Pretty much a draw...

Stephen Green, liveblogging the debate:

7:45pm. Here's what we have so far. Kerry is an impressive attack machine. Bush impressively refuses to budge. If I had to guess, the question most viewers will ask is, "In time of war, do I want the debate team captain, or the guy he can't move?"

I saw part of the debate. Kerry was more impressive than I expected, but suffered from the basic incoherence of his positions. Bush was not at his best, and was frustrating to listen to because I kept thinking of clever, cutting things he ought to say. (Whoreson caitiff knave, you dare to breath the word Kyoto! You stand accurs'd, your own vote hath condemned thee utterly!) But I'm not the target of these debaters. And the playing field wasn't level, because it was all about debating what Bush has done and said, never what Kerry has done. Of course, he's never done anything, but still, it was unfair.

Monday-morning quarterbacking...

a reader writes:

Andrew Sullivan's "Maybe I need to be clearer" blog today entitled "The War", is a perfect illustration of why John Kerry is in a jam over Iraq. Andrew's at least twice as smart as Kerry, yet even he can't get beyond plain-old monday-morning quarterbacking. Bush made mistakes? Big deal! When it comes to what we should be doing now in Iraq, it's exactly what we are doing. Hold elections, train more troops and get on with reconstruction. Nobody's buying the "woulda, coulda, shouldas" or the "get the French and Germans to help us" bull. I don't see Kerry's way out of this morass. Guess we'll soon find out if he has one.

I'm an old-fashioned conservative Original Sin kind of guy, so I believe that individuals are fallible, institutions are fallible to some multiple of their individuals, and governments the same with bells on. So I'm not much impressed with "vote for me because the other guy made mistakes" arguments...There are always mistakes.

We whack at another Urban Legend...

Robert Novak has an article about urban myths being peddled by Kerry. One of them is that Gen. Shinseki was fired for asking for more troops for Iraq:

...Kerry picked up the story April 13 during a campaign event in Providence, R.I., declaring: "Gen. Shinseki said very clearly: We need 200,000 troops. And what happened to him? He was forced into early retirement." Kerry reiterated this last week at a Columbus, Ohio, press conference: "Gen. Shinseki told this country how many troops we'd need. The president retired him early for telling the truth."

 That is not true, and even Bush critics in the Pentagon know it. The truth is that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, demanding control of the Army, collided with Shinseki on issues unrelated to Iraq. In March 2002, Rumsfeld announced that Shinseki's term as chief of staff would end as scheduled in June 2003 without extension -- an unprecedented action that made the general a lame duck. It was after that, not before it, on Feb. 25, 2003, that Shinseki told a Senate committee the U.S. would need "several hundred thousand" soldiers (not precisely 200,000) for Iraq occupation duty...

My recollection (correct me if I'm wrong) is that Shinseki had a whole iraq plan. And what's being done now by Bush critics is to take one single item of the plan, one that seems good in hindsight, and say, <saddened> "Why, Oh why, didn't we follow the sage advice of this wise wise man?" </saddened>
Ignoring, of course, the other 97% of the plan, which would have left us FUBAR.

I could show you MY plan for invading Iraq and I'm sure you could find something in it to criticize the administration for not doing. What would that mean? NOTHING! Any plan has probably gets something right.

“My summer vacation with a bloodthirsty tyrant,”

Joel Mowbray has a great piece on how Jimmy Carter is happy to "ceritfy" the elections of thugs and dictators, but condemns Florida, which is ruled by something much worse: Republicans.

...In a stomach-turning first-person essay on his trip to Cuba in May 2002 that reads like a “My summer vacation with a bloodthirsty tyrant,” Jimmy Carter writes, “President Castro and I had a friendly chat about growing peanuts” on the way to the hotel, and then later “[t]hat evening President Castro and I had a general discussion of issues and then enjoyed an ornate banquet.” 

With prose that might make even Castro’s PR flacks blush, Carter lavishes praise on Cuba’s “superb systems of health care and universal education,” “a remarkable medical school,” and the “amazing musical and dance performances” of “mentally retarded and physically handicapped children.”  Then, this doozy: that the “fundamental right [of civil liberties enjoyed by Americans to change laws] is also guaranteed to Cubans.”

What Carter neglected to mention was that while he was staying at a hotel off-limits to ordinary Cubans, Castro was probably busy killing a political enemy or jailing innocent citizens...

By the way, constitutionally, our elections are regulated by elected leaders, such as state legislatures, which pass the election laws, and the "secretary of state," who is elected or confirmed by the legislature.

Therefore, when people like Carter imply that there is something fishy about Florida's elections because they are under the control of "highly partisan" officials, like Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris, they are talking nonsense. Un-American nonsense. (And of course they never find anything odd about Democrat election officials, such as when Al Gore asked for recounts only in those counties controlled by Dems.)

To repeat, elected officials and legislatures control elections. And if the people are so lost to decency and sanity as to elect Republicans, tough! Get used to it.

What was fishy was having the Florida Supreme Court trying to run an election. The US Supreme court was correct to put a stop to it.

Update: Also, did you notice the line in Mobray's article: “amazing musical and dance performances” of “mentally retarded and physically handicapped children.”? Communists (and terrorists) study our Lefties, folks, and feed them whatever pap they want. It used to be "model" collective farms, or watching "workers" give a performance. Or having one female astronaut, who makes one flight, and then goes on permanent tour.

Remember Valentina Tereshkova? First woman in space? That must count as the most successful propaganda stunt in history. One factory girl, with less than a year's training, flies in a totally automated spacecraft, and the whole world suddenly believes that the Soviet Union is a paradise of equal rights! And SF writers fell into line, putting female Russian space-commanders into stories. And nobody asked about the other three factory gals who trained with Tereshkova, and then vanished from view once she made her one flight. (I will be charitable, and assume they were just sent back to the tractor factory.) We should have had bloggers back then...

