I’m about half finished reading the full-length book version of Thomas Barnett’s The Pentagon’s New Map. It’s an easy read and very thought-provoking. I’ll post my observations in some detail when I’ve finished reading it (at the rate I’m going that should be in a day or so).

Reading the book has made me start thinking again about something that’s been sadly missing in the presidential campaign—a vision for the future. I’ve heard a lot of promises, policies, and, well, bloviations but no clear and compelling vision from either candidate.
[continue reading…]

The Chicago Tribune has endorsed Bush for re-election:

This year, each of us has the privilege of choosing between two major-party candidates whose integrity, intentions and abilities are exemplary.

One of those candidates, Sen. John Kerry, embraces an ongoing struggle against murderous terrorists, although with limited U.S. entanglements overseas. The other candidate, President George W. Bush, talks more freely about what is at risk for this country: the cold-eyed possibility that fresh attacks no better coordinated than those of Sept. 11–but with far deadlier weapons–could ravage American metropolises. Bush, then, embraces a bolder struggle not only with those who sow terror, but also with rogue governments that harbor, finance or arm them.

This was a radical strategy when the president articulated it in 2001, even as dust carrying the DNA of innocents wafted up from ground zero. And it is the unambiguous strategy that, as this page repeatedly has contended, is most likely to deliver the more secure future that John McCain wishes for our children.

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

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

[…]

For three years, Bush has kept Americans, and their government, focused–effectively–on this nation’s security. The experience, dating from Sept. 11, 2001, has readied him for the next four years, a period that could prove as pivotal in this nation’s history as were the four years of World War II.

That demonstrated ability, and that crucible of experience, argue for the re-election of President George W. Bush. He has the steadfastness, and the strength, to execute the one mission no American generation has ever failed.

The whole thing is well worth reading. The Trib, I think, has got it about right. Actually, I think they’re being kind. These are both deeply flawed candidates.

Waddaya know, the Chicago Tribune is a one issue voter!

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! While you’re here I hope you’ll take a look around.

UPDATE: Joe Gandelman the excellent editor-in-chief of The Moderate Voice has an interesting post on Dean’s World which he gives some very reasonable, moderate (what else?) commentary and links to the running tally from Editor & Publisher.

UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis has a really nice observation:

What’s striking is how both editorials are really about Bush: The Times is against Bush far more than it is for Kerry. In fact, the Tribune has more good things to say about Kerry, whom ie does not endorse, than The Times does.

On October 16, 1758 in West Hartford, Connecticut, one of the most influential people in American history was born: Noah Webster. He published his first dictionary in 1806 and in 1828 he published his American Dictionary of the English Language.

You see, Webster was a patriot. He believed in an American national identify that was distinct from England. He believed in an American language. His dictionary included distinctly American words like chipmunk, hickory, and chowder. Have you ever wondered why conventional American spelling differs from conventional English spelling in words like honor (English honour) or color (English colour)? Webster’s Dictionary. He attempted to rationalize American spelling of English to spell words more closely to the way they are pronounced in America. Not all of his attempted spelling reforms caught on viz. dawter for daughter.

But his dictionary standardized meanings, spelling, and pronunciation of words in the young country. As the frontier moved West Mr. Webster’s Dictionary moved with it. For many people if they had two books they were the Bible and Webster’s Dictionary. And that united a country that otherwise might have diverged much, much further than it did.

Lookin’ out my backdoor.

Fall has set in with a vengeance. When I went out with Qila and Jenny this morning on our walk the temperatures were in the high thirties. I tried to convince them that I needed to go back and get my jacket (and gloves) but they were so keen to get on the trail that they convinced me to go right on ahead without extra clothes.

We’ve got yardwork on the schedule today—clearing out the dead foliage, maybe a little late reseeding.

There’s been some little bit of comment about Mr. Kerry’s mentioning Dick Cheney’s daughter, Mary, during the last presidential debate. You can get the flavor of the discussion in the comments section of this post on Winds of Change. Making use of a candidate’s family, even attacking members of a candidate’s family has been a commonplace in American politics for a long time and is not restricted to any particular party.

During his final re-election campaign in 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt found himself defending his Scottish Terrier, Fala, from political attack:

“The Republicans have not been content with attacking me, my wife, or my son. They have also attacked my little dog, Fala, as well.”

It’s no new thing.

The latest Carnival of the Recipes is up. This week it’s returned to its original home and is being hosted by Beth Donovan of She Who Will be Obeyed!. Recipes for Syrian Nutmeg Bread, several chocolate cake recipes, quail (!), Lemon Garlic Chicken, and a host of others from some of the best cooks in the blogosphere. And alcoholic beverages will be consumed.

On Sundays in the fall when I was a kid the family frequently took drives out in the country looking for fall colors. And just as often we’d have lunch in a little restaurant in the foothills of the Ozarks that had real country cooking. A prominent item on the menu there was chicken and dumplings. We’d get home after sunset and typically we’d have soup as our evening meal.

Last Sunday I noticed the barest beginnings of autumn colors slipping into the leaves of the still mostly green trees. And I got a real taste for chicken and dumplings but I didn’t want to take the time to make real chicken and dumplings so I came up with this quick substitute. It combines both the chicken and dumplings and soup memories from my childhood. I hope you enjoy it as much as we did.

Chicken and Dumplings Soup

Two large servings

8 oz. skinless, boneless chicken breast (two split breasts)
½ medium onion, peeled and diced
1 carrot, peeled and cut into &frac12 inch dice
1 celery stalk cut into &frac12 inch dice
1 medium boiling potato, peeled cut into ½ inch dice
4 cups chicken stock
Pepper
Pinch dried thyme leaves
Pinch dried sage
1 Tbsp. cooking oil

&frac12 recipe Basic Biscuits using plain white flour as your flour, butter as your fat, and milk as your liquid

1. Saute the onions and celery in the cooking oil in a 2 quart saucepan over medium heat until the onions are transparent.
2. Add the carrot, thyme, and sage and saute for about 1 minute.
3. Add the stock and bring to the boil.
4. Poach the chicken breast with the stock and vegetables following the directions in How to poach a chicken breast.
5. Remove the chicken breast from the stock, cut into 1 inch chunks and return it to the pot.
6. Add the potato to the pot.
7. Using a teaspoon spoon the biscuit dough into pot ½ teaspoon at a time.
8. Season with pepper, simmer covered for 12 minutes, and serve.

I followed the live-blogging of last night’s debate on Ann Althouse’s blog, Captain’s Quarter’s, Hugh Hewitt’s blog, the Llamabutchers, Medpundit, The Spoons Experience, Talkleft, and Vodkapundit.

One thing was clear: even strong drink couldn’t make this debate appear very interesting. Terminal debate fatigue. Thank goodness they’re over.

I like Hugh Hewitt’s tabular presentation but as someone else pointed out, he grades on the curve. He’s so pro-Bush that you just can’t take his opinion completely seriously. I thought the Llamabutchers had an off night.

I’d give the advantage to Ann Althouse, closely followed by Medpundit. They managed to wring some interest from what was a pretty tiresome exchange.

And two demerits to Glenn Reynolds and Steve Green for snickering and exchanging notes in the back of the room.

For those who, like most sensible Americans, missed last night’s final presidential debate of the 2004 campaign season here’s a handy summary:

Bush:

• Education. No Child Left Behind.
• My opponent is a Massachusetts liberal.
• Wooosh.
• I can’t speak credibly about race in America.

Kerry:

• Jobs.
• I was an altar boy.
• I can’t speak credibly about religion in America.
• I married a wealthy woman.

My take: Kerry by a hair, largely on style points.
[continue reading…]