SOMEBODY IN THE COMMENTS over at Ed Cone’s blog asked how I do corrections:

When Glenn gets something wrong, how does he handle the situation: Leave the post as is? Silently rewrite/delete it? Rewrite/delete, marking it as Updated? explaining why it was updated?

How does his approach to error handling compare to rowback and other means by which mainstream media sets the record straight?

Minor errors on spelling, phrasing, etc., will just be fixed. (I often correct typos, etc., in reader email, too, as they bug the hell out of me.) For more substantive errors, my basic rule is that I always put in an update correcting the post where the original error was, so that anyone who follows a link to it (or finds it on Google) will see the correction. If the item has scrolled down, and the correction seems significant, I’ll note it again in a separate post so that the correction’s at the top of the page. And I’ll link the new post to the old one so that people can see clearly what was being corrected. I’ll even do that when I’m not certain that the original item was in error, but think the issue has been made significant enough to make sure people hear both versions. (A recent example implicating most of these considerations is here.) On the other hand, your belief that a particular set of facts supports a different conclusion than the conclusion that I draw from those facts doesn’t constitute a factual error on my part, but rather a difference in interpretation. I might indicate it, if I think it’s interesting or possibly persuasive, but I don’t generally treat that as a correction.

Other bloggers are, of course, free to do it their way. But once or twice I’ve been fooled when they posted a later correction but didn’t update the original post. Also, posting corrections in comments rather than as an update to the post itself is probably a bad idea, as lots of people don’t read comments. Those are my thoughts, anyway. Others may feel differently. As to how this compares with Big Media, well, I leave that comparison to the reader.

UPDATE: Here are some thoughts from Rebecca Blood that are worth reading.

BLOGGER SCHEDULED TO argue before the Supreme Court. I’ll bet he won’t wear pajamas.

MORE SPACE-BLOGGING, over at GlennReynolds.com.

HERE’S MORE BLOGGING from the Liberty Film Festival in Los Angeles.

X-PRIZE UPDATE: Another SpaceShipOne launch is scheduled for tomorrow. Burt Rutan seems unconcerned about the rolls on the last flight. I certainly hope he’s right, and that everything goes well.

DEBATE CHEATING? Drudge has video.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, this ought to be against the rules.

ANOTHER UPDATE: I should note that the cheating story was originally broken by INDCJournal and The Daily Recycler.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Heh.

MORE: Jim Geraghty doesn’t think it matters: “The predictable explosion of enthusiasm for Kerry and the optimism about his chances in the mainstream media will not be interrupted by a mere breaking of the debate rules.”

Not just predictable, I should note, but predicted. Meanwhile, reader Barry Dauphin sends a list. Click “read more” to read it.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s a report that it was just a pen.

MORE: INDCJournal says it’s a pen, too, and adds: “The debate rules were violated in letter, but not intent, and any charges of cheating against the Kerry campaign are undeserved and inaccurate.”

Continue reading ‘DEBATE CHEATING? Drudge has video.

ANOTHE…’ »

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS ENDED THE GENOCIDE IN DARFUR: Just a few weeks ago it was a massive humanitarian disaster. Then the United States condemned it, called it genocide, and threatened to act.

Result: There’s really no problem in Darfur at all! It’s all a fiction! The people in the camps are happy, and healthy, and grateful! Next we’ll hear that it’s all about oil, no doubt.

UPDATE: Rajan Rishyakaran is still posting the Sudan genocide roundup. Guess he hasn’t gotten the word that the whole thing’s just another neocon BushLied^TM plot.

ANOTHER UPDATE: On this turnabout, Inoperable Terran observes: “That would be hilarious if it weren’t so predictable.”

Er, yeah, and if people weren’t dying, and stuff. But I take the point.

TOM MAGUIRE HAS QUESTIONS about the “Global Test” approach and Israel.

UPDATE: Plus, Cheney-Edwards debate prep!

SISSY WILLIS:

The issues don’t change much from decade to decade, and it’s fascinating to watch how arguments pro or con a particular point go back and forth between parties depending upon the current occupant of the White House. One thing that has changed between those halcyon pre-chad, pre-9/11 days and our Fahrenheit 911/527′s/MoveOn, campaign-finance-reform-loophole era is the tenor of the debate. C-Span rebroadcast Cheney’s and Lieberman’s oh-so-civilized and — in Donald Rumsfeld’s term — helpful debate last night. Low key, measured and rational.

Things aren’t really that way now. Campaign finance “reform” has been enormously destructive to civil society, in my opinion.

IF YOU’RE NOT READING THE BELMONT CLUB, well, you should be.

UNSCAM UPDATE: The Times of London reports:

A LEAKED report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in the United Nations’ oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up to 200 individuals and companies that made profits running into hundreds of millions of pounds from it. The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.

A senior UN official responsible for the scheme is identified as a major beneficiary. The report, marked “highly confidential”, also finds that the private office of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, profited from the cheap oil. Saddam’s regime awarded this oil during the run-up to the war when military action was being discussed at the UN.

The report was drawn up on behalf of the interim Iraqi government in preparation for a possible legal action against those who may have illicitly profited under Saddam. The Iraqis hired the London-based accountants KPMG and lawyers Freshfields to advise on future action.

It details a catalogue of alleged bribery and corruption perpetrated by Saddam under the UN programme, revealing how the regime lined its pockets and those of influential politicians, journalists and UN officials.

Not shocking to blogosphereans, of course, but still news. And certainly more support for this thesis.

And, of course, there’s more evidence here.

UPDATE: Thoughts on what this means for Kerry’s “global test” approach to diplomacy here.

I don’t think the “Global Test” approach is going to help him. Maybe he can fall back on Richard Holbrooke’s statement:

Asked what the Kerry Doctrine actually is, Holbrooke, in a conference call with reporters, replied: “There is no Kerry Doctrine.”

Or maybe not. . . .

THE GLOBAL TEST business seems to be catching on.

This one is still funnier, though.

AN INTERESTING ARTICLE IN WIRED NEWS on space warfare. And here’s a link to the Air Force paper on “counterspace warfare” that it references. (And read this article and this earlier Air Force paper too, if you’re really interested.)