"Don't bite at their bait"

A little bit of the wisdom of W. By Linda Chavez:

George W. Bush once gave me some good advice -- which I never got the opportunity to use -- now I'd like to return the favor. Back when he picked me to be Secretary of Labor in 2001, the then president-elect sat me down in the Texas governor's mansion for a little heart-to-heart talk. "You know they're going to come after you in the Senate confirmation hearings," he said, fully aware that organized labor and other left-leaning groups vociferously opposed my nomination. "I know you can take care of yourself. You could probably come right back at them, and you might be tempted to do that," he added with a smile. "But here's my advice -- and you can take it or leave it: Don't get bogged down in winning the argument. Don't bite at their bait. I'm not telling you what to do," he said, leaning forward in his chair, "but it's what I'd do in your position."...

And that's exactly what Bush does, and it works very well. The absurd lying attacks on his Air National Guard service have been going on since he ran for governor of Texas. Has he whined or complained once? No. Have the attacks worked? No. (Of course he's in a better position than poor Kerry, who has the disadvantage that the attacks on him are largely true.)

I admire intensely the discipline of Bush and his team. I can't imagine being slandered, and just ignoring it.

Liberals are mannered, sensitive.....giant night-flying leeches

Jonah Goldberg quoted this, from a novelist, at The Corner:

At their essence, conservatives are on guard, bristling, armed with a righteous anger, prone to mockery of their enemies, sure of themselves, unwilling to criticize America, especially by comparing it to anyplace else. The attacks of Sept. 11 only confirmed their world view: We are constantly at risk.

Liberals are mannered, sensitive, armed with intellectual cynicism, self-critical, eager to learn from other cultures, wanting there to be no pain in the world. The attacks made them sad and angry, too, but their reflex was more pensive than vengeful.

Pensive. Oh, we so pensive. We no want pain in the world—we shouldn't have inflicted pain on poor Ba'athists. Poor poor Uday and Qusay. We should learn from their culture. We know America bad, so we is "self-critical." But though America is bad, attacks on her made us "sad and angry." Sad we can't focus on important things, like bike paths. Angry at nasty flags.

Armed with "righteous anger," I will try not to barf. But "mockery of our enemies?" It's a duty, when faced with such asininity.

Jonah also quoted this, from the NYT: Experts caution that the race is highly fluid, but Mr. Bush, for now at least, is surging ahead... Fluid? So what, um, exactly, happened to that election we used to hear about, where everyone in this 50-50 nation was committed, and there were few undecided voters?

Oh Peaches...

I'm borrowing this quote from John Ellis' blog, 'cause it's just too funny not to:

Correspondent SK emails in with a winner:

Dear Mr. Ellis,

Our local paper carries today a story of Lech Walesa visiting the Bay Area. It ends with a lovely bit --- I render for your personal enjoyment. "Peaches Torassa, 50, who teaches second-graders in San Pablo, remembered hearing of Walesa during the 1970's.

'He put his life on the line,' said Torassa .... 'To me it's like meeting Fidel Castro.'"

It really made my morning oatmeal.

Reagan was right....

Study: Emission of smog ingredients from trees is increasing rapidly... (thanks to BroJudd)

Eenie Meenie, chili beanie...the spirits are about to speak!

I just heard a clip on the radio, of Senator Kerry talking to Diane Sawyer, who asked, "was the war in Iraq worth it?" Kerry answers...

We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we have today...

Unbelievable. The Kerry standard is precognition!

Democrat Spam...

Betsy Newmark has links and debunking of the widespread e-mails claiming the draft is coming back...Something that's not even remotely close to true.

They line up before dawn...

[from CSM] HOUSTON – Every Friday and Saturday, they line up before dawn: people from around the country who, despite recent news reports, still want to work in Iraq.

The beheadings haven't swayed them, they say, as they wait to find out what openings are available with Houston-based KBR, the subsidiary of Halliburton, which won a $4.5 billion government contract to provide support to the US military.

There are spots for cooks, carpenters, truck drivers, even entertainment specialists - and plenty more open up every day as those who thought they could make it come home.

While last week's beheadings of two American contract workers sent shock waves through communities from Hillsdale, Mich., to Marietta, Ga., remarkably it didn't shorten the lines at recruiting fairs...

One of the things that is most disgusting about this time in politics is the smearing of the Halliburton Corporation. O'my'God, it's connected with War, Oil and Dick Cheney--it's EVIL. What lying crap, When the same company was doing the same kinds of things for Clinton in Bosnia, Al Gore gave them one of his "Excellence in Government" awards. Now they are the Forces of Darkness. How I hate that kind of brainless reflexive LeftThink. STUPID. Of course, if you don't have any positive message, stupid talk is all you can do.

Thank you, men and women of Kellogg, Brown and Root! Thank you for doing the hard and dangerous stuff while people not fit to clean your boots sit home in comfort and sneer and call you "war profiteers."

Yet voters came out in the hundreds of thousands...

You have to read this one, by David Brooks:

Conditions were horrible when Salvadorans went to the polls on March 28, 1982. The country was in the midst of a civil war that would take 75,000 lives. An insurgent army controlled about a third of the nation's territory. Just before election day, the insurgents stepped up their terror campaign. They attacked the National Palace, staged highway assaults that cut the nation in two and blew up schools that were to be polling places.

Yet voters came out in the hundreds of thousands. In some towns, they had to duck beneath sniper fire to get to the polls. In San Salvador, a bomb went off near a line of people waiting outside a polling station. The people scattered, then the line reformed. "This nation may be falling apart," one voter told The Christian Science Monitor, "but by voting we may help to hold it together."...

No one can be sure what will happen in Iraq and Afghanistan, but us warmongers and Republicans have one huge advantage...we are the good guys, and our system works! And the Realist/Postmodernist appeasing Democrats have a huge disadvantage—they are on the wrong side of history. They are reactionaries defending tyranny and inaction, and their system doesn't work. They, like their terrorist allies, may win a skirmish or two, but they will be flattened in the long run.

To quote Brooks again:

On the other hand, over the past 30-odd years, democracy has spread at the rate of one and a half nations per year. It has spread among violence-racked nations and to 18 that are desperately poor. And it has spread not only because it inspires, but also because it works.

You can't outrun the History Train....

(thanks to OJ)

Thank you, thank you, Governor Bush...

And your crew, for smacking down that insufferable fraud, Jimmy Carter.

