Forgive me. But I never read Daily Kos until today. Well, now that I've read it, the first thought that came to me is how illiterate Kos is, just plain illiterate. . . .
And his rant against us, well, borders on a nut case's. When a high-minded or, rather, high-strung moralist is accused by The New York Times of journalistic hanky-panky and then by TNR of running an ideological censorship bureau, reminiscent of the old Catholic Legion of Decency, he will go off the rails. And he did. "This is what The New Republic had evolved into--just another cog of the Vast RIGHT Wing Conspiracy." An old professor of mine once warned me against writers who use capital letters for emphasis. Good advice she gave me. Capital letters suggest some imbalance in the mind of their employer. In whose interests has TNR sought "to destroy the new people-powered movement"? Kos answers his own question: "for the sake of its Lieberman-worshipping neo-con owners; that it stands with the National Review and wingnutosphere in their opposition to grassroots Democrats." Don't look at Kos's grammar. He's ranting.
Despite this, however, Peretz doesn't really understand the game, and tries to refute charges of being right-wing by pointing out his positions on issues like gay marriage or abortion. Trust me, that doesn't work.
Blue Crab Boulevard is still unsatisfied, though: "The other day I said this was like watching professional wrestling only with no ring girls. Now it's more like heavyweight boxing, although there are still no ring girls." (Via the TTLB aggregator page).
Plus comedy gold! [LATER: But see this item by Jason Zengerle, or just follow the link for Tom Maguire's update.] This was, when it started -- as I said at the time -- a pretty minor story. It's the Kos Krowd's over-the-top response that has turned it into a bigger one.
UPDATE: Related thoughts from Don Surber and Lindsay Beyerstein. And Kevin Drum writes: "Is it really a shocker that Kos acts like an activist and TNR acts like a magazine? Should I consider myself insane because I read and enjoy both?"
And there's this: "Kos and Kompany may be sustaining some long term damage here to their credibility with the mainstream media . . .. The longer they keep up the full attack mode, the more shrill and out of control they will be seen by more people. I don't think that will be a winning strategy."
I agree, though I hope that this behavior won't relect badly on the blogosphere as a whole.
Meanwhile, here's a sober take on the Jerome Armstrong stuff, at DailyKos. And some people are enjoying this altogether too much.
BUSH'S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON TAKINGS gets a negative review from Ilya Somin: "On the surface, the order seems to forbid federal agencies from undertaking economic development condemnations. But its wording undercuts this goal. . . . Bogus reform efforts such as this one create a danger that the public will be falsely persuaded that the problem has been solved; indeed, I suspect that in some cases that is part of their purpose (though I have no evidence of the Bush Administration's motives for issuing this order). Sometimes, a bogus reform is worse than no reform at all."
Sen. John Kerry has spent a career taking the side of America's enemies. His call last week for a pullout from Iraq was the latest evidence he is unfit to serve in the Senate — never mind the White House.
Kerry's proposal to withdraw us completely from Iraq by July of next year was resoundingly defeated in the Senate by a vote of 86 to 13. And just days before, he said the deadline should be the end of this year.
But Kerry's idea is the exact opposite of what he was calling for in late 2003 while running for president. Back then he was accusing President Bush of planning to prematurely withdraw from Iraq.
"I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy," Kerry told the Council on Foreign Relations. He said it would be "a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle" to allow "a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops."
That's one of but many Kerry flip-flops, but he's been consistent over the years in siding against the U.S. in war.
Kerry will have his Iraq position all figured out by, say, 2016. This is one of many reasons why Democrats should be embarrassed that he was their nominee -- and why Republicans should be embarrassed that he came so close to winning.
posted at 08:43 AM by Glenn Reynolds
JONAH GOLDBERG offers advice to the lefty blogosphere: "If the Democrats take back the Congress and the White House in 2008, the impact and relevance of the leftwing blogosphere will plummet, I guarantee you. The ones with staying power will be those that actually have something interesting to say beyond mere 'winning.'"
YESTERDAY'S DECK CHAIR POST produced some emails suggesting a cheaper version available at Lowe's. I don't know if it's the same chair -- it looks more like this chair, I think -- but reader C.G. Browning says he bought one and liked it enough that he went back and bought more. And at less than half the price, it might be worth a try.
