BEHIND THE CURVE: Reader Mark Winburne emails:

Don’t know if you saw Doonesbury today, frankly I’m not sure who still reads it. But in my Commercial Appeal I noticed the whole strip was about Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination as if she were still the nominee. I know he has to do them in advance but don’t you think he could have them pull the strip and run something else instead. Maybe if more, make that any, papers would run Day by Day they wouldn’t have that problem.

I didn’t see today’s comics, but according to the Doonesbury website the Miers strips were withdrawn, and replaced with a timeless strip on Zonker’s competitive tanning career. I guess not everybody got the word.

And yes, more papers should run Day by Day.

VIOLENCE SPREADS IN EUROPE: This isn’t good.

YES, BLOGGING HAS BEEN LIGHT this weekend. I got back the chapter revisions from my editor on Friday and I’ve been working my way through them. It would have been lighter still, except that I’m doing the revising at the computer, and you only have to switch screens to put up a post . . . .

ED MORRISSEY on McCain’s response to the “Bush Lied” charges:

Having McCain on national television backing up George Bush on his counterattack against this tired allegation signals that even the man who loves to have the press love him has his limits. When McCain slaps down Schieffer on FTN, McCain watchers sit up and take notice.

Indeed.

JESUS CHRIST, policy wonk? I think he invented the earned-income tax credit. It’s in Accountants 4:15.

THE U.N. AND THE INTERNET: Bizzyblog has a long, detailed, link-rich post about next week’s World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia — which has set the tone by shutting down dissident websites.

UPDATE: Here’s an oped by Arch Puddington of Freedom House that lays out the issues. Excerpt:

While ICANN functions on a charter from the Commerce Department, the U.S. government has followed a strict hands-off policy; ICANN’s actions are transparent and decisions are made only after extensive consultation with Internet companies, governments, techies and freedom-of-expression organizations. ICANN has contributed to the unique nature of the Internet as a creative and innovative means of communication that links people and ideas across national boundaries — for the most part outside the control of government.

But demands are growing for the “internationalization” of Internet governance. To this end, a number of countries are pressing to remove oversight from ICANN and place it under the auspices of a new organization that would be part of the U.N. system. Advocates of this arrangement make no claims that the current system is flawed. Instead, they focus on the supposed “injustice” or “inappropriateness” of a system overseen by an American agency. And there is an ulterior motive behind the clamor for change. . . .

Although U.N. officials deny any intention to broaden ICANN’s mandate, past U.N. experience suggests that a limited mission can gradually expand into unanticipated territory under the relentless pressure of determined member states. Some of the most shameful U.N. episodes — particularly regarding freedom issues — have occurred because the world’s democracies were outwitted by a coalition of the most repressive regimes — the very coalition that is taking shape over Internet control. Working with determination and discipline, this alliance of dictatorships has already left the U.N. Human Rights Commission a shambles, something that Annan himself has deplored.

Indeed. Read the whole thing, and keep the Internet free. Read this, too.

EUGENE VOLOKH writes on Judge Alito and the First Amendment.

SO, AT THE GYM they were for some reason running Face the Nation this morning where they usually show CNN or FoxNews. But that means I caught this very interesting statement from John McCain:

SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week.

Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: And in–he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?

Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it’s a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it’s a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them–I said, `Did–were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?’ Every one of them said no.

I think the “Bush lied us into war” meme is in trouble, and the GOP pushback seems to be a general effort, not a one-off. And I also think that the reason that so many antiwar people want to move from discussion of whether specific behavior is unpatriotic, to the strawman question of whether any criticism of the war is unpatriotic (note Schieffer’s question — “Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?” — and how it differs from what Bush actually said) is because they know they’re on weak ground on the specifics.

UPDATE: Jay Rockefeller, meanwhile, muffed some questions on a different talking-head show:

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there’s always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

WALLACE: You’re not?

Heh. Read the whole thing.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader emails: “The patriotism thing is getting a little ridiculous. My impression is that what the left really wants is to make it out of bounds to describe anything as either patriotic or unpatriotic. Thereby making the word, and the concept, obsolete.”

And there’s this: “Let’s hope that McCain’s vigorous defense of Bush is a sign of much more to come.”

AUSTIN BAY points to “a big victory” in the war on terror.

A LOOK at the psychology of Bush-hatred.

UPDATE: Related psychological post here.

BRUCE WILLIS AND MICHAEL YON on Iraq and media coverage.

INDONESIAN MUSLIMS condemn suicide bombings. Now that they’re happening mostly to Muslims, they seem less popular.

UPDATE: Geopolitical Review has more on this shift in attitudes, with poll data.

ON THE OFFENSIVE: Bush is thumping Ted Kennedy for his irresponsible statements on the war. “It is also regrettable that Senator Kennedy has found more time to say negative things about President Bush then he ever did about Saddam Hussein.” Kennedy deserves it.

And I note that the most public faces of the Democratic Party lately have been Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. It’s hard for me to see how that can work out well for the Democrats.