Florida officials yesterday accused former President Jimmy Carter of a politically motivated effort to undermine voter confidence after the Democrat said in a newspaper column that the state is "likely" to repeat the voting problems that plagued the 2000 presidential election.  State officials also said the former president made no attempt to get up-to-date information before writing a critical opinion piece and never tried to contact the governor's office or that of Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood.

 "This is a shockingly partisan opinion piece, and it's unfortunate that a person such as the former president is being used by the Democratic Party for low-level political rhetoric," said Jacob DiPietre, press secretary for Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.  "It's clear that [Mr. Carter] doesn't have his facts straight. The governor believes that it's ironic that someone who has spent so much time and so much energy encouraging faith in the elections of Third World countries would go to such lengthy, partisan extremes to undermine voter confidence in his own country," Mr. DiPietre said...

...Alia Faraj, a spokesman for the Florida secretary of state, who oversees elections in the state, said Mr. Carter's column appeared to be based on out-of-date information about the state's progress in reforming its voting system.     "Former President Carter has been a statesman," Miss Faraj said, "but in this case, he did not reach out to the secretary of state to have a conversation with her and doesn't recognize all the reforms that we do have in place and have had in place since the 2000 election." ....

...The former president, who runs the Carter Center, which monitors international elections, said "some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida."

    But Rep. Katherine Harris, the secretary of state during the 2000 fight, said that Mr. Carter "appears radically misinformed" about Florida's election reforms since then, "or he is seeking to plant the seeds of illegitimacy for any election a Democrat does not win."

    "Either way, Mr. Carter, who once pledged that he would never lie to us, should avoid spreading the lies of others," the Republican lawmaker said....

My guess is that "planting the seeds of illegitimacy" is exactly what he's doing. It's not going to work very well when the Republicans win in a landslide...

Chap. 11: Journalist, Captured: Care, Feeding and Hoodwinking Of

Here's a transcript of an interview by Tim Russert with General Abizaid. Russert pushes the Party Line hard, but the General isn't having it...

MR. RUSSERT:  A Turkish journalist was captured and then released, and I read very carefully some of her comments and I'd like to share them with you, General.

She said that, "People appeared eager to help anyone they thought was part of the resistance."  She said, "I saw that around Mosul," which is up north, "Everybody is the resistance.  They use the small kids to bring them water and no one treated them like children.  They'd be with the men who are talking about cutting heads and the kids would be standing guard like little men.  So you became afraid of the children too."

"Everyone is the resistance."  Can you win a war in which the populace is aiding the insurgency?

GEN. ABIZAID:  You know, Tim, every now and then in Washington, we need to take a deep breath and we need to look at what's happening in the region as opposed to the reports of one or two journalists that happen to think that everybody in Iraq is in the resistance.  If everybody in Iraq was in the resistance, Prime Minister Allawi would not be trying to lead his nation forward to a better future.  If everybody in Iraq happened to be part of the resistance, they wouldn't be volunteering for the armed forces.  We've got over 100,000 people that are trained and equipped now.  That number is going up higher.  There is more people that are coming forward to fight for the future of Iraq than are fighting against it....

Have you ever noticed that, for every terrorist/communist/guerilla/revolutionary/liberation-from-capitalism-people's-front group, no matter how many innocents they slaughter, there is ALWAYS some journalist to discover that the "militants" are austere, self-sacrificing, almost saintly...and glowing with warm vital folk-virtues that contrast sharply with cold unfeeling Western civilization? And they are always supported by the simple folk? (Remember Fire in the Lake? Gag.)

It doesn't matter what group—Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Mao, Che, Palestinians, Shining Path, Khmer Rouge—some damn dimwit journalist ALWAYS tells us how much more noble they are than us capitalist slobs. Now it's Ba'athist thuggizoids in Mosul! "The Re-zis-tance." What crap. Why not go the whole MichaelMoore, and call them "Minutemen?"

I bet there's a Handbook for Revolutionaries, printed in Zurich in 1912, and still being passed from hand to hand. And Chapter 11 is especially tattered, because that's the one titled: Journalist, Captured: Care, Feeding and Hoodwinking Of.

Wild blue yonder...

By the way, the Weidners will be heading down to Mojave this weekend to watch, if all goes well, the second launch of SpaceShipOne. We have a ticket courtesy of my brother-in-law, who is an engineer at Scaled Composites, (and already, I gather, doodling plans for SpaceShipTwo!)

I hope to blog some good pix...

"on board"

Jack Risko, the Dinocrat, has the dope on Paul Pillar. Worth reading:

...Paul Pillar has a career interest and preference for negotiations as the way to solve conflicts. From his earliest book, he focused on situations where the outcome was not victory. Time and again, he has said that military solutions are not solutions. With regard to Iraq, whether it goes well or poorly, it goes poorly – if terrorism is the question. Clearly Mr. Pillar is not on board with George Bush’s fundamental premises in the Global War on Terror, so it should be no surprise that he is having secret meetings around the country criticizing US policy. Why does this fellow have a job at the CIA?...

Why? Because much of the CIA seems to be "on board' the postmodernist choo-choo, and have no more liking for American fighting for freedom and Western values than Chirac or Kerry do. Terrorism is something we should "live with," and 9/11 was a "tragedy," (mostly for upsetting the status quo, and causing the knuckle-dragging commoners to vote for Republican fascist insects...)

Conference agenda: 1. America admits defeat; 2. France cackles with delight...

You might note this article in the IHT, just in case you were still thinking France might help us in Iraq. Or anywhere. Or is our "ally."

...France said Monday that it would take part in a proposed international conference on Iraq only if the agenda included a possible U.S. troop withdrawal, thus complicating the planning for a meeting that has drawn mixed reactions.

Paris also wants representatives of Iraq's insurgent groups to be invited to a conference in October or November, a call that would seem difficult for the Bush administration to accept...

I guess we will have to keep playing out this French farce until my generation dies off. Much as the residuum of the British Empire seemed vital to my parent's generation. What's actually vital are the improving ties we have with countries that have a future. Such as the way the administration is pushing for stronger ties with India.