Contrary to uninformed opinions expressed elsewhere, there’s nothing about space militarization or even warfare in space as such that violates international law. Whether these particular plans are good ones, however, is something I can’t venture an opinion on at this point. However, I’m writing an article on new developments in space law for the Chicago Journal of International Law later this fall, and I’m sure I’ll arrive at an opinion before I’m done.

UPDATE: Here’s a very recent Congressional Research Service report on military space issues.

SOME OBSERVATIONS on allies and military spending. More here.

AN INTERESTING REPORT FROM AFGHANISTAN, by Radek Sikorski.

TOM BROKAW defends Dan Rather, compares bloggers to jihadists, and observes: “I don’t think you ever judge a man by only one event in his career.”

Yeah, I’ve noticed Brokaw, et al., not doing that.

UPDATE: D’oh! It was Peter Jennings with the quoted statement — Brokaw was the one making the jihad comparison. Sorry. I think the point still holds, though.

WATERGATE WEST? It seems to be a season of dirty tricks.

HUGH HEWITT is conducting a virtual symposium on bunker-busting nukes.

THUNE 50, DASCHLE 46: This can’t be making the Daschle camp happy.

UPDATE: RealClearPolitics shows Kerry up in several polls. This can’t be making the Bush camp happy.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Some thoughts on the Bush / Kerry polls at Power Line. “We knew this was coming; the media story line for the next 30 days is Kerry’s comeback, which has the effect of wiping the slate clean and avoiding discussion of how he got behind in the first place. Is the comeback real? Rasmussen shows the President continuing to enjoy a three-point lead. Among his respondents, 6% say they changed their vote as a result of the debate–3% now voting for Kerry, 2% for Bush, and one percent now undecided.”

I await comments from the poll experts.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: More here and here.

MARK STEYN:

The silliest thing Dick Cheney has ever said was a couple of weeks after 9/11: ‘One of the things that’s changed so much since September 11 is the extent to which people do trust the government — big shift — and value it, and have high expectations for what we can do.’

Really? I’d say 9/11 vindicated perfectly a decentralised, federalist, conservative view of the state: what worked that day was municipal government, small government, core government — the firemen, the NYPD cops, rescue workers. What flopped — big-time, as the Vice-President would say — was federal government, the FBI, CIA, INS, FAA and all the other hotshot, money-no-object, fancypants acronyms. Under the system operating on that day, if one of the many Algerian terrorists living on welfare in Montreal attempted to cross the US border at Derby Line, Vermont, and got refused entry by an alert official, he would be able to drive a few miles east, attempt to cross at Beecher Falls, Vermont, and they had no way of knowing that he’d been refused entry just half an hour earlier. No compatible computers.

On the other hand, if that same Algerian terrorist went to order a book online, amazon.com would know that he’d bought The Dummy’s Guide to Martyrdom Operations two years ago and their ‘We have some suggestions for you!’ box would be proffering a 30 per cent discount on The A-Z of Infidel Slaying and 72 Hot Love Tips That Will Have Your Virgins Panting For More. Amazon is a more efficient miner of information than US Immigration.

Is it to do with their respective budgets? No. Amazon’s system is very cheap, but it’s in the nature of government to do things worse, and slower. To take another example from September 11, on three planes the crew and passengers followed Federal Aviation Administration procedures largely unchanged from the Seventies and they all died, along with thousands of other people; on the fourth plane, Flight 93, they used their cellphones, discovered that FAA regulations weren’t going to save them, and then acted as free-born citizens, rising up against the terrorists and, at the cost of their own lives, preventing that flight carrying on to its target in Washington. On a morning when big government failed, the only good news came from private citizens.

Don’t count on John Edwards making this point Tuesday night, though.

MR. SUN IS PAGING WONKETTE. Follow the link, look at the photo, and you’ll see why.

UPDATE: Someone else has noticed.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A whole gallery of unfortunate football images.

THE OTHER DAY I linked to a column by Tim Chavez in the Nashville Tennessean calling attention to unreported successes in Iraq. Various letter-writers over at Romenesko disagree. (The absence of permalinks means you’ll have to scroll). Excerpt: “I can tell you firsthand that the report Tim Chavez supposedly received from a Marine lieutenant colonel claiming that ‘HUNDREDS of dead women and children were brought out after Sadr left’ the shrine of Imam Ali is entirely false.”

UPDATE: Chavez responds here. Read the whole thing.

THANKS TO RAND SIMBERG, we seem to have found the “Global Test.”

Take it yourself, today!

JONAH GOLDBERG says we need to be paying more attention to Iran. He’s right. Excerpt:

Tehran, the nation’s capital, as well as several other cities have been wracked in recent days with widespread anti-government protests and violent crackdowns by government forces. Buildings have been set ablaze, and exiles are calling for revolution. According to reports on Activistchat.com, a Web site dedicated to freeing Iran from the oppressive rule of the mullahs, numerous protestors have been killed. Ledeen – who has many sources inside Iran and out – reports that the roundups and executions of young men have picked up at a terrific pace. Iran has staged 120 public hangings since March alone, according to the government’s own news agency.

The unpopularity of the mullahs, primarily with the younger, Western-oriented generation, is causing panic inside the regime. The appeal of revolutionary theocracy has been bled dry. The Christian Science Monitor reported – some would say “reluctantly reported” – that discontent with the regime and a desire for “change” according to various “polls” equals 90 percent. And we all remember those famous soccer games where Iranian fans chanted “USA! USA!”

Even if this weren’t such a powerful human interest story, it would still be appalling how completely the mainstream media have downplayed what could be one of the most important news stories of our lives. If Iran were to throw off the shackles of the mullahocracy in favor of anything like a sane, decent and democratic regime, it would be the most significant advance for freedom and decency since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It would be a national security victory of staggering proportions.

I wonder why it’s not getting more attention?

THIS WEEK’S Carnival of the Recipes is up!

AMUSING POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS in Britain. And read this post, too.

UNSCAM UPDATE: Shocking developments in the Oil-for-food investigation:

Congressional investigators say that France, Russia and China systematically sabotaged the former United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq by preventing the United States and Britain from investigating whether Saddam Hussein was diverting billions of dollars. . . .