It occurs to me that TNR has managed to attack both me and Kos from the right this week, which is no small achievement. Hey, maybe Kos is telling the truth about them going all conservative . . . .
posted at 09:42 PM by Glenn Reynolds
A NICE ARTICLE ON THE MICKEY KAUS /ROBERT WRIGHT Bloggingheads.tv vehicle, from Jon Fine in Business Week. "It turns out that the nontheatrical is theatrical, and a serious political conversation between two poorly dressed bloggers is, yes, weirdly compelling." (Via the Huffington Post).
posted at 09:29 PM by Glenn Reynolds
A KELO-RELATED Executive Order: "It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."
posted at 07:59 PM by Glenn Reynolds
I'M ON HUGH HEWITT'S SHOW with Ed Morrissey, talking about the New York Times' latest publication of classified information. You can listen live here.
Nobody from The Times was willing to talk, but you can see what others are saying here.
UPDATE: A reader who has lots of experience working for SWIFT (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Transfers, the entity involved in the financial surveillance program in question) emails:
What has not been stressed is that SWIFT is not used for individuals. It is used for processing money transfers, stock transfers and bond transfers from companies, governments, banks, insurance companies and NGO's. What we essentially had on file was the holdings for almost all our clients and the clearance data for these transactions dating back for years. We had to keep all this on file to satisfy all the governmental regulations on taxations, etc.
What the NY Times has essentially done is open up to the terrorists the trails of all their transactions and how the banking procedures of money laundering was done for them by the system. They have essentially stopped dead the ability to track this money and keep it from being put in the hands of our worst enemies. Whether the terrorists might have guessed that their money was being transferred is a moot point. The NY Times had told them that their worst fears have been realized and that they need to find another way to move money around the world. They know it for sure now. Thank you, Bill Keller, and when the nice young man or woman from down the street is killed by one of these terrorists I can thank you for that as well.
When big companies dump toxic waste into rivers to enrich themselves, they're criticized by the press. But this is the same kind of thing -- self-serving profiteering at the public's expense.
Meanwhile, a humorous take: "If anti-terror officials are allowed to access banking records now, then how long before the IRS has access to them as well?"
Representative Alan Mollohan helped funnel at least $179 million in U.S. government contracts over the last six years to companies that gave to the West Virginia Democrat's family-run charity, tax records and other documents show.
The money went to 21 companies and nonprofit groups that contributed $225,427 to the Robert H. Mollohan Family Charitable Foundation in 2004 -- almost half of the charity's revenue, according to the documents. The congressman, an Appropriations Committee member whose finances are under federal investigation, is the secretary of the foundation, which is named for his father.
The charity, which distributes scholarships to West Virginia students, raises most of its money from corporate sponsors of an annual golf tournament attended by Mollohan, 63. The event gives company executives an opportunity to meet with him in a casual setting without having to report the donations as lobbying expenses.
``They are buying time, they are buying access, they are buying goodwill for their particular corporate needs,'' said Rick Cohen, executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a Washington-based group that advocates strict ethical standards for charities.
Meanwhile, Dean Esmay comments: "This all SO reminds me of the 'Buchanan Brigades' on the internet, circa 1992-1996. I seem to be the only one left who remembers Pat Buchanan's internet-based political campaign, and how exactly they acted like the Kos-ites act now."
SO THE BEACH HOUSE WE RENTED came with this cool deck chair, which everybody loved. I liked it so much that I wrote down the name, searched it on the Web, and ordered one from Amazon. It reclines kind of like one of those zero-gravity recliner chairs, and even though it folds up neatly for storage, it's not rickety like most folding deck chairs. Downside -- it's not especially cheap. But given my unsatisfactory experiences with its predecessors, I'm happy.
Perhaps it will encourage me to spend more time on the deck drinking beer, and less time at the computer . . . .
Many Japanese in the aftermath of the Cold War seriously questioned their country's security alliance with the United States. A decade later, those voices are a lot softer, and one nation deserves much of the credit: North Korea.
The fears this week that the mercurial communist regime is preparing for its first test of a long-range missile since 1998 have again illustrated one of the premier rationales for Tokyo's enduring partnership with Washington.
Military ties between the two are already tight.
Another reason, you'd think, why the Chinese would want to keep the North Koreans on a shorter leash. And there's this:
Japan and Washington agreed Friday to strengthen cooperation on missile defense amid concerns of a possible long-range rocket launch by North Korea, as U.S. forces wrapped up massive Pacific war games in a show of military might.