(Thanks to PowerLine, which was tipped-off by Steven den Beste...no longer blogging, but still seen in the neighborhood)

Just mentionin'

I just wanted to mention--I'm not AR-GUING with anybody, just mentioning— that I was reading about viruses/worms/Trojan horses/crapware/adware/spyware—and, Mac user that I am, I realized I have only a vague understanding of what those things are. I mean, I know in theory what they are, but I've never encountered any of them in life...

Here's a very interesting essay by John Gruber on why that is. The author makes an analogy with the "broken-window" theory of crime control, where zero tolerance of all sorts of disorder is a powerful deterrent to crime...

...My answer to question posed earlier — why are Windows users besieged with security exploits, while Mac users suffer none? — is that Windows is like a bad neighborhood, strewn with litter, mysterious odors, panhandlers, and untold dozens of petty annoyances. Many Windows users are simply resigned to the fact that their computers contain software that is not under their control. And if they’ll tolerate an annoying application that badgers them with pop-up ads, well, why not a spyware virus that logs every key you type, then sends them back to the creator? (That’s a real virus, by the way, Korgo, which hit Windows at the end of May and is spreading quickly.)...

...The Mac is like a good neighborhood, where the streets are clean and the crime rate low. You don’t need bars on your windows in a good neighborhood; you don’t need anti-virus software on the Mac...

...Arguing that it’s technically possible that the Mac could suffer just as many security exploits as Windows is like arguing that a good neighborhood could suddenly find itself strewn with garbage and plagued by vandalism and serious crime. Possible, yes, but not likely. The security disparity between the Mac and Windows isn’t so much about technical possibilities as it is about what people will tolerate.

And Mac users don’t tolerate shit.

Well, that's true. Particularly, as Gruber points out, we have zero tolerance for vulnerabilities. Someone points out a theoretical OS-X vulnerability, and it's NEWS! And the complaining starts. "This was pointed out two days ago! When is the Apple Security Update coming out? What's the matter with those guys!"

"the only certainty is that nothing is certain"

From a good article by John Zvesper, on how the world ignored the President's UN speech:

...However, there was also (at best) a tepid response to Bush among the representatives of liberal democratic regimes, and this needs further explanation. What most offended these sophisticated UN delegates was Bush’s rejection of their postmodern pieties, their unwavering faith in the dogmas of pragmatism and moral and cultural relativism. Bush justified his call for the expansion of liberty by asserting that "the dignity of every human life" is "honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance." Many of these traditional liberal principles have become suspect in pragmatic, "progressive" circles.

But especially grating to the postmodern mentality that dominates sophisticated minds in liberal democracies is Bush’s claim that "we know with certainty" that "the desire for freedom resides in every human heart," and that therefore the "bright line between justice and injustice—between right and wrong—is the same in every age, and every culture, and every nation." Recognition of such self-evident truths is completely inadmissible in the postmodern faith, in which the only certainty is that nothing is certain...

What Bush is promoting is the "culture of life." And the "culture of death," which we see displayed here, can be discerned by certain signs. God is mislaid, and there is little desire to sacrifice for future generations, for one's country, or to help distant strangers. Economies stagnate, birthrates go down, old people become burdensome, abortion is cherished, and euthanasia is attractive. Objective truth, and right and wrong, are considered outdated concepts. And invariably, the reaction to George W Bush is to break out in hives....

a couple of good things....

1. There's a story about a National Guard unit being sent to Iraq without any weapons. Be prepared to hear that the heartless Bush Administration is sending our troops naked into battle. Be prepared to refute this:

...The 98th Division (Training) is a training unit and because of its mission is not authorized its own organic weapons. They do not need them to complete their mission statement. This “authorization” was completed decades ago by planners. When they need weapons , another unit will issue them weapons that they will then be responsible for. When they leave Iraq, they will then return the weapons to that unit.

2. Powerline has re-posted an account, by a rabbi they know, of a meeting with President Bush. Good stuff.

3. Powerline also has a powerful comparison of an AP piece by Jennifer Lovens, a hit piece on the "Clear Skies" legislation, compared with an article written by her husband, Roger Ballentine, who is listed on John Kerry's website as one of Kerry's most important supporters on environmental issues. Guess what, they are very similar. They both call it the so-called "Clear Skies" legislation.

When you hear those desperate lies about how the Bush Administration is pillaging the environment, consider the source....

I don't have to draw you a map....

Shannon Love has performed a valuable service in this post.

She linked to this map, of population density in Iraq, which I here present in compressed form:

And then she created another map, here, of all 58 U.S. combat fatalities for the month of September to date, by provinces of Iraq. Again, here's my compressed version (If you can't read the legend, green is zero deaths, yellow is 2-5, and red 20+):

She writes:

Of course, other months would have slightly different maps. During Al-Sadar's uprising the province of Al Najaf would have been red for example. But the overall pattern is clear. The "insurgency" is geographically concentrated. Most of Iraq sees little or no violence directed against the Coalition. For example, a minimum of 29 of the fatalities occured within a 50 kilometer radius of a point halfway between Falujah and Baghdad.

I think Random Jottings readers are mentally acute enough that I don't have to point out the obvious. Remember these maps, when liars tell you that Iraq is sliding into hopeless anarchy, that "the Shi'ites have risen against us," that we are in a quagamire....the usual stuff.

" there is no objective truth -- neither side is right or wrong."

Ace of Spades points out this 2002 article, which gives us an interesting window into the minds of the people who bring you the news....

...After Dan Rather left, I spent some time with his producer, discussing her viewpoints of what was currently happening in Israel. After seeing the tone of her news segment, I was concerned. I began to question her about accuracy in reporting.

Her answer was even more shocking than what I had already observed. "The thing is," she told me, "it is impossible to be objective in this situation. The fact is that there is no objective truth -- neither side is right or wrong."

"Wait a minute," I asked her. "When a Palestinian straps on a belt of dynamite lined with nails and walks into a pizza shop, blowing up innocent people, that wouldn't be objectively wrong?"

"Of course I would think that is wrong," she answered me. "But the Palestinians believe this is a legitimate form of warfare. And they would say the Israelis are doing the same to them by killing innocent civilians when they retaliate militarily. Who am I to say what is right or wrong? Who am I to say that the Palestinians are wrong in their beliefs?"