The paper also accuses the United Nations office charged with overseeing the program of having “pressed” contractors not to rigorously inspect Iraqi oil being sold and the foreign goods being bought. The program office, headed by Benan Sevan, who is also under investigation by a committee appointed by the United Nations, turned a blind eye to corruption charges, the paper says, because it apparently saw oil-for-food “strictly as a humanitarian program.”

Representative Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican who chairs the subcommittee, said in an interview that there was no doubt that the abuses were systemic and that blame for the widespread corruption must be shared by Security Council members, the United Nations office that administered the program, and the contractors hired by the United Nations to inspect Iraq’s oil exports and aid purchases.

Okay, it’s not that shocking.

STRATEGYPAGE on the battles in Iraq:

October 2, 2004: As promised, the government began its campaign to retake control of Sunni Arab towns and cities that had fallen under the control of al Qaeda, criminal gangs and Baath Party gunmen. For the last two days, some 4,000 American and Iraqi troops have surrounded and regained control of Samarra, a Sunni Arab city with 100,000 residents, a hundred kilometers north of Baghdad. So far, about a hundred Iraqis have been killed, some 75 percent of them gunmen who have resisted the Iraqi police and American troops. Iraqi troops quickly seized major mosques in the city, preventing them from being used as fortresses by anti-government forces. At least one kidnap victim was released by advancing troops, and others will probably be found as well. A third of troops involved are Iraqi, and this includes a new Samarra police force, drawn from other parts of Iraq and led by more experienced and reliable commanders.

The nearby town of Tikrit, Saddam’s home town, did not go the way of Samarra mainly because of local politics. The local power brokers in Tikrit make a deal with the coalition and kept it.

That’s the good news. Here’s the cautionary note:

The real battle for Samarra [will] take place in the next few months. The people fighting American troops at the moment, and getting killed, are the dummies. The smart guys just hide their weapons and wait for an opportunity to take over the town again. If the new police force cannot hunt down and arrest most of the smarter gangsters and terrorists in the next few months, Samarra will lapse into anarchy again.

There’s also this:

A recently published survey of attacks on police and troops in Iraq revealed what had long been taken for granted, over 80 percent of the attacks took place in just four Sunni Arab provinces. The other 14 provinces were pretty quiet, most a dozen or fewer incidents a month. Interrogation of captured gunmen has made it clear that most of the attacks are planned, and the attackers recruited, by the gangs that have found refuge in the “outlaw” towns like Samarra and Fallujah. Especially in light of last week’s terror bombing that killed and wounded some 200 children in Baghdad, the new government, and most Iraqis, are determined to put down the gunmen, terrorists and gangsters, and restore law and order.

And because of these bombings, a degree of force that might have aroused resentment among Iraqis is now more likely to produce satisfaction.

COMING NEXT, AN EFFORT TO REHABILITATE PHLOGISTON CHEMISTRY: Jim Lindgren notes that an attempt at demonstrating that CBS’s forged documents might have been done on a typewriter has fallen apart.

This is hardly a surprise, of course. But it wouldn’t be much of a vindication for CBS even if, through some miracle, the documents turned out to be genuine. It’s quite clear now that CBS acted without concern for the genuineness of the documents, and in fact in the teeth of opinions from its own experts that the documents were probably bogus. No amount of after-the-fact lawyering can change that evidence of journalistic bias and ineptitude, though CBS’s namecalling of its critics, and general stonewalling, compounds the offense and moves it from negligence to the category of ‘reckless disregard.”

UPDATE: Former 60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt would seem to agree:

“I never would have done the story,” said Hewitt, who retired in June as the show’s executive producer after 36 years.

“I would have been very wary injecting myself into a campaign. You’ve got to be very careful that you’re not perceived as doing the job that one of the two candidates should be doing himself.” . . .

During the radio show, Hewitt said he’s sorry that “60 Minutes” and Rather were perceived as doing Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s job for him “by bringing up an old issue, and they weren’t careful enough to not make mistakes. And the minute you make one mistake, you’re dead.”

He also thinks that Kerry was “stupid” to make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign.

THE PERFIDIOUS FRENCH:

Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, “The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies.”

Hmm. Kinda supports the thesis of this new book, doesn’t it?

INTERESTING ARTICLE ON NANOTECHNOLOGY AND “GRAY GOO” — with an expectation that fears will spread in light of the upcoming Michael Crichton movie Prey.

Here’s a thought: How about we base our debates on technology policy on facts, not scary movies? The article is quite good, though.

I’ve written on the subject here, here, and, of course, here.

UPDATE: Top link was bad before. Fixed now. Sorry.

VIK RUBENFELD is blogging from the Liberty Film Festival. He’s even got photos.

PATRICK HYNES wonders if “hate fatigue” is breaking out.

LOTS OF INTERESTING POSTS from Tom Maguire — just keep scrolling.

A LESSON FOR CBS: Fox News published bogus Kerry quotes earlier today, and has already retracted and apologized.

UPDATE: More here: It’s somewhat hard to see how this stuff saw print. (Saw pixels? Got on the website, anyway.)

READER DANIEL LARSEN EMAILS:

Bush’s interview with Bill O’Reilly, aired Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday was amazing, and O’Reilly wasn’t exactly throwing him softballs. I just watched the videos, and if Bush had been like that last night, Kerry would have been toast. Yet, so far as I can tell, there’s been next to no blogosphere reaction. Watch it and call some attention to it, could ya?

(Click the “videos” tab)

I don’t have time right now — just finished mulching, and now I have to cook dinner. But there’s the link, for anyone who’s not as occupied with domestic chores.

MT. ST. HELENS IS ERUPTING: Localblogged here.

Video at The Daily Recycler.

JOYCELYN ELDERS GOT NOTHIN’ ON THIS BABY:

He is the conservative bastion of the US supreme court, a favourite of President Bush, and a hunting partner of the vice-president. He has argued vociferously against abortion rights, and in favour of anti-sodomy laws.

But it turns out that there is another side to Justice Antonin Scalia: he thinks Americans ought to be having more orgies.