The five days of exercises _ the largest in the Pacific since the Vietnam War _ brought together three aircraft carriers along with 22,000 troops and 280 warplanes off Guam in the western Pacific.
The exercise "was a demonstration of the U.S. Pacific Command's ability to quickly amass a force ... and project peace, power and presence in the region," Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula told The Associated Press.
Like I said.
posted at 11:25 AM by Glenn Reynolds
DENNIS HASTERT HAS UNLEASHED HIS LAWYERS ON THE SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION, regarding his real estate / earmarking scandal. Their legal argument seems rather unimpressive to me, and the move seems guaranteed mostly to ensure more publicity, and more people looking into Hastert's affairs.
My thoughts on blogs and libel, along with cautionary advice for public-figure plaintiffs, can be found here.
AUSTIN BAY looks at Iran vs. Iraq, and the Iraqi government's peace offer to the Sunnis. "Maliki’s amnesty looks very similar to the program Allawi wanted to implement. The difference is Maliki has the political power of a democratically-elected national unity government behind him. The Sunnis holdouts have also suffered another two years of defeat."
posted at 09:01 AM by Glenn Reynolds
A PODCAST INTERVIEW WITH CHRIS MUIR AND MICHAEL YON, over at TCS Daily.
A fresh barrage of criticism is erupting over the decision of The New York Times to disclose last night another classified surveillance program aimed at gathering information about terrorist plots.
"The president is concerned that, once again, the New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is protecting the American people," a White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said last night. "We know that terrorists look for any clue about the weapons we're using to fight them and now, with this exposure, they have more information and it increases the challenge for our law enforcement and intelligence officials."
The Times report, which appears in today's editions and was posted last evening on the paper's Web site, details the federal government's use of subpoenas to gather large troves of data from a Belgium-based consortium that handles international bank transfers, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, known as Swift.
But boy, if somebody steps on their scoops, they sure get mad. Some secrecy is sacred.
According to the NYT's own reporting, the program is legal. The program is helping us catch terrorists. The administration has briefed the appropriate members of Congress. The program has built-in safeguards to prevent abuse. And yet, with nothing more than a vague appeal to the "public interest" (which apparently is not outweighed in this case by the public's interest in apprehending terrorists), the NYT disregards all that and publishes intimate, classified details about the program. Keller and his team really do believe they are above the law. When it comes to national security, it isn't the government that should decide when secrecy is essential to a program's effectiveness. It is the New York Times.
National security be damned. There are Pulitzers to be won.
The press is much harder on other businesses that sacrifice the public interest for profits.
Excuse me, but no one voted to put Bill Keller in charge of our national security, and the laws covering classification of materials does not have an option for journalists to invalidate their clearance level. The continuing arrogance of Keller and his two reporters has damaged our national security, and in this case on a ridiculously laughable story that tells us absolutely nothing we didn't already know in concept. They keep pretending to offer news to their readers, but instead all they do is blow our national-security programs for profit.
The administration has told us on many occasions that one of the main fronts in the war on terror would be the financial systems. We have seen plenty of coverage on how the US has pressured various banking systems into revealing their records in order for us to freeze terrorist assets. If anyone wondered whether our efforts had any effect, all they needed to read was the stories of Hamas officials having to smuggle cash in valises in order to get spot funding for the Palestinian Authority. Their neighboring Arab nations pledged upwards of $150 million in direct aid, which banks would not transfer lest the US discover the transactions and lock them out of the global banking system.
Thanks to the Times for helping with that.
What's interesting to me is that when you talk about military force, we're supposed to use law-enforcement and intelligence methods instead. But if you use law-enforcement and intelligence methods, people shout "Big Brother" and the Times runs stories exposing them.
posted at 08:02 AM by Glenn Reynolds
JONATHAN CHAIT: "the radicalism of the lefty bloggers lies not so much in their ideological platform but in their ideological style."
Quote in today’s paper: “The world’s least free place for making movies is the US, because it has a fixed model.”
Ang Lee. Ang Lee. So how’s that Saudi distribution deal for “Brokeback” going, eh?
Read the whole thing.
posted at 07:51 AM by Glenn Reynolds
June 22, 2006
MIGRAINES LINKED TO HIGHER SEX DRIVES: Well, I have migraines. But now there's a new migraine zapper. I hope they look closely into any, er, side effects. But judging by the first article there are other remedies I'd rather try before being zapped . . .