"But don't you think there's a difference between a person blowing himself up in a restaurant, and a military that responds by searching for and killing terrorists. Granted that innocent civilians are killed in both circumstances -- but in one situation the innocents are targeted, and in the other situation they are regrettably caught in the line of fire?"

"Well, that's a very Western way of looking at things. You see I'm Christian and American. I see things the way you do as an Israeli -- we have the same moral framework. But the Arabs view things differently, and who's to say that we're right and they're wrong?"....

You should read the article. One interesting thing is that this unnamed producer, who confidently opines here about the Palestinians, is totally ignorant of what's going on. The author is trying to explain to her what the Temple Mount is, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Golden Dome, and the Western Wall. Amazin'. Probably learned in college those clever and slippery Post-Modern ways to say it's OK to kill Jews, and hasn't had to rev-up her brain cells since....

"We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily"

The Daschle v Thune blog posted this tasty morsel of hypocrisy:

In 1998 when Bill Clinton was President:

"Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? … This is the key question. And the answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

— Tom Daschle Senate Democratic Leader talking about Iraq with a Democrat President.

In 2003 when George W. Bush was President:

"I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."

— Tom Daschle Senate Democratic Leader talking about Iraq with a Republican President.

Coincidences...

Apparently Phillip Roth is coming out with an alternate history novel, The Plot Against America, where the Isolationist Charles Lindbergh runs for President in 1940, and keeps us out of WWII.

Orrin Judd begs us not to accept the popular caricature of Lindbergh as a Nazi-type racist. This is from a book review by Orrin of the biography Lindbergh, by A. Scott Berg:

...None of this excuses Lindbergh's ill considered language about Jews.  But it does raise the question of why he is the one who is dogged by the reputation of being an anti-Semite and a Nazi.  When you think of FDR, your first thought is not: "He was an anti-Japanese, anti-Black racist".  But he actually wielded power and helped to oppress these peoples.  Lindbergh never had a chance to violate anyone's civil rights, but his entire life seems to indicate that he would not have been capable of these actions.  (For a long time he prayed for the soul of the Japanese pilot that he shot down.)  It is completely unfair that this reputation will always follow him.

Moreover, his reasons for being an isolationist turned out to be prophetic.  He foresaw a brutally destructive war that would leave Europe in ruins and at the mercy of the Soviet Union.  He feared that having become involved in the war, America would be mired in Europe for generations.  After fifty years of Cold War and crippling military expenditures, who will argue that he was wrong?

Topping it all off, as soon as the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, he endorsed our entry into the war and sought to join up.  A bitterly vindictive FDR made sure that he could not return to active duty, but Lindbergh found ways around this and eventually flew fighter and bomber missions in the South Pacific, in addition to helping with aircraft design, devising ingenious ways of conserving fuel in flight, serving as a human guinea pig in high altitude flight experiments, and many other unheralded contributions to the war effort...

I don't know much about Roth's book yet, but a plot where a Republican is elected President, and America immediately turns into a Nazi-like state? Hmmmmmmm. Haven't I heard something like that lately? Probably not, it would be strange if more than one person came up with that idea. A strange coincidence....

Oh vell, ven mein President iss re-elected unanimously, zen vee vill no longer tolerate zeese insults!

Update: It occurs to me that I may have this wrong. I assumed this was just another iteration of the half-witted Bush-is-Hitler cackle we hear so much of. But if it's a book about an appeaser elected (improbably) President, who keeps America on the sidelines while crazed fanatics slaughter helpless people and the world slides into savagery, well, kinda sounds like a devastating portrait of Kerry and the Dems.

I somehow doubt that that's what's intended. Being a writer or artist means, above all, that you have to conform. I don't think Mr Roth would be allowed to deviate so far from the official line....

"Leopard never changes his spots!"

If you wonder how our troops in Iraq feel about "Senator" Kerry's encouragement of terrorists, and disparagement of our work in Iraq, here's a Marine's father's post by Grim at Mudville Gazette:

Da Grunt [his son] called on Wed night (Thur morning 0200) and was waiting on a C-130 to fly him and the boys to Kuwait! He's out of it and in one piece.

And we'd best be keeping him and his compadres away from John Kerry for awhile! They are not real fond of him right now considering he threw them under the bus and they spent their last week fighting like hell because, and I quote, "The a**hole has let these %^&$* believe they can win and we're paying the price! Half of everything we worked so hard to do has gone to s**t!". I don't believe Kerry will get the Marine vote! If the new guys survive his rhetoric. Everyone over there will sure feel better when November comes! BTW, there was a huge absentee vote before the new guys went over. Enough politics but I thought y'all should know what the real story about the "quagmire" is and who is getting our boys killed again. Leopard never changes his spots! (In case you didn't notice, I'm really pissed at the crap spewed out this week and so is my son who had to pay a price for it!)....

The Democrats really deserve to lose. And yes I know there are many solid patriotic Americans who are Dems. Long my they prosper. But the heart of the party is rotten. And Kerry isn't real, he's just a sort of psychic projection of the "Democrat Base." If all the "Progressives" and "activists" were to magically disappear, Kerry would collapse and turn to mist and blow away, like Saruman...

Yom Kippur, 5765

"the Lord, the Lord God Is Gracious and Compassionate, Patient, Abounding in Kindness and Faithfulness, Assuring Love for a Thousand Generations, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, and granting pardon."

Exodus: 34:6-7

On Yom Kippur, Jews around the world gather to mark the holiest day of the year, the Sabbath of Sabbaths. Jewish tradition teaches that on this day, we receive God's mercy through acts of atonement, prayer, and charity. During this season of prayer and intense reflection, may you find comfort in God's promise, which has never been broken and which is renewed in our time.

Our trust in God gives all Americans great purpose. As we are called to acts of compassion and mercy, we come closer to God and serve a cause greater than ourselves. May you trust God's faithfulness to all people, and may you be blessed with a good and happy New Year.

GEORGE W. BUSH
[link]

(thanks to O Judd)

a few paces into the jungle...