Challenged about his views on sexual morality, Justice Scalia surprised his audience at Harvard University, telling them: “I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.”

I wonder why he didn’t mention this in the confirmation hearings? (Via Ann Althouse).

UPDATE: Many people are angrily emailing that Scalia was joking. (Some send this story which says so). Well, yeah, that’s what I figured. I didn’t really think that many people would see Scalia as pro-orgy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

LT SMASH has thoughts on Afghanistan and outsourcing.

WRITING IN THE NEW REPUBLIC, MARTIN PERETZ is down on Kerry:

It’s not just that he has exaggerated what has gone wrong in Iraq. His entire speech was premised on the assumption that there were European troops and Muslim troops and United Nations gendarmes who would have gone to war with us against Saddam had Bush only waited another few days, weeks, months in the spring of 2003. That is a lie. And now, he holds out the same false promise. It is true, he admits, that there is a Security Council resolution calling on U.N. members to provide soldiers and trainers and a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission in Iraq. “Three months later,” he admits, “not a single country has answered that call.” Of course, Bush is to blame. And what should Bush do? He should “convene a summit meeting of the world’s major powers” and “insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution.”

There is something risible in Kerry’s faith in these hopeless transactions brokered by Kofi Annan and in the United Nations itself, which is staging yet another tragic, do-nothing performance on Darfur. He surely knows there is no cavalry of Europeans and Arabs about to ride to Iraq’s rescue (especially since he intends to withdraw American troops, hardly a move that will give other nations confidence). He surely knows there are no foreign funders willing to bear the financial burden, either. But, if he admits that, then much of his critique of Bush’s Iraq policy collapses, and with it his confidence in the honorable community of nations–the kind of phrase of which liberals are fond. Except that the nations to which it refers are neither honorable nor a community nor, in many cases, even nations. Kerry may want to rely on their goodwill, but I don’t.

Ouch. Meanwhile Alex Flowers emails with some questions:

About that global test…

1) Is there an old copy of it floating around we can get our hands on?
2) Is it multiple choice or essay form?
3) Is the test written in French, German or English?
4) Who determines if we can retake the test?
5) Is it pass/fail or is it more like the SAT?

Thanks in advance.

I’m pretty sure that the answer to (3) is “French.”

UPDATE: Reader Randy Pickett has found a copy:

Global Test for Pre-emptive Military Action by the U.S.

1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?
2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?
3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?
4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?
5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?
6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?
7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?
8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?
9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?
10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?

Must’ve been in the frathouse files.

MORE: Interesting observation from reader Brian Faughnan:

I think that while Kerry might have helped himself a point or two last night – pushing some undecideds into his camp – we should also at least consider the question of whether his promises to (essentially) stay the course in Iraq will push any of his support on the left into the Nader camp. Between his promise to win in Iraq, to expand the military by two divisions and to consider pre-emptive war against Iran and North Korea, it must at the very least beefen-up Nader’s stump-speech a little. And as they say, in a close race, it may not take all that many votes to shift a swing state from one camp to another.

Hmm. In that sense, the Nader percentage may be the best indicator of whether Kerry’s tougher talk was credible with the electorate.

STILL MORE: Eric Muller thinks the “global test” stuff is being taken out of context. I don’t know — the language about “proving to the world” seems to me to support the less-friendly reading.

INTERESTED IN LABOR LAW? Then check out the new Labor Profs blog, a sort of companion to TaxProfs. Which is about, er, tax.

And both are part of the Law Professor Blogs Network. Because who doesn’t want to know what law professors think about, well, everything?

IT’S THE THIRD ANNUAL BLOGGER BOOBIETHON — meaning that you can stare at pictures of major-league yabos and tell yourself that it’s all for charity. There’s even a page of male bloggers’ chests, for those who are so inclined.

SINCE KERRY REPEATEDLY INVOKED VIETNAM LAST NIGHT, I guess that stories like this one are fair game.

MORE COMMENTS ON JIM LEHRER’S DEBATE PERFORMANCE. And a contrary view here.

TRAFFIC: A shade over 8,320,000 pageviews in September. I imagine this will fall off some after the election.

JAMES LILEKS HAS WRITTEN THE AGENDA for Kerry’s proposed summit. I like it! He also has observations on the “global test” bit:

I’d really like to live in John Kerry’s world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well.

Read the whole thing.

MEMO TO THE NEW YORK TIMES: This comparison won’t help Kerry:

Mr. Bush slouched and stayed coiled tight, but Mr. Kerry seemed at times to be waltzing with his partner, the lectern. Mr. Kerry moved his hands almost continuously, at one point folding them over his heart like a French mime as he explained that he felt “nothing but respect” for Tony Blair and British soldiers serving in Iraq.

(Via the vigilant SoxBlog, where many things were noticed: “If Ed Gillespie called Kerry a French mime, John Edwards would sue him.”)

A RATHER MODEST BUSH DIP on the TradeSports and Iowa Electronic Markets futures exchanges. Seems about right to me.

UPDATE: Reader Dick Sears says I misread the graph:

I think you made a small error this morning.

There was no Bush debate dip, modest or otherwise. He did lose ground against where he had risen to during the debate, but all that meant was that he was back to where he’d been at the start of the debate.

I followed Tradesports and Iowa closely before, during, and after the debate to see who they “thought” was winning.

Tradesports most recent trades immediately before the debate started at 9:00 were 65.0 for Bush and 36.4 for Kerry. Bush gained steadily during the debate. For example, by 10:00 it was 67.4/33.7, with the same repeated at 10:35. But by 11:35, it was back pretty much where it had started, 65.5/36.0. This morning it was 65.0/35.9.

Iowa was perhaps closed for the day last night, because its 65/32 never wavered during the debate. But this morning it was 68.2/32.8.

So, if anything, I would say Bush had a modest gain.

The stock market seems to agree, except who ever knows why it does what it does?

Not me, and I’ve got the porfolio to prove it. More on the futures markets, and what they mean, here.

BAREFOOT AND PREGNANT in Europe.

