One of our stories in the mag. this week was about the brain functioning behind the belief in all things paranormal: ghosts, extraterrestrial life, reincarnation, et cetera. I'm simplifying here, but Sharon Begley explains in the story that our brains fill in the blanks between information, thus influencing our belief in these phenomena that have no basis in science or fact.

For many readers this explanation was, well, unbelievable: "Gimme a break. I love science but I also believe in the paranormal," writes one commenter. "I have had MANY experiences that I would rather not remember dealing with paranormal things to know that science can't just 'explain it away' as some kind of freaking brain activity. Seriously come up with something new. Every time something unexplainable happens they go straight for the 'it must be some kind of brain thing.'"

Walter Semkiw, a medical doctor who says he is the reincarnation of John Adams, also refuted our claims. As one of the men that we interviewed for the piece, this is what he had to say:

Reincarnation research should not be scoffed at; rather it should be generously funded, for evidence of reincarnation will truly create a more peaceful world.  We have created a reincarnation research institute for this purpose: www.iisis.net

The Newsweek article, Why We Believe, made me realize that Newsweek lacks integrity and that it is no better than a tabloid that defames people in sensational ways. The authors of this article do not deserve to be called journalists and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their juvenile article is misleading and amounts to slander.

You can read Semkiw's entire letter here. But It's worth noting that others appreciated our skepticism."A good balanced article," says one reader. "Perhaps a bit too balanced in giving a sounding board to those who really believe all these things in earnest. It is a sad commentary on how backwards the US is becoming in science that so many more people believe in the paranormal now than in the 1980s." Well, at least it is almost Halloween.

Editor's Note: NEWSWEEK stands by the story.

NEWSWEEK took on the anti-vaccine debate this week by profiling Paul Offit, a vaccination doctor whose new book, "Autism's False Prophets," challenges the notion that vaccines cause autism. Offit's critics left hundreds of comments on our Website asserting that vaccination isn't safe and urging NEWSWEEK to re-investigate. You can't prove a negative in science, but you could show this is an issue readers certainly care about.

But after many posts insisted that vaccinations lead to autism, others fought back: "I am trying to understand the anti-vaccine argument," writes one reader. "If vaccines cause autism, how come all children who have their regularly scheduled vaccines do not have autism? Both my children had their regularly scheduled vaccines. My son was also a participant of the retrovirus study. They have not been diagnosed with autism. Are we allto believe that this was caused by vaccines? How do you explain children who were autistic before vaccines were readily available. I think parents are looking for something to blame, which is a common reaction." Others took this one step further, calling it "irresponsible" to refuse to vaccinate children, even calling it bad parenting:

"Bottom line -- if you want a child, then you have to be aware of everything than can go wrong (i.e., autism, etc.) and be prepared for the consequences of your choice. Don't issue a blanket statement on vaccines, or anything else, without proof positive of cause and effect. It's irresponsible parenting to waste time blaming something, when that energy could be used to get treatment/therapies for the actual problem. However, it's much easier to blame. If pharmacotherapy is to blame for these illnesses, then the industry could be sued to gain money to "care for" all affected parties. You want kids? Know the risks, be prepared to accept them, and provide financially for the any care necessary."

Among readers who reported having autistic children of their own, their sentiment was a bit gentler: "As I read the comments I am amazed the venom of some comments," writes one mother. "My son is 22 years old and was diagnosed at 2 years of age. At that time, autism was an unknown disease. I struggled on my own trying to figure out what to do. I could not tell you if it was the shots or not... I would rather have my son like he is than risk him dying from a preventable disease. Every parent must read, research and make a educational choice about whether to give their child the shots or not."

Even those who contributed first-hand to our coverage of autism this week wanted to weigh in. To go along with the story, NEWSWEEK's video team produced a series of segments that included Offit, families on both sides of the issue and lawyers like Robert Krakow who represent families of kids who feel vaccinations made their children autistic. After reading our story and discovering that we focused on Offit, he emailed us his final take:

"Although my interview was captioned, 'At Odds With Offit' I was asked but one question about him or his views: “What do you think about Dr. Offit?” I was not asked to address Dr. Offit’s assertions about the science underpinning our claims. I was, revealingly, asked specifically about “threats” by parents – a side issue that has been pressed by Dr. Offit that I did address, but without reference to Dr. Offit’s remarks on this subject. I do not believe that the issue of “threats” by parents is a major concern nor do I feel that this subject warrants focus by journalists, unless the purpose is to unfairly demonize parents as irrational or dangerous.

...My comments were meant to emphasize the legitimacy and credibility of parents' observations. There exists substantial scientific evidence that corroborates and amplifies parents’ first person accounts of what happened to our children."