Our friend Dave often jogs me out of my rut by posting strange things. This post, quoting David Niewert on how Republicans are morphing into some sort of Gatoraide fascism, is particularly interesting. But I'm afraid I have little future as an intrepid explorer hacking through jungles....The first paragraph was all I could manage. Here are some thoughts... [Not just pot-shots for fun, this does tie in with some other things I've been writing about]

[O]ne only needs review the current state of affairs to recognize that the "conservative movement" -- especially as embodied by the Bush administration -- has wandered far astray from its original values. Just how "conservative" is it, after all, to run up record budget deficits? To make the nation bleed jobs? To invade another nation under false pretenses? To run roughshod over states' rights? To impose a radical unilateralist approach to foreign policy? To undermine privacy rights and the constitutional balance of power? To quanitifably worsen the environment, while ignoring the realities of global warming? To grotesquely mishandle the defense of our national borders?

Mr Niewert seems to have absorbed some DNC talking points, labeled them "conservative original values," and is now complaining that we are fascists for not following them!

"To run up record budget deficits?" Conservatives have often supported budget deficits, especially in wartime. Reagan used them to splendid effect, to both revive our economy and bring the Soviet Union to its knees. And those paid off so handsomely that the debt that was incurred during the Reagan years is now a trifle compared to our much-enlarged economy. Also, the current deficit is only "record-breaking" in absolute numbers of dollars; it's historically unexceptional as a percentage of the GDP. That's a deceptious argument, typically Niewertian, and calls into doubt his whole project. If making your point requires telling tricky lies, why should we pay attention?

"To make the nation bleed jobs?" That's untrue, just more Democrat-campaign BS. We always lose jobs in recessions, but the Clinton-dot.com recession is now long over and our economy is growing strongly, including employment. But even if it's TRUE, what "conservative principal" is involved? Guaranteed employment? Protectionism? Those are conservative ideas? Gimme a break. Conservatives have generally supported Free Markets, and guess what—sometimes that means economic pain, and loss of jobs.

"To invade another nation under false pretenses?" That's Kerry's argument. Most American conservatives disagree with him. I disagree with him. And the legalistic "International Law" pettifoggery that underlies the argument has never been a conservative principle. Nor has the type of thinking that usually accompanies such arguments: Saddam should be treated with respect, America should be treated with suspicion and doubt. That's exactly how America-hating "anti-war" activists think. That's how Jimmy Carter thinks. Never conservatives.

"To run roughshod over states' rights?" That one has some validity; most conservatives are more federalist than the administration. Though it doesn't make them "cupcake-fascists" any more than any of his arguments. Liberal Democrats have been long-been strongly anti-States Rights, so why aren't they "fascists?" Why isn't that worrisome?

"To impose a radical unilateralist approach to foreign policy?" So, now Jaques and Kofi are conservatives? American conservatives have traditionally been unilateralists. We hated the UN from the git-go. And there's nothing particularly radical about unilateralism, (or about preemption) at a time when rogue nations can build nuclear bombs. (I'll bet Niewert doesn't even want to know about all that Iraqi Uranium recently transported to Oak Ridge.)

"To undermine privacy rights and the constitutional balance of power?" Now the ACLU is conservative? We've reduced privacy during every war, and current items are trifling compared to past wars. Conservatives accept trade-offs in these things, we are not absolutists. It's the "theorist" types, such as socialists and libertarians, who can't flex when circumstances warrant.

"To quanitifably worsen the environment, while ignoring the realities of global warming?" Now Al Gore is conservative? If Niewert actually knew what he was talking about, or cared, he would know that conservatives have been arguing against global-warming pseudo-science for decades, and against the anti-capitalist agenda that pushes it. And he would know that the administration has a good environmental record, (except in the minds of collectivists.) If Niewert actually bothered to check with some conservatives, he would discover that we care about the environment as much as the general run of Americans do, though we strongly reject the anti-human-being and nature-as-pseudo-religion arguments of environmental extremists.

"To grotesquely mishandle the defense of our national borders?" One can argue the merits of the current border policy, but it would NOT be a clear question of conservative values, which are conflicted here. Many conservatives treasure our openness to immigrants and visitors, others would like to bar the doors. But more importantly, a more vigorous defense of our borders would certainly involve reducing privacy and freedom, increasing government spending, and increasing the power of Federal bureaucracies. And Niewert thinks were are trending fascist because we are NOT doing these things? That's cuckoo.

Anyway, that's what I think of the first paragraph. Neiwert has obviously decided on his thesis, then gone looking for any argument that might support it. I'd feel foolish to have wasted this amount of time on it were it not that this is a very good example of what I've been talking about in my writings on the 70-Year Cycle in American politics. When the two parties exchange majority/minority status, many who didn't see it coming are left shell-shocked and bewildered and bitter. The world they grew up with is suddenly gone. They embrace cranky theories. Many Republicans talked just like Niewert in the 1930's, though in their case they thought FDR and the Dems were communists. And Lincoln seemed equally menacing and dangerous to many, (and, to push the argument back another 70 years, so did the Founding Fathers.)

Also, some of the things complained about are actually the Republicans now assuming positions that have always belonged to the majority party in our country. For instance, from the 1860's to the 1930's, the Democrats were the party of limited government and States-Rights, and they were the deficit valetudinarians! Seems hard to believe, but it's true. Then, during the 1930's, the Republicans took over those roles, and held them until recently, while Dems embraced active government. Now we are flipping positions again. It seems monstrous if you don't understand what's happening.

Another point that should be made. There is not, and never was, any such thing as "fascism." It is a mythical beast. Those "fascist" regimes famous in history were actually just socialism tricked out in a few scraps of conservative and nationalist and militarist rhetoric. Both types of socialism have found it hugely useful to pretend to be protecting the world against the other type. Neither have anything to do with principled conservatism.

The funny thing is, when he's not riding his hobbyhorse Mr Niewert is a lucid and compelling writer. I remember a previous essay he wrote, where he discussed delightfully the near impossibility of defining the term fascism. He explained how philosophers and scholars have spent entire careers trying to pin it down, without success. Guess why, folks.....

"just a smattering of applause"

A reader writes:

I'm watching Kerry live, giving a major terrorism address. Can't they at least put him in front of a large enthusiastic audience? He's getting just a smattering of applause. I thought it was easy to round up a political crowd. This is embarrassing!

I think they need to announce ahead of time what position Mr Kerry will be taking. Then the 20% or 30% of his "supporters" who agree with that stance can turn out enthusiastically. And the others can hope for next week.