A READER NOTES that the Iowa Electronic Markets and the Tradesports Future markets haven’t moved much. Has there been time? Maybe.

UPDATE: Debate transcript here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: People are already mining the transcript for, er, hidden gold. Or is that plutonium?

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: More of that. Treblinka square?

More here.

GERGEN ON CNN: No knockout punches and no memorable lines, but one of the best debates I remember. Calls it a draw for the candidates.

UPDATE: Cynical take here:

Kerry managed to not contradict himself within the space of a single sentence. Bush succumbed to vapor lock a couple of times but everyone knows that just makes him seem like a normal guy. All in all, we don’t know who won. We’re going to wait for the media to tell us.

Maybe not.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Mickey Kaus scores it as a Kerry victory, though not a smashing one. Interestingly, the Insta-Wife thought it was a smashing victory for Bush. It didn’t seem that way to me, but while I thought Bush’s visible exasperation hurt him, she saw it as the natural response of a man who was busy fighting a war at having to listen to someone talk about its impact on prescription drugs. Go figure.

MORE: Lots of women are emailing to say that they agree with the Insta-Wife. I don’t know if that’s representative, though. It’ll be interesting to see the polling on this in a few days as people think about it.

SPEAKING OF MULTILATERALISM AND NORTH KOREA:

The US and China have said they were confident North Korea will return to six-party talks to end the stand-off over Pyongyang’s nuclear programmes.

US State Secretary Colin Powell said after talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing the format was “what we should be concentrating on”.

Mr Li described the talks as the “only feasible and correct option”.

This is bad news for Kerry.

UPDATE: But Kerry’s position has been consistent.

TOMMY FRANKS ON CNN: Osama bin Laden is not in Afghanistan, as Senator Kerry said he is.

On lacking a plan for winning the peace: “If you read my book, you’ll find I mention a term called ‘catastrophic success.’ It’s a good news thing. . . . But it takes a long time to bring stability to a place that hasn’t known stability for a long time. It’s inaccurate to say that there was not a plan . . . but some in our media built expectations that that would happen more quickly than was possible.”

UPDATE: Reader Chris Greer doesn’t think Franks was as positive as I make him sound above. I don’t have a TiVo, but I was typing it as he spoke. He did say that he’s a civilian now, and doesn’t have secret info — but he also said what I reported. Maybe there’ll be a transcript tomorrow.

DANIEL DREZNER was liveblogging, too.

Lots more here, too.

WRAPUP: Both closing statements were pretty good. Overall, while neither of these guys is an especially good orator (or maybe because neither is an especially good orator) it was a more substantive debate than I had expected.

Kerry was tougher than I had expected, which is good — except that you never know what he’ll say next time. If I hadn’t been paying attention to the campaign, though, I’d be fairly impressed — and Kerry has to hope that most people who watched the debate fall into that category. [LATER: Andrew Sullivan seems to agree with this take.]

Bush started off weak, got better as it went on, and finished well (“the transformative power of liberty”). Both did a pretty good job of sticking to issues and there weren’t too many cheap rhetorical tricks. I don’t think it’ll change a lot of minds. But I have a very consistent track record of getting this stuff wrong (I thought Carter beat Reagan. . . .) so take my opinions with a large grain of salt.

UPDATE: This take from The Corner:

John Kerry plus: He does not come across as arrogant and obnoxious as we believe him to be.

John Kerry minus: His positions don’t hold together in any coherent way.

George W. Bush plus: He has an air of authority, experience, and purpose I don’t recall from 2000.

George W. Bush minus: The President is a dismally poor public speaker.

About right, I’d say.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Chuck Simmins:

Overall, a near draw, which translates to a win for Bush. Kerry started strong a few times then failed to move in for the kill. Unwilling or unable? . . . Both men seemed at a loss for words at times when I expected them not to be. Jitters?”

Neither one is an especially great orator.

Hugh Hewitt thinks it was a big Bush win.

LAME QUESTION FROM LEHRER: Kerry says you’re a liar. Does that raise any hackles? Bushy: I’m a pretty calm guy. Kerry thought Saddam was a threat too.

Kerry: Bush didn’t go to war as a last resort.

N.Z. Bear: “OK, I’m not hypersensitive about such things. But these questions are turning out to be extraordinarily biased. Every question seems to be ‘so, let’s talk about the mistakes Bush has made…’”

UPDATE: Reader Charlotte Muhl writes that there weren’t many questions about Kerry’s record:

Is anyone saying the obvious? This foreign policy debate was all about putting Bush on the defensive. Why no attention to Kerry’s 20 year Senate record of votes and statements on foreign policy, military and intell issues?! All I heard from Lehrer the entire evening was one sorta, kinda follow-up question on Kerry’s post Viet Nam protest.

Indeed.

N.Z. BEAR IS LIVEBLOGGING TOO, and observes: “Not that this is a revelation, but thus far, it looks like this will be a draw. Both candidates are doing ok, no obvious gaffes, no big moments (yet). I don’t see a lot of minds being changed by this…”

IF I WERE KIM JONG IL, I’d be worried no matter who wins.

THE CHARACTER ISSUE: Bush: He changes positions on something as fundamental as what you believe is right in Iraq. You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. They send the wrong signals to our troops, our allies, and the Iraqi citizens. There must be certainty from the United States President.

Kerry: Bush has done it more than I have in terms of the Presidency, and it’s tough. Nice words on the daughters, and Laura Bush. To the point: It’s one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong. You’ve got to change and get your policy right. He’s not acknowledging the truth on the ground, on stem cells, on science. (Stem cells must be polling well.)

Bush: You shift tactics based on what’s working, but you don’t change your core values because of politics and because of pressure.

Kerry: I’ve never wavered in my life. I’ve been consistent on Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a threat, he needed to be disarmed but we didn’t need to rush to war. Hmm.

A DARFUR QUESTION: Do we send in troops?

Kerry dodges by talking about Iran. Finally gets to Darfur: “Yes it is a genocide. Many of us are pressing for action.” But do it through the African Union. Give ‘em logistical support. But we’re overextended. That’s why I want to make the Army bigger. (But I’d send troops to Darfur.)

