CNN:
Iran vows to defend nuclear facilities from attack. A strategic assessment of Iran, from Tel Aviv University. 1998. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption has shifted this view, significantly, no doubt.
CNet News.com:
Computer scientists slam e-voting. Maybe we’ll see the phoenix of punch-paper tape rise from the ashes ... heh, heh.
The Economist:
Pumping up the oil price. $50/barrel. Look at that chart. “The tension is being felt throughout the production chain: America’s inventories of crude fell to 269.5m barrels last week, enough to keep the country’s refineries going for just 17 days, according to the Wall Street Journal.”
CJR Campaign Desk:
Pass the brownies. Just read it. Best chuckle I’ve had in a while.
Globe and Mail.CA:
NY Times Op-Ed Contributor:
Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, gives us Truths worth telling. “Information should never be classified as secret merely because it is embarrassing or incriminating. But in practice, in this as in any administration, no information is guarded more closely.”
NY Times Letters to the Editor:
On the Trail, Taking the Low Road. “It is clear that if the Bush administration had spent as much care and effort in the planning and execution of its postwar strategy in Iraq as it has in the re-election campaign, the country would be in much better shape.”
NY Times Op-Ed:
Krugman, Swagger over substance. Very good points, but the media’s been style-conscious and fact-oblivious when it comes to debates. The poor fact-checking goes back even farther. They did much to tout Reagan’s “There you go again ...” admonition of Mr Carter, ignoring the fact that Mr Carter was factually accurate, and Mr Reagan was being both deceptive and semantically coy over more than just this one point. Mr Reagan used what is now the familiar bait-and-switch of the current Republican campaign philosophy, such as that he never advocated voluntary Social Security. Carter, and many of us watching, expected the media to rip Reagan up and down the next few days. I mean, the lack of any fact-checking was a real shock ... and an unrealized preparation for the next four “teflon” years [ironically, this is the prime ‘liberal media’ era]. Some historians mark the analysis of the 1980 debate as when the “regular people” of America connected with Mr Reagan.
So beware the post-debate spin; watch for fact-checking, and double-check what you’re told.
If you read the post-1980 debate commentary by MacNeil/Lehrer and guests, you will see that no fact-checking went on ... it was judgments of style, preparedness, and ‘presidentiality’. The commenters did not seem to have even a minimal working grasp of current issues, as we do today. Noone seemed to think that debate was remarkable, other than the aged Reagan was able to barely maintain a Presidential facade for the duration of the debate. And note in the end, the participants mention the election was a ‘standoff.’ Some here state Reagan was on the defensive, when it should have been simple to make Carter’s four years the issue. Sounds much like today, some of this analysis ... and some rings familiar with the 2000 debates, too.
Lesson to be relearned ... it ain’t over yet. Not by a long chalk.
Economist/YouGov Poll
puts Kerry back in the lead, by a hair [PDF], within the margin of error. Dissatisfaction and disapproval numbers are up ... and significantly outside the margin for error.
Guardian.UK:
Ask the Candidates: “Should girls be required to tell their parents before having an abortion?” After having been involved most of my life with adopted children, you can imagine I favor the latter. Mr Bush envisions a perfect world that doesn’t exist; Mr Kerry recognizes the realities.
Motley Fool:
Monsanto gets tough on South America. Apparently they’re doing a ‘Napster’ with GM seeds.
Interfax:
Uzbekistan says Afghan drug transit mounting.
SignOnSanDiego:
Falwell says evangelicals control GOP, Bush’s fate. If the religious right is going to put the same effort into this, that they put into promoting “The Passion”, then the left better damned well get their constituency to the polls.
NY Times:
Is voting worth the trouble? Omigod, don’t give us probabilities, cost analyses. We need higher turnout, not rationalizations for staying on the sidelines.
NY Times:
Agencies Postpone Issuing New Rules Until After Election. “What is unusual this time ... [snip] ... is the clear pattern of holding back regulatory decisions that will benefit the largest industry players and will drive up prices and market place risks for consumers, ranging from telephones to drugs to the risks of contaminants of food. The pattern of slow rolling will ultimately benefit the largest players and hit consumers in the pocketbook.” My italics. Anyone surprised?
Columbia Journalism Review:
If you haven’t read it yet, let me recommend Imagining Evil. On Homeland Security, or rather, the lack thereof. To most of us, you’d lock your own doors before going after criminals. Our doors remain unlocked.
NY Times Op-Ed:
Kristof, Twisting Dr. Nuke’s Arm. As I’ve consistently warned, Pakistan has the potential of being the Iraq mistake to the 10th power.
Citizens for Tax Justice:
82 big corporations paid no tax in one or more Bush years. [PDF] Telephone-book style statistics, for those so inclined. Boy, a year off from taxes. Wouldn’t that be nice.
CSM:
US sells Israel 500 ‘bunker-busters’. Iran should be wetting their pants right around now. “Neither country forgets that some years ago, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president who is still the second-most influential man in Iran’s clerical-ruled republic after [President] Khamenei, proposed that Muslim nations drop an atomic bomb over Israel.” Israel won’t hesitate.
The Economist:
Not an unconservative viewpoint, they comment on the latest turns in the campaign, and whether Iraq is truly safer. “One snag, for Mr Allawi and the Americans, is that no one knows exactly who the Sunni insurgents are. Apart from a desire to throw foreigners out of Iraq, they vary in their aims and ideology, and are loosely organised. Most of their leaders are known only in their home towns or districts.” My italics. Apparently, not foreign fighters, if you read the article. The unsourced polls quoted here, are not resounding with success, either ... at least, not in the manner they’ve been rhetorically couched by media and political sources. No mention if they polled insurgent areas. The best poll I can find is from February of this year, Oxford Research, here [pdf]. Interesting, that “a single strong Iraqi leader” as a political solution comes in as a close #2 to ‘democracy.’ Much good information here, for both the optimist and the pessimist. But not current. If you find this newer poll, drop me a comment. I’d like to evaluate the source, and read it.
Reuters:
Differences of opinion in the Administration ranks. “Iraq’s elections in January should encompass the entire country, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said on Friday, differing from comments by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that some violent areas could be excluded.”
American Prospect:
Blocking the Latino ballot. I must caution that my experience here in the Southwest is, the Latino vote doesn’t necessarily vote as a traditional bloc. Yet, I can’t help being titillated by the fact that I believe this will be the last Presidential election where the evangelical vote will be the dominant marketing target. The Hispanic/Catholic vote will be at least equally powerful, I believe, in 2008. Hillary’s got too much baggage; the Democrats should run Bill Richardson that year, certain sure.
Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau:
Analysts doubt either candidate’s plan will keep Medicare from crisis. “In the end, Bush’s and Kerry’s proposals for Medicare deal more with controlling costs rather than making deep structural changes needed to save the popular program from future collapse ...”
Tvnz.co.NZ:
I’ve ridden the issue of our US/Mexico border since 9/11. It remains the simplest method for entry, to this day. Mexico detains possible terrorists. Only suspicions right now, but it’s worth keeping an eye on these reports.
Democracy Now!:
Is the U.S. Winning in Iraq? A Debate Between The Nation’s Christian Parenti and the American Enterprise Institute. I haven’t had time to listen to it, this being working hours around here. Bookmarked for later. Thought you’d be interested. The link goes to the summary page, not to a direct audio or video link.