By now, you've probably heard that Politico.com discovered the McCain campaign had spent more than $100 thousand outfitting Sarah Palin for her appearances since she was picked as a VP candidate. In response to the spending, NEWSWEEK put together a photo gallery of her wardrobe accompanied by comments from the employees of Saks Fifth Avenue, one of the stores where the campaign spent money. Full Disclosure: I helped report it.

Much of the commentary on the gallery accuses NEWSWEEK of liberal media bias, pointing out that Michelle Obama has worn some lavish pieces by designers like Thakoon Panichgul and Maria Pinto throughout the year. I won't meddle here ... but the Obamas spent their own money on these pieces. As such, they will be able to keep these clothes even after Palin donates her new suits to charity, as the campaign promised she would once the election ends. (For the record: if Palin does decide to keep the wardrobe, she'll have to pay taxes on these suits as if they were income).

But for most of our readers, neither the Michelle Obama comparisons nor the ones to John Edwards' $400 haircut, held up. And it wasn't about the money: "In the grand scheme of things, is 150k a lot?," asks one reader. "No, but it demonstrates beautifully how out of touch the reps are. They actually think this is normal behavior that she spends more on her clothes in one afternoon than I spent on my home over 30 years. That is exactly why the economy is in shambles, reps have no concept of money, 150k or 150 billion...its meaningless to them." That was echoed by others, who felt that her hockey image was not one that could be upgraded at Saks Fifth Avenue: "I'm an old independent who's voted for both Republicans and Democrats over the past 40 years," writes John Conrad. "I don't care what kind of clothes Sarah Palin wears and who paid for them. I don't even care if she takes them back to Alaska with her. What I do find mildly amusing is that the McCain/Palin campaign advisers want to portray her as a salt-of-the-earth hockey mom that middle class women can identify with, and then trot her off to buy new clothes at a couple of the most expensive clothing stores in the country. I must admit, however, that she looks fine in them."

She does look fine. Which, in itself, was a problem for others: "This $150k wardrobe budget confirms that Sarah Palin is nothing more than a visual prop," writes another. "If she spent as much time learning about national issues as she did getting fitted for $2500 Valentino blazers, maybe Americans would have more confidence in her." Ouch.

Undoubtedly, there are those who will think that focusing on Palin's wardrobe is foolish. Nonetheless, it seems that many of you took issue not with the new clothes -- what candidate wouldn't need them? -- but with the hypocrisy of a self-proclaimed populist in suits that cost a thousand dollars. Of all the media outlets that touched on this issue, I think that Robin Givhan, the fashion columnist at The Washington Post, framed it best:

In a statement, Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt played the indignation card: "With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign," she said.

What people are talking about, however, is not pantsuits and blouses. The reality is that there is nothing especially outstanding about her clothes -- aside from the red patent pumps and that bright red leather jacket, which she really should rethink. No matter how much they cost, they are not ostentatious or eccentric. They are, quite simply, fine. What is baffling is the mind-boggling evidence of a tin ear for the symbolism of popular culture. Fashion is a form of self-definition. Any retail expert can tell you that part of being a good merchant is finding a way of speaking to who it is the customer believes herself to be. A smart retailer stands for something. And in our culture Neiman Marcus stands for "elite," not for "Everyman." The same is true of Saks. Barneys? Make that soy chai latte-sipping, champagne-swigging elites.

When the campaign ends, we are to believe that Palin's wardrobe will be donated to charity. Thus, if the McCain ticket loses, then, like Cinderella, Palin will be stripped of her party clothes. And if the Republicans should win, Vice President Palin will be forced to ditch her campaign costumes, start from scratch and create herself anew.

You have to admit, this is sort of funny:

I resent her being called "Caribou Barbie" -- her name is "Mooseolini."

NEWSWEEK columnist Robert Samuelson is 62 years old, so he might be one of least expected people on staff to write something like this: "Only if older Americans act on their rhetorical pledges of worrying about their children will the political climate change. If you—the young—don't stand up for yourselves, believe me, your elders and your politicians won't." That's near the end of a column he wrote earlier this week on how both political campaigns are forsaking the youngs, especially given the lobbying power of the American Association of Retired Persons.

I'm one of these under-35s that Samuelson, our financial columnist, is brilliantly riling up--so I was glad to see that lots of readers chimed in. (Yet, for the sake of full disclosure, a little disheartened that few who wrote in were part of my generation).

Anyway, many of the readers who did comment thought that Sam's piece was a "thinly veiled McCain endorsement," an attempt to dissuade young people from voting for Barack Obama--the candidate, after all, that many baby boomers presume the youngest generation supports. Regardless of Samuelson's political leanings, the debate of this article balanced between those who were distraught that the columnist would criticize his own generation and those that wanted to offer advice to my generation. Consider this comment: "I'm a baby boomer who seems to remember paying for my own Social Security all these years. That's what those deductions were on my paystubs, right? Where do you get off making today's younger people think that we are just going to be taking a free ride at their expense? What an insidious little lie from an insidious little man." Now, look at this: "As a 59-year-old soon to retire I cannot agree more with the writer. While any candidate can promise the world you must remember someone has to pay. I do not want my grandchildren paying enormous sums of taxes to support me. It's time for older Americans to take less and the AARP to stop lobbying for more."