Bush — responds on Iran, noting sanctions predate his administration. True, but a distraction. On Darfur: I agree it’s genocide. We’re the leading donor. We’ll commit more. We’re very much involved. (What Bush should say: The problem with my approach is that it’s too Kerryesque, working through the UN and other organizations. Okay, maybe not.)

DID KERRY JUST SAY he might “preempt” in Iran and North Korea?

Bringing up Kyoto seems silly though.

Jonah Goldberg: “WHY Does Kerry keep saying we didn’t secure Saddam’s nuclear facilities if he thinks he didn’t have any?”

Bush is hitting Kerry on North Korea, contrasting the Clintonian bilateral strategy with his own multilateral strategy — see, he can bring in allies! “Now there are 5 voices speaking to Kim Jong-Il.”

Kerry straddles in response to a Lehrer followup: I want both bilateral and multilateral talks!

BOY, IF BUSH produces Osama next week, Kerry’s going to look bad.

JONAH GOLDBERG: “the best presidential debate in decades?”

More substantive than I had expected.

C-SPAN’S CONSISTENT SPLIT-SCREEN is the best of the TV treatments, I think.

NOW KERRY’S TALKING TOUGH: Don’t back off on Fallujah; close the borders. No long-term designs on Iraq.

His best moment so far. Kind of loses his thread with the training angle, though, as he echoes Bush so closely.

Bush quotes Allawi. Slaps Kerry for criticizing Allawi, Lockhart for calling him a puppet. Good comeback. Bush’s consistent theme: Kerry’s not serious here, and hasn’t made the tough decisions a commander-in-chief has to make.

UPDATE: Reader Doug Jordan emails: “Kerry’s position boils down to: US troops don’t work; let’s use some others. The Prez should say so.”

KERRY PUTS HIS FOOT IN IT: The President says that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction he would have gone in the same way. I would not.

Er, but Kerry said he would have gone to war even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction.

And how’s Kerry going to “change” the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons.

Hugh Hewitt thinks that Lehrer is pitching softballs to Kerry.

UPDATE: Bush points out the Kerry contradictions. “As the politics change, his positions change, and that’s not how a commander-in-chief acts.”

Strong comeback for Bush on sending troops to die and understanding the stakes. It’s the first time he’s seemed fully on his game.

Kerry response: “I was in Vietnam!” Take another drink.

Kerry’s comeback gets better, until he starts talking about a summit as the key goal. That seems limp.

I DON’T THINK that analogizing his vote on the $87 billion to his anti-Vietnam war protesting was a good move for Kerry.

But PoliPundit thinks Kerry is doing well.

HUGH HEWITT is posting a debate scorecard with questions and answers.

I’m surprised that Bush hasn’t mentioned this story in support of his forward strategy on homeland security:

A man arrested by U.S. authorities in Iraq had a computer disk in his possession containing a public report downloaded from a U.S. Department of Education Web site on crisis planning in school districts, including San Diego Unified.

The man was described as an Iraqi national with connections to terrorism and the insurgency that is fighting U.S. forces in Iraq. Officials in San Diego said the man’s intentions were unknown.

Good story.

STEPHEN GREEN will be liveblogging the debate. He’s already warming up.

UPDATE: Shape of Days will be liveblogging, too, and will be hosting the Bush campaign’s instant-fact-checking RSS feed. As far as I know, the Kerry campaign doesn’t have one of those.

And here’s a gigantic list of other livebloggers.

UPDATE: Capt. Ed will be liveblogging, too. The Northern Alliance guys will be gang-live-blogging (live-gang-blogging — no, that sounds like something Wonkette would make off-color comments about. . . .). And there will be group-chatting (Wonkette again!) over at The Command Post.

Bill Hobbs has an open comment thread, (he’s “enriching his marriage” — I’d be doing that too, and the heck with blogging, if I had babysitting available tonight. . . .) and Begging to Differ will be on the job. And there’s combined blog-and-chat action at The Patriot Paradox. And don’t forget Oliver Willis — though he really ought to be on TV.

The folks at The Corner are liveblogging, too.

INDCJOURNAL got quoted by Brit Hume regarding his interviews with CBS reporters and producers on the bogus-email story. You can see the video here.

JIM TREACHER AND PUCE want to be on Google News, just like Daily Kos.

Seems fair to me!

GEORGE W. BUSH’S CAMPAIGN BLOG will be liveblogging the debates. So is Kerry’s. That’s rather clever.

I’M SUPPOSED TO BE ON CNBC’S “KUDLOW & CRAMER” in about an hour. I will not be as snappily dressed as Kudlow.

UPDATE: I guess it went OK. Looking quickly at the email, the main themes are “You’re not as good looking as Wonkette” (true) and “You weren’t wearing pajamas!” (Also true.)

RICHARD BROOKHISER lists Bush’s ten biggest mistakes.

I’VE BEEN FISKED.

SO FAR, no explosions on the Mt. St. Helens webcam. But Forest for the Trees will be volcano-blogging from 40 miles away, just in case anything happens.

DEBATE PREDICTION: Unless Kerry melts into a puddle on the floor, the media spin will be that he did well and helped his campaign. This is for two reasons. One is, as Newsweek’ Evan Thomas remarked, that the press “wants Kerry to win.”

The other, of course, is that they want the race to remain interesting — which is to say, a race — for another month, and it’ll be hard to do that if everybody’s pronouncing Kerry doomed after tonight.

UPDATE: Expectations-lowering here, but these comments may go just a bit too far in that direction:

“People keep analyzing these things as a great opportunity for Kerry—his last opportunity to define himself,” said Democratic operative Chris Lehane. “But usually what happens is that someone makes a mistake, and that ends up defining the debates, which end up defining the last four weeks of the campaign.” Mr. Lehane should know: He was Al Gore’s press secretary in 2000.

Wasn’t Al Gore orange for one of the debates, too?

MORE: Hey, the debate’s still many hours away, but the DNC is inviting people to declare it a Kerry victory ahead of time. It’s double-reverse Laphamization, or something.