More guns, more sex – and less alcohol, but with more heavy drinking by young women = less rape.
The pillars of a global social reform movement?
Heh. "Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy!"
posted at 10:03 PM by Glenn Reynolds
JEEZ, THINGS HAVE REALLY DEGENERATED: In this post, I rained scorn on dumbass claims that Kos was gay. (One of which was cited in the Blogometer item from yesterday that I had just linked). So what do I get? Somebody says I'm trying to spread the idea. I mean, that's just pathetic, and says more about the way the accuser thinks than anything else . . .
There's a sensible reply from Ogged in the comments:
Are the Reynolds bashers kidding here? What he wrote isn't just unobjectionable, it's gracious and I think totally sincere. The quoted paragraph is in the middle of a post defending Kos from accusations of corruption, so it hardly seems strange that he'd defend him from another charge floating around. And if you're going to impute backwardness to his readers, you have to go all the way: saying that Kos is married and has a kid carries a lot of weight with the unenlightened, doesn't it?
(Via TTLB). Glad somebody figured it out. And, sadly, there seems to be a lot of backwardness, of various varieties, out there. This is not the blogosphere's finest hour. Seventh-grade, indeed.
And reader Ricky West emails: "Let's see, you defend Kos and his acolytes attack you. Lesson learned: that's what you get for defending Kos."
The scorched-earth approach seems unwise to me; in fact, it seems to be turning a fundamentally minor issue into a bigger one. And it certainly doesn't make me feel great about being "gracious." Though at least today's Blogometer noticed. Well, actually they noticed that I defended Kos and Kos attacked me. Like I said, jeez.
MORE: Reader Toby Weber emails:
What's notable about the left side of the blogosphere's reaction to the Kosola allegations and Kos' request for silence is that they seem to confirm how much sway he actually has.
Kos requested that liberal bloggers not write about the story, and many didn't until their hands were forced by TNR, if at all. Even weirder, the usual liberal commenters on right-wing blogs aren't participating in the comment threads that deal with the story (at least at the blogs I frequent, like Ace of Spades & Protein Wisdom). Kos said that by discounting the allegations, you were passive-aggressively pumping them up. That's now a full-fledged meme among many liberal blogs.
It's fascinating how the two sides of the blogosphere have evolved and behave in such different ways. I think Tom Maguire's Pack (the right) vs. Hive (the left) analogy is playing out quite well. Kos it seems, is the queen bee (no gay implication intended Really!).
Not being on Kos's mailing list, I didn't know I was supposed to keep quiet instead of defending him. I've defended him in the past, too, but I don't think I'll be quite as quick to do so in the future.
It's mostly a history of the Medici banking empire, though, and it's interesting to see how the bank declined. The problem was the passing of a generation of bankers who loved the work -- Cosimo Medici said that he'd remain a banker even if he could make money by waving a wand -- and its replacement by those who weren't terribly interested in the actual work, but rather in the opportunity their jobs provided to hang around with kings, queens, and cardinals. Not surprisingly, things went downhill fast once that happened.
I think that's a metaphor for politics and journalism today -- and a cautionary example for the blogosphere.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) made a $2 million profit last year on the sale of land 5 1/2 miles from a highway project that he helped to finance with targeted federal funds.
A Republican House member from California, meanwhile, received nearly double what he paid for a four-acre parcel near an Air Force base after securing $8 million for a planned freeway interchange 16 miles away. And another California GOP congressman obtained funding in last year's highway bill for street improvements near a planned residential and commercial development that he co-owns.
In all three cases, Hastert and Reps. Ken Calvert and Gary Miller say that they were securing funds their home districts wanted badly, and that in no way did the earmarks have any impact on the land values of their investments. But for watchdog groups, the cases have opened a fresh avenue for investigation and a new wrinkle in the ongoing controversy over earmarks -- home-district projects funded through narrowly written legislative language.
For more than a year, the congressional corruption scandal triggered by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has focused attention on earmarks secured by lawmakers on lobbyists' and government contractors' behalf. Now watchdog groups are combing through lawmakers' land holdings and legislative activities, searching for earmarks that may have boosted the value of those investments.