Regardless of political preference, there was a continuing sense of acrimony to most of the response, which ricocheted between people who agreed and disagreed, all of whom--as Samuelson encouraged--were angry. But without younger people commenting on the story, the conversation remains unbalanced, even somewhat depressing: "I have repeatedly harangued my 20-something nieces, nephew and their friends to register to vote, only to be met with massive boredom & inertia," says one commenter. "They didn't aspire to college; they seek and stay in dead-end jobs; they wouldn't know a savings account if it bit them in the ass; yet two of them have already managed to spawn unplanned children. If the Baby Boom generation is the squeaky wheel getting the grease of social benefits, maybe it's because we deserve it!"

The passions of a whole generation aren't going to be changed by one comment board, nor will they be influenced by a sole NEWSWEEK column. But I'm glad that Samuelson's piece brought up my generation, if only so one person could offer advice like this: "Young voters: First, above all, VOTE. Second, you can "gloat" or "emote" based upon your candidate's results. Registering is a great first step, but young and not-so-young voters actually need to vote." That's one thing you can't argue with.

Steve Tuttle, an editor in our Washington bureau, wrote a My Turn this week about his reluctant participation in Relay for Life after he was diagnosed with testicular--or as he prefers, "Man Area"--cancer. The story has quickly shot into the first slot on our Top Ten list and, even for a cynic, the comments that have been left of the piece our pretty inspiring. "As a fellow cancer survivor, I can relate," writes one commenter. "You had me laughing with tears in my eyes. I know what it's like for people to look at you like you have 2 heads when they find out you have cancer and you are so young (I was 29 when diagnosed)." And, says another: "I am a 31 yr old ovarian cancer survivor. I too know that nervous feeling about walking. I was so nervous at the my first Relay but I have now walked for the last 3 yrs. It overwhelms me everytime at how many people there are cheering on the survivors. Be proud to walk and remember that we are helping to keep the memory alive of those that did not survive!"

Whether you know someone who has been diagnosed with cancer or not, the board is a reaffirming look at what comments can add to a story. Like the My Turn that Tuttle wrote, the mix of comic and tragic makes the dialogue a worthwhile read. And, right now, at least, there is very little in the way of spam. Not bad, I say.

In their Media City column, our friends over at the New York Post had this to say about this week's issue:

Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham takes it upon himself to explain that, if elected, Obama will be forced to deal with a nation that still leans rightward. A columnist counters--in less compelling fashion, as if to illustrate why he isn't the boss--that the nation is ready for a big change in the form of a resurgent Left. Anyway, it seems a little early for this discussion: aren't they worried, like the rest of the media, that Obama will find (gulp!) some way to lose, just like Gore and Kerry did.

Still, most of our readers who said they are Catholic disagreed with the notion that Obama, a Democrat, could be the more pro-life of the candidates: "It's amazing to me that the likes of these three great equivocators are still trying to rationalize something that can't be rationalized," writes commenter Thomas Kempis. "The Church teaches that respect for life trumps all issues, period. Prideful ivory tower Catholics like Kmiec, Kaveny and Cafardi can't and won't submit to the authority of the Church they profess to adhere to. And that's one of the hallmarks of Jesus' teaching: more of Him, less of me." Hundreds of others agreed, adding: "The authors are wrong in many ways. The "faithful"cannot back any pro-choice candidate from either party and still meet the definition of "the faithful". Shame on them for using their credibility to harm the Church for political and personal gain."

But the authors aren't the only Catholics (or Christians, for that matter) who have done some soul-searching and decided that Obama is the right candidate for them. A longer post from one reader who calls herself a pro-life Christian writes:

"I would rather Obama be pro-life. However, I believe that he truly values life, and wishes to move us closer to saving lives as we work together on this issue vs. the hard line stance of the current administration that has proven impotent in this issue. I also believe that Obama respects all human life and will work to promote a better life for all Americans and people in the global community. In such an environment, where we care for the whole individual, surely, we can save more lives from the abortion table than we currently do."

The debate gets more complicated when you consider that Obama's running-mate, Joe Biden, is Catholic and that McCain himself has changed his views on abortion throughout his nearly 30-year political history. Both these facts were used often on each side as crossfire.