AN IRAQI WOMAN TO BRITAIN’S LABOR PARTY — DON’T ABANDON IRAQ:

The woman who helped swing the vote at the Labour conference over pulling troops out of Iraq today accused party members of naivety about the situation in the country.

Shanaz Rashid – whose husband is a minister in the interim Iraqi government – was earlier given a standing ovation when she made an emotional appeal not to pull troops out.

Close to tears, she told party activists that many friends had perished under Saddam Hussein and she had kissed the ground with joy on arriving back at Baghdad after the war.

She praised the Prime Minister for “standing up” to Saddam and liberating the country.

“Yes, there have been difficulties. Yes, there have been mistakes perhaps many mistakes. No, you did not find weapons of mass destruction.

“But for the great majority of Iraqis WMD was never the issue. We don’t understand the criticism of your Prime Minister. All we wanted was to be free.”

She added: “I appeal to you all … to help us build a new democratic federal Iraq that would respect the lives of human beings.”

Asked later if she considered Labour members naive about the situation for Iraqis, she said: “Yes I do think so. They don’t know the reality of their lives. . . . If they are concerned about the Iraqi children they should not be asking the British Government to leave them alone at the mercy of others.”

Blair won with 80% of the vote.

UPDATE: Sorry, the 80% is wrong. “The call for Mr Blair to set an early date for withdrawing the troops was defeated by 86% to 14%.”

DAVID HALBERSTAM ON RATHERGATE:

“What they did was very stupid,” Halberstam said. “But they have been heading in that direction for a long time. I’ve always been critical of this whole business of star journalism, where you have a big anchor coming on air and acting as a prosecutor with someone else’s reporting. In many instances over the years on that program the reports have been lightly or poorly sourced and the reporting suffers as a result. Dan Rather right now is the principal anchor of the Evening News, but he is also the program’s main reporter. Then he’s the anchor of 48 Hours. On top of that he’s the star of 60 Minutes II. That’s just too much for one person and it leads to the kind of sloppiness in their reporting that just happened.

“In general, the last couple of years have not been very good ones for the media,” Halberstam added. “There has been too much corporate control, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the broadcast networks eventually got out of the news business. They’ve been moving to get out of it for years anyway.”

Interesting. It’s occurred to me that Halberstam’s book, The Reckoning, about the decline of the American automobile industry, sheds a bit of light on what’s going on with Big Journalism now. (Via Bill Hobbs, who has further thoughts.)

UPDATE: Some thoughts on the draft from a serviceman in Iraq.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The New York Post: “Dan does it again.”

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader sends me a copy of this email he sent to the anti-draft crusaders interviewed by Rather:

Our 22 year old son is a US Marine, SpOps. His Btn just returned from the al Anbar region of Iraq. They have the unfortunate distinction of having taken the most casualties of any Coalition unit in Iraq (33 KIA 200+ WIA, sent home). However, they – in the proud tradition of US Marines, and specifically the 7th Marine Regiment – killed over 3,000 of the enemy bringing peace to the region o which they were assigned. They took on an area where there was murderous errorist activity on a daily basis and today, it’s as safe as most of Philly.

I can guarantee you, because I had this conversation with Josh and with his comrades-in-arms, they DO NOT WANT conscripted kids with them. At home, hey are the finest men this country has to offer. Polite, generous and even lightly patriotic. At work they are the worst enemy of people who attack the S. They are committed to what they do. They don’t need whining, snotty children linging to mommy’s apron who they would have to babysit.

So, please contact Rep. Rangel and the other Democrats who put forth this egislation. Tell them to withdraw it – not that it has a snowball’s chance in Baghdad of passing anyway. And please, don’t fear for your sons. My son and his friends, WILLINGLY sleeping in holes in the sand and eating MRE’s will make sure you and your sons can all sleep well in your soft beds after a quiet dinner.

Michael Becker
Phoenix, AZ
very proud father of LCpl Josh. The best man we know…

Nice email.

MORE: Another:

I am writing in furtherance of the comments made by Michael Becker, father of the Marine who just returned from Iraq.

My son, Michael, is a 22 Marine Corporal. On 9/11 he was a sophomore in college. We live in Northern NJ, about 15 miles from ground zero. Michael called home and said that he had to do something about 9/11, so he left college and joined the Marines.

I am an attorney and my wife is a teacher. Our oldest son is a graduate of New York University Law School and an associate at a major NYC law firm. Michael was doing fine in college and did not ‘have to join the Marines”. He joined as a calling.

Michael has been in the Corp. for for almost 3 years and has not yet had an assignment overseas. That is about to change. He is presently assigned to the 15th MEU in Camp Pendelton. They will be deployed sometime on or before December 6th. We do not know where they are going, but we expect that Iraq is part of the plan.

Michael and all of his Marine buddies can’t wait to go. That is why they signed up. In fact, someone is his company made a mistake. They entire company was threatened that if mistakes continued, there would be a punishment. That
punishment was that they would not go to Iraq. That is correct, if they mess up, they will not go to Iraq. This is very upsetting to them.

The Marines do not want conscripts. Every one of these guys or gals will have his (or her) life on the line depending on the Marines around them. They do not want people who have to be forced to be there. Every one of them is prepared to give their all for the other Marines, their family and their country. They do not need anyone there who does not feel the same way.

People who do not know military families just don’t understand. Maybe some day they will finally realize how much we all owe to LCpl Josh Becker, my son Cpl Michael Wishnia, and thousand of Marines and soldiers.

Bernard Wishnia
Livingston, NJ

Another interesting email.

THERE’S A PRE-DEBATE DEBATE between Michele Catalano and Neal Pollack.

WOMEN VOTERS AND THE VANISHING GENDER GAP: Thoughts here and here.

NIPPLEGATE UPDATE: Eric Olsen has thoughts on Janet Jackson’s breast.

ROGER SIMON WONDERS if attacks in Baghdad are timed to influence coverage of the debates tonight. I think that’s quite likely.

IN THE MAIL: John Steele Gordon’s An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power. It looks quite interesting.

I’m getting a lot of books in the mail these days, and it surprises me how good a job the publishers do of sending me things that I actually want to read.

INDCJOURNAL interviews CBS reporters about their rather dubious draft-reinstatement story (based on debunked hoax emails) that was mentioned below.