"The sound bites from politicians have always been that they're doing what's best for their districts, but we're starting to see a pattern that looks like they might be doing what's best for their pocketbooks," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Newly disclosed documents allege al-Qaida had plans to turn cameras into stun guns and crash a hijacked plane into East London's Canary Wharf development.
The U.S. Department of Homeland security document was obtained by ABC News and detailed as many as nine plots to hijack and crash aircraft. None of them took place, as computer files written in English belonging to a key lieutenant of Osama bin Laden were seized in Lahore, Pakistan, in 2004.
Apparently, they haven't given up, though I'm not sure the stun guns would have done the job.
The bloodshed in Iraq is getting worse, and involving U.S. troops less and less. . . .
Iraqis have, over the last three years, come to accept the fact that this violence is an Iraqi problem. Until the last year, most of the killers were former Saddam enforcers. Those thugs are still around, but in the last year, most of the blood is being shed by Kurds and Shia Arabs seeking vengeance against Sunni Arabs in general, and known Sunni Arab thugs in particular. American troops are no longer feared as much as they used to be, for the Iraqi killers are more common and prolific. For Sunni Arabs, U.S. troops are often seen as protectors. Moreover, Iraqis have noted that when Americans stage a raid, there is rarely any gunfire at all. But Iraqi troops and police are much more trigger happy. The Americans like to come in quiet, and at night, with no lights (because of the night vision gear.) Iraqi security forces come in with lots of shouting, lights and gunfire.
Arizona voters may get a chance to do something that Gov. Janet Napolitano would not: limit her power to take away their guns or limit their rights to carry guns during an emergency. On a 4-2 party-line vote, the Republican-controlled Senate Government Committee approved a measure Tuesday that would legally bar any governor from using a state of emergency to place new restrictions on the possession, transfer, sales, carrying, storage, display or use of firearms or ammunition. The bill also would remove any ability to commandeer and use weapons or ammunition during any state of war.
Meanwhile, Prof. Joseph Olson emails:
Minnesota AG Mike Hatch has joined twelve other Attorneys General in supporting a meaningful individual right to keep and bear arms. The amicus brief was filed June 16, 2006 in Parker v. DC. (the Cato Institute-backed Second Amendment-based challenge to DC's gun ban now on appeal in the US Court of appeals for the Disctrict of Columbia Link).
The AGs' position is that:
"The district court's holding that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms denies American citizens a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. *** [A]lthough the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is not an absolute right immune from any restrictions whatsoever, ... the D. C. Code provisions ... which essentially impose blanket prohibitions on handgun ownership and possession of functional long guns..., are fundamentally inconsistent with the Second Amendment right of Americans to keep and bear arms. As such, they are unconstitutional on their face."
I'm not expecting a win on this, but it's more sign of shifting sentiments, and politics.
Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.
In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.
As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee."
It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions.
posted at 12:23 PM by Glenn Reynolds
PANDAGON: " I’ll tell anyone who’ll listen that there are just simply no consequences to getting on kos’s bad side. There really aren’t. And certainly not through the liberal blogads network, of which pandagon is still a member. Maybe he’d like to have the power to force people to get in line. I dunno. And maybe there’s a perception that he does have such power. I dunno about that either. But I suspect that you don’t need to threaten a lapdog with discipline. I’m not claiming to be the definitive authority or anything. But there aren’t many bloggers who have been more scathingly critical of kos from the lefty side than I have."
UPDATE: Rogers Cadenhead emails: "I'm surprised at your mild response to Jerome Armstrong's stock tout suit. He and Kos were becoming the blogging wunderkinds of the Dean campaign at the same time Armstrong was under active SEC investigation, and they stayed with the campaign. How would it have looked if the story broke in late 2003 or early 2004, when Dean was the Dem frontrunner?"
I wonder if they told the Dean campaign? I hadn't really thought about the issue as a question of responsibility to their campaign clients, but of course it is. Rogers has a post on that here. And here are some further thoughts on blogs, politics, and journalism.
Daniel Drezner downplays the non-stock-related aspects of the story: "What's going on is not illegal, or even out of the ordinary in Washington, DC. It's politics as usual. The only reason the story is noteworthy is because bloggers like Kos have persistently said that they and theirs -- a.k.a., the netroots -- are not about politics as usual. Over time, however, that claim looks less and less viable. The question is whether bloggers like Kos find that their legions of readers are turned off by these kind of revelations, or whether they comfortably adjust into being middleweight power brokers."