To me, it's fascinating that so many people seem to be coming out, in a way, as single-issue voters. The conventional wisdom is that social issues -- gay marriage, abortion, or stem cells -- take a backseat in any wartime election, especially one that immediately follows an economic crisis. Perhaps many of you don't feel that way, but I think commenter Megan1582 (who, full disclosure, is pro-choice) summed this up best with her comment:

"I would never make a choice on a candidate based on one factor. Especially something that is already legal! If you are against abortion, that's your prerogative but you shouldn't let that be your ONLY reason for voting for someone. And because abortion is already legal just because a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice does not mean that anything will come of their beliefs anyway. Right now, with the way the world is, I would say abortion would not be on the top of everyone's list of things to attend to when they become president."

So, even if Barack Obama is chosen as president of a center-right or center-center country, what does that mean for the future? "The next ten years will be difficult as the Republicans realize that they have lost the hearts and minds of people," writes one commenter on the cover story. "I think your argument is correct [that America is conservative] if you are speaking about people over the age of 60... young people have seen their parents dealing with health care issues, layoffs at age 50+ and insurmountable credit card debt. They don't see wealth as a measure of success but instead are realizing the world they are entering is more uncertain and they will need help from the government to have a decent life."

My colleague Andrew Romano, over at Stumper, looked for similar feedback on a post of his. Few responded, but there was this comment:

I would tend to agree that America is moving more to the center, and maybe even slightly to the left, albeit very slightly.  I think it requires an 'unbundling' of social and economic points of view.  If someone is a conservative democrat, it typically means that they are socially liberal but economically conservative, and the opposite holds true for a so-called 'liberal republican."  I think that there are and always have been a greater number of people who were/are more liberal socially than they were/are economically...So, if being more socially tolerant (read: less hateful and bigoted) means that we're moving left, I agree.  I don't think, however, that we are moving further left on the economic front just yet, but I would imagine that will change more as we 'spread the wealth' around.  It will be interesting to see what that ends up looking like once Obama is in office.

On Jon Alter's piece that argues America is headed left, one commenter writes "Perhaps, I am just paranoid but it seems that people who don't agree with newsweak do not get their comments posted as easily as those that do! Oh, please, Alterboy, tell me it ain't true!"

Since we're early on in the blog, I figure it's worth pointing out that this isn't true. Like most sites -- we let readers post any comment. Later, though, we go through and remove any that are lewd, racist, sexist, homophobic, generally inappropriate, or anything else that gets reported by an offended reader.

Disagreement and alternate viewpoints are not only accepted, but encouraged. As is comment-speak, for now. Newsweak? Alterboy? Don't make me start a glossary.

P.S. If you want the extended jargon, click here for our Service Discussion Guidelines. 

I’m Kurt Soller, one of Newsweek’s newest and youngest staffers. That means two things around here: first, I grew up with the Internet and attended journalism school at a time when experts were grappling with online writing, new media and what some people like to call “the commentariat” (that’s you, for the record). Second, I’m new enough at the magazine to admit when we got something wrong. About two years ago, I was just another reader of Newsweek.com. Now that I’m on the other side, hopefully I can provide answers to the questions you have. Ask away. My e-mail is plastered all over this blog, but just in case, I’m at kurt.soller@newsweek.com. For years, newspapers have had what they call ombudsmen or public editors. But call me a blogger. These days, at least, I’ll count it as a term of affection.

Though, I’ll confess that I’m relatively new to blogging, especially when it comes to professional – not personal – efforts. So I hope that we can figure out this together. In short time, I’ll be introducing regularly-scheduled features that will appear on the blog each week. Look forward to audio and video with your favorite NEWSWEEK reporters, analysis from other journalists out there in media land, or links to the things that our friends over at Gawker have to say about the death of the newsweekly. But for now, we’ll start with the bedrock of this blog – creating community by figuring out what you all want to talk about. I’m open to anything, for now, so tell me if you think I’m taking things too far – or not far enough.

Since I’m new to blogging, it’s convenient that the veteran blogger Andrew Sullivan over at the Atlantic Monthly just wrote an essay entitled “Why I Blog.” You can read the whole thing for yourself, but if you’re sick of my chatter, here is his take that I've adopted on why this blog is necessary:

“A blog bobs on the ocean but has its anchorage in waters deeper than those print media is technologically able to exploit. It disempowers the writer to that extent, of course. The blogger can get away with less and afford fewer pretensions of authority. He is – more than any writer of the past – a node among nodes, connected but unfinished without the links and the comments and the track-backs that make the blogosphere, at its best, a conversation, rather than a production.

… Some e-mailers, unsurprisingly, know more about a subject than the blogger does. They will send links, stories, and facts, challenging the blogger’s view of the world, sometimes outright refuting it, but more frequently adding context and nuance and complexity to an idea. The role of a blogger is not to defend against this but to embrace it. He is similar in this way to the host of a dinner party. He can provoke discussion or take a position, even passionately, but also must create an atmosphere in which others want to participate.”

OK, so maybe that’s a little pretentious. But you get the point. Let’s start talking.

Talk to you soon,
Kurt