I'm guessing that the current version is "the real Kerry," to the extent that that concept has any meaning. Someone pointed out that the one time in Kerry's life when he spoke clearly and without "nuance," the one time that no one had any trouble figuring out what his position was...was when he was attacking his own country and slandering his fellow vets, and helping Commies to enslave and murder millions of people.

The current spate of ugly lying attacks on Iraq and Prime Minister Allawi smell like the real stuff to me.

"But first to arms, to armor...."

FIRST FIGHT. THEN FIDDLE.

First fight. Then fiddle. Ply the slipping string
With feathery sorcery; muzzle the note
With hurting love; the music that they wrote
Bewitch, bewilder. Qualify to sing
Threadwise. Devise no salt, no hempen thing
For the dear instrument to bear. Devote
The bows to silks and honey. Be remote
A while from malice and from murdering.
But first to arms, to armor. Carry hate
In front of you and harmony behind.
Be deaf to music and to beauty blind.
Win war. Rise bloody, maybe not too late
For having first to civilize a space
Wherein to play your violin wiith grace.

-- Gwendolyn Brooks 1949

(Thanks to Jason Van Steenwyk)

Notable and quotable...

“We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest.”

– John Kerry, on CNN’s Crossfire, in 1997.

(Quote lifted from Polipundit)

Well, duh....

When political leaders sound the sirens of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence. -- interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi of Iraq

And when a major-party presidential candidate smacks his lips happily because two Americans were beheaded, and hints that he migh cut-and-run, guess what sort of little lightbulb is going to appear over the head of a certain Al Qaeda leader in Iraq......"Hmmm, I wonder what beheading four Americans would achieve??? or 8, or 16..."

Tokyo Rose

Ralph Peters writes:

IMAGINE if, in the presidential election of 1944, the candidate opposing FDR had insisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific.

We would have called it treason. And we would have been right.

In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt.

Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear.

Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq?

And if he does care about our soldiers and Marines, why is he broadcasting remarks that insist — against all hard evidence — that the terrorists are winning?....

Along the same line, imagine if, during the Second World War, President Roosevelt had met with General DeGaulle, and Republican leaders in Dewey's campaign had sneered at DeGaulle as a "puppet?" While claiming that Roosevelt was turning away "allies?" And at the very moment when Free French troops were fighting with Allied forces?

That's the situation we have right now. Conscienceless is exactly the word for Kerry and his campaign. Also unpatriotic.

And speaking as a Republican, my party supports our country in wartime, even when Dems are running our wars. (For example, recall a recent time period called THE TWENTIETH CENTURY!) And I feel pretty bitter that "Democrats" now don't seem to feel any obligation to return the favor. SCOUNDRELS!

My apologies, Mr Prime Minister...

...On behalf of my countrymen, who can sometimes be insular and unsophistcated, with no idea how to treat a foreign guest....

From The Corner:

My favorite part of the day was in the Rose Garden when the reporters kept asking Bush about how horribly things were going and Bush finally said (paraphrasing here) "because I ask him and talk to him," referring to Allawi, "and I believe him," he said looking right at the reporter. It was great. Similarly, another reporter asked Bush another question about how the conditions in Iraq, he was flustered and said "why don't you ask him" referring again to Allawi, "you have the Prime Minister of Iraq here, why ask me?" Again, great point. You could see that the reporters didn't care a bit about what Allawi had to say about what his firsthand impression of Iraq was, they just wanted to hammer Bush over and over. I don't think they succeeded. It was pretty obvious they were desperate to ignore Allawi and the positive message he was bringing.

The mainstream press is just pathetic..."desperate to ignore Allawi..." that sums it up.

Desperate to ignore a whole bunch of things....

"So I know that this is nonsense..."

I recommend this NRO piece by Cathy Seipp. I can personally attest to its accuracy...

...What's really frightening, the conventional wisdom goes, is the crudely intolerant agenda of Christian fundamentalists. But unlike most of the media (and Hollywood) elite, I grew up surrounded by Christian fundamentalists. So I know that this is nonsense...

Utterly dead-on true. I come from the same place...

...It's hard to remember now how lily white great stretches of southern California used to be, but they really were in those days, and by white I mean really white. My dark-eyed, brunette mother often said she felt surrounded by the Burghers of Munich. Visitors would occasionally feel free to look at her and inquire: "So are you Spanish or Portuguese or what?"

Not that I was exactly a Tragic Mulatto, but we never quite fit in. We were liberal, upper-middle-class (in attitude, not income) Jews, from Canada, surrounded by people descended from Okies from Muskogee. My mother volunteered for the George McGovern campaign in 1972 and I helped stuff envelopes.

What I only realized after I grew up and moved away was how decent and tolerant these boring, suburban neighbors were...

True true true. I was there. I grew up a Baptist in Orange County (famous for the John Birch Society.) It was really "Red State America" back then, you just can't imagine if you don't know it. A large part of the population had migrated from the heartland. And it amazes me now to recall how many of them worked tirelessly to help us kids grow up right— as teachers, Sunday School teachers, scout leaders, or just neighbors. I may be an "urban sophisticate" now, but I have a very good understanding of how they think in places like Oklahoma or Texas. And I would prefer Okies over the smug prissy do-gooders of Berkeley any day. They are better human beings.

So it just burns me up to hear Lefty lack-wits proclaim that Christian fundamentalists are a danger. I know better. And I'm doubly annoyed because I know that they would not be interested in any evidence I can provide. Just like Dan Rather doesn't want to hear anyone say that the President was a top-notch fighter pilot. Their ears and hearts are closed.

Likewise, I fume when I'm told that Republicans are really just a bunch of fascists plotting to establish our tyranny. Or that Rush Limbaugh is an intolerant hypocrite. I know better. Personally. Charlene and I hob-nob with Republicans. We hear the gossip. We've talked to people who've talked to Bush or Cheney.

"Are we there yet?...Are we there yet?"

Thomas Sowell writes:

...Has the war in Iraq gone according to plan? No! But name any war that did...

....Mistakes in war are not new. What is new is a widespread lack of realism about war, especially among people who have never been in the military, who are like the proverbial little kid on a trip who keeps asking: "Are we there yet?"...