UPDATE: Tom Maguire has much more, including this:

Left unexplained – how the Democrats’ unrelenting focus on the use of pre-war intelligence is going to substitute for a plan to resolve the situation in Iraq. Was it really only two weeks ago that Harry Reid forced the Senate into a closed session to discuss that?

Perhaps Sen. Reid was simply intending to commemorate the second anniversary of the leak of the strategy memo explaining how the Democrats could politicize the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings for maximum benefit.

This political posturing by the Dems is understandable – their party is pretty well united around the desire to have a mulligan on the decision to go to war against Iraq.

However, on the slightly more topical question of where we go from here, the problem that crippled John Kerry continues to vex the Democrats – their anti-war base wants to declare Bush beaten and leave Iraq, while many of their leaders continue to argue that defeat is not an option. This conflict leads to such spectacles as the Sheehan v. Clinton showdown. . . .

And my point is what? Bush did what he believed in, Democrats chose to vote expediently rather than lead, and here we are. Three years later Bush is still doing what he believes in, and Democrats are still looking to evade the Iraq issue.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: InstaPunk is waiting for members of Congress to resign.

THE MOVIE JARHEAD IS GETTING A LOT OF BAD PRESS, and according to the Los Angeles Times, it’s not likely to make much money:

Not only did critics offer a mixed response to the film, audiences did, too. The picture earned a “B” grade from CinemaScore, which polls opening night moviegoers. A “B” may sound okay, but people tend to be kind in such polls. . . .

Marketing made “Jarhead” look like a profound war movie, with action and dark humor — an image buttressed by the use of rapper Kanye West’s “Jesus Walks” in the trailer — as well as a perceived social relevance to the current war. The only thing “Jarhead” delivered on was the dark humor. Whenever there’s a disconnect between what the audience expects and what the movie actually delivers, poor word-of-mouth will ensue.

Froggy Ruminations thought it sucked:

They might also have named it, “Cliché: The Movie” because it was basically the Gulf War edition of “Platoon” recycling tired military urban legends and patently false anecdotes. . . . This movie wasn’t so much a slander as it was a farce.

Marine Corps veteran Tom Neven has a similar take. And Donald Sensing isn’t terribly impressed, either: “Perhaps as a retired Army officer I am at a disadvantage since I sat there mentally scoffing at some of the baloney. . . . Jarhead fails to meet Alfred Hitchcock’s number one requirement for a good movie: ‘You have to have a story.'”

You know, I think Hollywood has been making cynical movies about the military — movies that are supposed to be a corrective to the gung-ho John Wayne-era films about the military — for longer than the gung-ho John Wayne era lasted. It’s not fresh anymore, folks. (Some of Jarhead, apparently, is so stale that it came from someone else’s book).

These viewer reviews are pretty unfavorable, too. I think I’ll skip it.

After all, “Why watch a movie about war when you see it happening right now in the blogosphere?” Though in that particular war, all the combatants seem to be Andrea See wannabes.

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll emails:

Sure Jarhead will tank in the US, where that big swatch of flyover country (AKA the Red States) dominates box office receipts. I wonder if it will make money overseas though, where anti-American sentiment remains high, in part due to the horrible image of America cranked out by Hollywood itself.

Good point, and worth remembering when Hollywood types talk about how sad it is that people abroad are rude to them. Driscoll has more in this post.

Meanwhile, The Mudville Gazette notes some milbloggers who liked the movie.

HEH: “I must say, I never knew ‘astutely’ was a synonym for ‘disingenuously’.”

THIS SOUNDS LIKE GOOD NEWS: “Al Qaeda on defensive as bombs begin to backfire.”

As Bill Roggio noted a while back: “the more the Iraqis, even those opposed to a U.S. presence in their country, are exposed to the depravity of al Qaeda, the more they grow to despise them.” For “Iraqis” substitute, well, everyone and you’ve pretty much got it.

TOMORROW’S NEW YORK TIMES has a nice review of James Lileks’ new book, which seems to be doing quite well.

THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT cracks down, with a twist, on racial discrimination in higher education:

President Bush’s administration has threatened to sue Southern Illinois University, alleging its fellowship programs for minority and female students violate federal civil rights laws by discriminating against whites, men and others. . . .

“The University has engaged in a pattern or practice of intentional discrimination against whites, non-preferred minorities and males,” says a Justice Department letter sent to the university last week and obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.

The letter demands the university cease the fellowship programs, or the department’s civil rights division will sue SIU by Nov. 18.

(Via Josh Claybourn, who observes: “From my brief inspection of two of the fellowships, race appears to be the only factor. The outcome of this DOJ pressure, and any subsequent litigation, will have far-reaching implications on the scholarship culture and, in turn, higher education across the country.”) This will certainly make waves.

UPDATE: Aaron at FreeWillBlog has further thoughts on what this is likely to mean.

ANOTHER UPDATE: LaShawn Barber has more thoughts on the subject, which are, as always, worth reading.