Since "having a friend who works for a campaign" is apparently the new prima facie standard for evidence of corruption in Washington, it would actually be nice if journalists spent some more time tracking the chain of money and jobs in Washington - campaigns to consultants to lobbyists to media figures and around and around - to untangle the genuine financial conflicts of interest which rule that town.
posted at 10:51 AM by Glenn Reynolds
SORRY FOR THE LIGHT POSTING: I've been having trouble reaching the site, and apparently so have a lot of you. If things don't get better, don't forget the backup site.
posted at 10:05 AM by Glenn Reynolds
I'M STILL NOT SURE how big the WMD story is -- especially with Hoekstra and Santorum saying that there's much more waiting to be declassified -- but Chester has some thoughts on why we haven't heard about this sooner.
The next question will be why the White House did not release this information at the time of their discovery. Santorum's statement says, “The information released today proves that weapons of mass destruction are, in fact, in Iraq[.] It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq. I will continue to advocate for the complete declassification of this report so we can more fully understand the complete WMD picture inside Iraq.” That implies that a broader analysis of WMD in Iraq exists -- and that it differs significantly from the common understanding shown thus far.
Some will claim that the release is strictly for political purposes. They may have a point, but I doubt it will have anything to do with domestic politics. If Bush wanted to use it for that, he would have done so in October 2004 and not in June 2006. This information changes the picture about our pre-war intelligence in time for the Iranian confrontation -- and I suspect that the White House wants to declassify it in order to convince European leaders that our intel actually paid off. . . .
So why keep this quiet? Perhaps CENTCOM did not want to tip the AQ-I forces to their continued existence. Another explanation may have been that some of this got captured through active intel sources that would have blown continuing operations. Obviously the Intelligence Committee felt that the need for secrecy had passed.
Stay tuned. WMD wasn't the big issue for me, but it certainly has been turned into a keystone of the war debate, which may turn out to have been a mistake for war opponents.
Please point out to your readers that Negroponte only declassified a few fragments of a much bigger document. Read the press conference and you will see that Santorum and Hoekstra were furious at the meager declassification. They will push for more, and we all must do that. I am told that there is a lot more in the full document, which CIA is desperate to protect, since it shows the miserable job they did looking for WMDs in Iraq.
Some future historians will have fun with the CIA's bureaucratic turf wars. I just hope that they're writing in English, and not Arabic . . . .
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HOLD A NEWS CONFERENCE TO RELEASE A REPORT ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
JUNE 21, 2006
SPEAKERS: U.S. SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-PA)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER HOEKSTRA (R-NY)
SANTORUM: Good afternoon. Senator Rick Santorum. With me, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra. Today we are here to make public a document, an unclassified version of a document that Congressman Hoekstra and I have been working on, trying to uncover, I guess, or find out about with respect to weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical weapons recovered in Iraq.
On the floor of the Senate today we are debating the issue of the war in Iraq, and three of my colleagues just today said the following things.
Jack Reed, quote: We've heard the initial defenses of the approach to Iraq as we were going after weapons of mass destruction. There were none. They were not there.
Chris Dodd: Mr. President, that if I had known then what I know now, namely that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction, I would not have given the president my vote.
Patty Murray: We looked for weapons of mass destruction and we found none.
Congressman Hoekstra and I are here today to say that we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons. It's a document that was developed by our intelligence community which for the last two and a half months I have been pursuing.
And thanks to the help of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, ultimately he was able to get it in his hands and I was able to look for and look at.
And I think both of us feel very strongly that this is vitally important information that the American public needs to know. And so I will read the portions of the unclassified version and then I'll turn it over to Peter to make his comments about the significance of that, and then we'll be happy to answer questions.
The unclassified version of this report states as follows. Quote: Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.
Now, let me go off the quote. That means that in addition to the 500 there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country.
Back on statement.
Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out. The most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles.
And I underscored filled. The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.
It has been reported in the open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.
This is an incredibly -- in my mind -- significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false.
We have found over 500 weapons of mass destruction. And in fact have found that there are additional weapons of mass -- chemical weapons, still in the country, that need to be recovered.
And so, I would suggest that this is a very important look-back. We've been focused and continue to focus on what we need to do moving forward, but it is important for the American public to understand that these weapons did in fact exist, were present in the country, and were in fact and continue to be a threat to us.