If you delve under the surface layers of history, you will discover that all wars resemble blundering about in the dark. And almost always the enemy looks more formidable than he is, because we don't know about his problems...

A good battle to contemplate now is Guadalcanal. If this were September 1942, the sort of people who support Senator Kerry would be pointing out that the Guadalcanal Campaign is utter folly and disaster, and we should cut our losses and retreat. It would look that way. Our Marines are penned-up in a few square miles, on the defensive, ill-supplied, hungry, glad to dine on captured Japanese rice. Our naval forces are being defeated repeatedly in savage night-battles, giving us the immortal name, "Ironbottom Sound." Japanese warships can bombard our forces with impunity. At night.

Someone might say it was the wrong battle at the wrong place and time. And he would be totally wrong. The Japanese rule at night, but during the daytime the situation is reversed. We hold little Henderson Field, the only airstrip in the area. An unsinkable aircraft carrier. We are sometimes reduced to an handful of battered planes flown by exhausted pilots, but as long as they are there, we dominate the whole area by day. Japanese ships have to retreat before sunrise.

And most importantly, Japanese bombers and fighters have to fly from Rabaul or Kavieng, hundreds of miles away. They are operating at extreme range, where even slight damage probably means that a plane and crew will be lost. But our planes can be shot-up repeatedly with planes and pilots surviving to fight again. The Japs are at this time superior to us in the air, but we have forced them to fight at an extreme disadvantage, in a campaign that is steadily whittling away their air forces.

(Thanks to Betsy Newmark)

Letter from Iraq....

This post by Hugh Hewitt includes a great letter from an Army Captain in Iraq...

...But my favorite story to tell you is the one that Natalie shared. She told us about a convoy that was traveling in Baghdad yesterday and it was hit by an IED. Unfortunately, one of the vehicles was so close to the seat of the explosion that it injured two of the soldiers in the vehicle. A Mercedes who had passed the convoy, saw the explosion in his rear view mirror and turned around to double back. When he got there, he got out of his car to help. The soldiers, all pulling security now as the medic tried to tend to the wounded, pointed their weapons at him, unsure of his intentions. The Iraqi man put up his hands and said in broken English, "I'm here to help!" He pointed to his cell phone in his hand. "Please tell me who I should call for help." The soldiers lowered their weapons and gave him the number to call. In the meantime, another vehicle came up behind the convoy. An Iraqi man ran over to the exploded vehicle where the soldier lay on the ground. With his hands raised as well, he told them, "I am a doctor, please let me help." With tears in her eyes, Natalie told us that he probably saved that soldier's life....

If you drift around the Internet, and the blogs, you encounter a lot of communications from our good people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funny thing, they all seem to say that the Dems and Big Media are lying to us. I guess our troops are all delusional.

Sic semper terroristas...

Omar writes:

A group of Iraqi citizens in Al Karkh/ Khidr Al Yas arrested 6 Syrian terrorists after placing a land mine at the gate of Bab Al Mu’a dam bridge from Al Karkh side.

According to New Sabah newspaper, after a road side bomb exploded missing an American convoy that was patrolling in the area, a group of citizens who happened to be there noticed a bunch of young men who looked foreigners (turned out to be Syrians) that were gathering near the place and that looked suspicious. The citizens found their atittude very suspicious and they were not from the area, so they jumped on them and kicked them until some of them started to bleed and then turned them on to the American forces. Eyewitnesses said that the citizens were shouting “Terrorists. You are targeting our children and families. You are killing our youths”

This incident that took place near Haifa street comes after many attacks that terrorist Arabs were accused of carrying against American forces and Iraqi police stations...

Kofi Anan would probably say that they were violating "International Law."

"Don't bounce it. They'll boo ya!"

You have to watch this movie clip, Nine Innings, about the President throwing the first pitch, in a Series game at Yankee Stadium after 9/11. It's an extract, I think, from an HBO documentary titled Nine Innings from Ground Zero, that tells the story of the 2001 World Series in New York.

Cops galore, fans being searched, going through metal detectors...guys with automatic weapons, bomb dogs in the locker room. Secret Service men dressing as umpires...

And the President of the United States shows up in the locker room...

Derek Jeter: "...and I asked him if he was gonna be throwing the first pitch from the mound or the base of the mound."

Bush: "I thought I'd throw from the base of the mound."

Jeter: "I wouldn't do that, Mr President. You better throw it from the mound, or you're gonna get booed. This is Yankee Stadium..."

Bush: "...And he's walking out and he looks over his shoulder and says, 'Don't bounce it. They'll boo ya!' All of a sudden the pressure mounted...I'm sittin there, feeling fairly relaxed, and all of a sudden, the great Derek Jeter says 'Don't bounce it.'"

I love this stuff. And just think about it...This is the President of the United States of America, and guys on a baseball team know instinctively they can tease him. Kinda makes the Leftizoids who say he's a theocratic fascist monster look pretty stupid.

(Thanks to Mike)

I want that list!

From Senator Kerry's recent speech:

...by one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded...

Who'd have thought it? 23!

Strange, I thought the Dem Party Line was that the only rationale for liberating Iraq was WMD's?

And come to think of it, haven't I encountered a lot of Lefty-bloggers who write, "I've never had anyone give me any good solid reason why we should invade Iraq." I always send them my list of Ten Reasons, but strange to tell, they never seem to give me any reaction to them...only silence.

I guess I'm too minimalist. If I could come up with a list of 23, now that would be impressive. But I think that's beyond my powers. Does anybody have the list of 23? Is it published? I would be very interested. I want that list! But I predict it will turn out to be as elusive as Dan Rather's unimpeachable sources...

"I have a little list"

RatherBiased has posted a little list of apologies they don't expect to hear...

More than likely, any CBS "apology" is going to be very tempered and llikely reiterate previous network statements that "no one has challenged the content of our report." This is flatly false. A number of people have criticized CBS's reporting including the White House, President Bush's father, the Killian family, Ben Barnes's daughter Amy Barnes Stites, as well as several of Bush's former associates including Col. Walter Staudt, Col. Bobby Hodges, as well as Bush's roommate Dean