Best bit, from producer Linda Karas: “The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece, because all the story said was that people were worried. It’s a story about human beings that are afraid of the draft. We did not say that this (e-mail) was true, it’s just circulating. We are not verifying the e-mail.”

And people accuse bloggers of trading in rumor?

UPDATE: In a related matter the folks at CrushKerry are telling Congressional Republicans to back off of RatherGate. “We Don’t Want (Or Need) Your Help.”

KERRY AND THE SOUTH: I’m writing a weekly column for The Guardian between now and the election, and the first one is up.

AT LEAST THEY’RE NOT CALLING THEM ANKLE BITERS, or going on about pajamas. But the Iranian mullarchy is calling Iranian bloggers CIA tools.

If only the CIA had its act together that well. . . .

More on the murky goings-on in Iran here.

By the way, follow the “ankle biters” link above to read a response from Steven Levy, and my reply.

NEWS FROM SAMARRA AND NAJAF: Tim Chavez notes some unreported successes. Well, now they’re reported, at least in the Nashville Tennessean.

UPDATE: See this post, as reporters who were in Iraq dispute some of Chavez’s reports.

IT’S BLOGGERIFIC! This week’s Carnival of the Vanities is up, featuring a vast number of posts from a vast number of blogs. Statistically, quite a few of ‘em are likely to be better than this one, so check them out!

MOVEON VS. GALLUP: The Mystery Pollster weighs in.

MORE THOUGHTS ON VOTING MACHINES AND FRAUD: “People vote, machines don’t.”

HERE’S A LINK TO THE MT. ST. HELENS WEBCAM: At the moment, the clouds are just clouds.

HERE’S MORE on how CBS was snookered by bogus documents again, along with a link to this FactCheck.org debunking.

CBS: Desperately in need of pajamas. Apparently their ankles haven’t been bitten enough to inspire thoroughness and honesty, yet.

UPDATE: Interestingly, this Kerry position on compulsory national service doesn’t get much attention.

WHERE DID ALL THE JOBS GO? NOWHERE. Daniel Drezner writes about outsourcing in today’s New York Times.

ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT VOTER FRAUD, and lots of Bush supporters have been emailing me stories and anecdotes in support of the notion that the Democrats will be “emptying the cemeteries” to ensure that there are plenty of dead people voting for Kerry.

I’ve tended to scoff at these reports — a certain amount of fraud is inevitable, and there are all sorts of reasons for people to make a big deal of the prospects in advance. (Though for a contrary argument, read this.) But having driven by the cemetery pictured at right, I’m beginning to wonder if the dead-people-for-Kerry vote might not be bigger than I thought. . . .

UPDATE: Several readers think I’m underplaying the importance of voter fraud, and one notes that John Fund has a new book out on voter fraud. (More here: “the level of suspicion has grown so dramatically that it threatens to undermine our political system.”) I’m all for positive voter ID, secure voting technologies, and so on. I just hope that the election isn’t close enough for this to matter.

Anyway, Bill Hobbs is all over this topic if you’re interested.

SPACESHIP ONE had some control problems and rolled, forcing an early engine shutdown. But CNN and Fox are reporting that it reached the requisite altitude for a successful X-Prize mission. It’s scheduled for reentry shortly.

UPDATE: A successful flight, and a safe landing. Woohoo!

NPR PRAISES BLOGS AND ISSUES A CORRECTION:

First, we must acknowledge that the blogs have truly arrived. It is hard for journalists who have led a sheltered life without public accountability to acknowledge that those days are over. . . .

There’s then an acknowledgment that their “swing voter” wasn’t quite as swinging as advertised

“We should have known about his political contributions and we should have been tougher when we set out to do this story. We’ll ask him those questions on the air when he comes on the program this week.” Feeney adds that they quizzed Ridley intensively prior to the first interview. He was open about his previous voting record (he has voted for both parties) and that he is now a registered independent. The donations, it seems, never came up.

Part of the problem is describing Ridley as a “swing-voter” — a term that means someone who is waiting to be persuaded, according to NPR’s political editor, Ken Rudin. Ridley has made up his mind enough to give money to political causes in the past. Perhaps a more accurate term (Morning Edition’s gadfly? fence-sitter? wry observer?) might have been coined for the occasion.

Indeed.

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty is less impressed with NPR’s admission: “Ladies and gentleman, in the long and varied history of lame excuses and spin, this may just be the lamest.” You’ve got to walk before you can run, Jim.

I’M GUESSING THAT FahrenHype 9/11 won’t get as much attention as Michael Moore’s film.

But if you’re in Los Angeles tomorrow or Sunday, you’ll be able to see this film about Michael Moore at the Writers Guild Thursday night, or at the Liberty Film Festival on Sunday.

UPDATE: Review here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Michael McFatters reports:

I asked my local Blockbuster last night if they were getting it in on Oct. 5 and the guy didn’t know what I was talking about. But he looked it up anyway and once we had settled on a spelling of Fahrenheit it was quickly revealed that they are in fact recieving two copies. Seeing as how it will be shelved next to Moore’s agitprop I don’t think it will need an enormous advertising budget to attract attention. And word of mouth spreads fast on stuff like this so I’m very encouraged.

Interesting.

DON’T GET COCKY: Howard Kurtz thinks that Republicans are getting overconfident. And Salon’s Farhad Manjoo — who’s been betting on Bush in the Iowa Electronic Markets — now thinks that Bush is overvalued there. (“I think the IEM is overvaluing Bush shares, maybe by a little and possibly by a lot. I’ve arranged my portfolio accordingly.”) Is this right? Beats me.

UPDATE: Reader Karl Bade emails: “Howard Kurtz is ostensibly a media critic. But today’s column reads like a memo to what the Note calls ‘the Gang of 500,’ the message of which is: it is crucial that the media’s post-debate spin favor Kerry.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: More on the futures market here, saying that Manjoo is right.

IN THE MAIL: Michael Novak’s The Universal Hunger For Liberty: Why the Clash of Civilizations Is Not Inevitable. A very positive take on interaction between the West and the Islamic world.