made a call to the Kerry campaign encouraging a flack to contact this dubious source.

We've wandered a long way from safe ground in the news business. Sometimes I wonder if we can find our way back.

A company plans to offer airplane flights that simulate weightlessness in space.

Zero Gravity Corp. starting Oct. 9 will offer twice-a-month, $2,950 flights on planes that carry 27 passengers and are scheduled to fly out of its home base of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

But Zero Gravity's two modified Boeing 727 cargo planes can pick up adventure seekers at other airports if they are willing to pay $6,000 for every hour of flying time from Florida.

Former astronaut Rick Searfoss, who joined the group of radio contest winners and journalists on a publicity flight from Detroit Metro on Thursday, said the only difference between Zero Gravity's flights and a real trip to space is that passengers can't look outside and see Earth in the distance.

"It's exactly the same, just for a shorter amount of time," Searfoss, a pilot and commander on three space shuttle missions, told The Detroit News.