THE INSTA-WIFE will be on A&E’s City Confidential tonight at 7 p.m. Eastern.

AVIAN FLU SPREADS TO PIGS in China. This is bad news, increasingly the likelihood of a strain that will jump to humans.

(Via Rand Simberg). Also there’s this troubling news:

Experiments with human cells have found the H5N1 virus can trigger levelsof inflammatory proteins called cytokines and chemokines that are more than 10 times higher than those that occur during a bout of the common flu.

This massive increase in cytokine and chemokine activity can inflame airways, making it hard to breathe. It also contributes to the unusual severity of the avian flu, which can result in life-threatening pneumonia and acute respiratory distress. . . .

“This is basically a cytokine storm induced by this specific virus, which then leads to respiratory distress syndrome,” Osterholm said. “This also makes sense of why you tend to see a preponderance of severe illness in those who tend to be the healthiest, because the ability to increase the production of cytokines is actually higher in those who are not immune-compromised. It’s more likely in those who are otherwise healthy.”

Perhaps inhaled steroids, such as are used in treating asthma, would help.

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Over at Baseball Crank, a pretty unsatisfactory answer from a Congressman:

You may recall my effort, in connection with the “porkbusters” campaign, to get my Congressman, Gary Ackerman, to commit to give back local pork-barrel transportation spending (including money for parking lots, sidewalks, bike racks and public parks in Queens) to help offset the cost of Hurricane Katrina. Well, yesterday I received his response, which is set forth in full in the extended entry. As you can see, Ackerman fails to even acknowledge the question; his response includes not a word about transportation funding. Instead, he scrolls through the usual hot buttons – Iraq, tax cuts, no-bid contracts, etc. – and appears to oppose any effort to cut any spending of any kind.

Follow the link to read the whole thing. Meanwhile, here’s another unhapppy constituent:

It’s been over six weeks since I asked Colorado’s senators and representatives if they’d agree to cancel six specific Colorado pork projects to help pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. The blogosphere has moved on to PorkBusters v. 2.0. But today, I finally received a reply from my own representative, Dianne DeGette. Well, it purports to be a reply, although — like Salazar, Allard, and Udall before her — DeGette simply ignores my request for specific answers regarding six specific projects.

DeGette goes further, though, and has the nerve to actually misrepresent my position to me. I suppose she (or someone on her staff) thinks that if she tells me I agree with her, I will.

The full letter is reproduced, along with some more choice comments, and some kind words for Patricia Schroeder.

Karl Gallagher has another report:

I just got a call from Congresswoman Granger’s office. They wanted to let me know that next week the house would be voting on a $50-70 billion budget cut, affecting both mandatory and discretionary spending. Granger supports that, but doesn’t want to cut the $1m for economic development in Fort Worth next year. The problem with cutting that project is that the money wouldn’t be cut from the budget, just transferred to another state that wants it. I complained about that as a “small government conservative” and got some sympathy. Apparently it’s the “system” that drives it.

I’d have more respect for that argument if the system for appropriating that money wasn’t under the control of the Congress. But they made it and they can fix it. If it’s easier for them to go after the entitlements and do across-the-board cuts than give up single projects, great, but I’d like to see some real progress and it’s usually easier to tackle small targets than large.

Meanwhile, here’s an Alaskan perspective on pork: “Alaskans Can Be Proud…their congressional delegation is not only adept at Grand Larceny but also petty theft.”

But Mark Tapscott notes a small victory for Senator Coburn against pork. It’s pretty small, though.

A PROBLEM FOR THE REVISIONISTS:

The administration’s overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

(Via Paul Mirengoff, who wonders why it took Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus so long to admit that).

UPDATE: Bill Quick thinks he has the answer to Mirengoff’s question.

And here’s a roundup noting that the war started in 1998.

BAD NEWS FOR THE REPUBLICANS:

Talk about negative feelings, but according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, this is the first time since 1994 that a majority of Americans — as a generation proposition — want to dump their individual Member of Congress. Question: In the 2006 election for U.S. Congress, do you feel that your representative deserves to be reelected, or do you think it is time to give a new person a chance? Answer: Re-elect My Incumbent – 37%,. Elect a New Person – 51%.

1994, eh? Maybe if the Republicans in Congress stood for something, they’d have more support.

I JUST CAUGHT A BIT of New York Times publisher “Pinch” Sulzberger on Charlie Rose, and my reaction was pretty much as negative as Jack Shafer’s.

Sulzberger was going on about how terrible it is that press reports of classified leaks are likely to spawn special prosecutors, without noting the role that the Times played in producing that situation — not least by demanding an investigation in the Plame case — and he made a lot about the public’s right to know without, in the bit I saw, even trying to reconcile that with the fact that the whole Judy Miller dispute was about not telling the public what the NYT knew. It was a deeply unimpressive performance.

TIGERHAWK HAS THOUGHTS on dissent, responsible and otherwise, in a time of limited war. Read the whole thing.