HOEKSTRA: Thanks, Senator, and thank you for your help.
You know, as we've been continuing the work and the research on WMD and what existed when, it's been interesting. We spent a lot of time working or people have been coming to the committee, what we call unconventional sources.
The senator has indicated that a few months ago, an unconventional source went to Rick and said, You ought to look for this report. And the senator spent some time looking for it, couldn't get his hands on it and called over and said, Can you help get this report? And we went looking for it, and we found it.
I think it's important to put this report in the context of the WMD discussion. Everyone knows, and has agreed, that there was WMD in Iraq prior to the Gulf War, the first Gulf War. He used weapons of mass destruction extensively, killing thousands of his own people and thousands of Iranians.
From the Kay report and the Duelfer report, the conclusions that they reached indicated that during that period of time from the Gulf War to Operation Iraqi Freedom, there was evidence of continuing research and development of WMD, an ongoing effort with various kinds of chemicals, research programs and those types of things.
The piece that still remains unanswered, or remained unanswered, was that piece of exactly what, other than the programs, what existed in Iraq in 2003?
The Iraqi Survey Group, or the impression that the Iraqi Survey Group left with the American people was they didn't find anything.
The report that Rick and I reference -- and I'll have to tell you that I'm disappointed in the summary that was provided for us in an unclassified version from the intelligence community because I think you lose some of the context of exactly what Rick and I and others on the committee have seen from that report.
But this says: Weapons have been discovered; more weapons exist. And they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq.
And I think what that points out to us -- and remember, the Iraq Survey Group was in Iraq for about 16 months, employing up 1,700 people. They didn't find many chemical weapons.
And since that period of time, we have found hundreds. This assessment says more exist. And I think what that points out is that there's still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand.
The Iraq Survey Group suspended field visits five months after they were there. So they stopped field visits in October of 2003. So what we're now finding are our troops stumbling across these as they go into Iraq.
The full-blown effort to discover these caches of chemical weapons stopped a year and a half ago. And this is the kind of stuff that we are still finding.
We continue to get unconventional sources coming to the committee. We're trying to get the intelligence community and the military to investigate some of the other sites and some of the other leads that have been forwarded to us. It's not a high priority.
So what do we do after this report comes out?
Number one, I think Rick and I are in agreement: More of the classified report has to be released to the American public. They need to get this in a more complete context.
The second thing that needs to happen is under the direction of the House Intelligence Committee, we are going to do and go back and ask for a more complete reporting by the various intelligence agencies as to reporting on WMD.
Some of you may have the question -- and we had the same question -- if this report was completed in April, why couldn't a senator receive it for six weeks and why did it take eight weeks for it to be brought to our attention and finally put into our hands? What other reports exist about either the existence or the nonexistence of chemical weapons in Iraq?
That information is information that we need to have and is information that needs to be brought to the American people.
So we are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war.
Because this now is not only an issue of what exists; this also gets to be an issue of force protection. Finding these quantities of weapons indicates that they're out there. The terrorists have indicated in press reports that they desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.
So the question is: Have we secured all the sites? What efforts are we taking, right now, to secure, identify and locate all of these sites so that we locate them and find them and move forward before they get into the hands of people who we'd prefer not to have access to them.
With that, I think we'll open up for your questions.
SANTORUM: The only thing that's available is what I read you. That's all that's available. The report remains to be classified. When I wrote to -- I think it looks like General DeFries (ph) -- is that how you say his name? I don't know -- I don't know him -- about a report, and I have letters that we can certainly make available to you that I heard about in April, early April.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) in April, but we don't know when it was started?
HOEKSTRA: The report would have been started -- it's intended to build on the findings of the Iraq Survey Group. The Iraq Survey Group completed its report -- its report was issued October, November of 2004.
SANTORUM: The agency I wrote to ask for the report was the National Ground Intelligence Center.
QUESTION: Senator, so the report came from the National Ground Intelligence Center, that's the agency that produced the report?
SANTORUM: That is correct.
QUESTION: And that's part of the Department of Defense?
SANTORUM: That is correct.
QUESTION: Do you know who originally requested the report be made?
SANTORUM: I think that this is their ongoing work in terms of force protection, collecting the tactical intelligence that our ground forces are acquiring as they are forward deployed, gathering that intelligence to make sure that they can take that information and redistribute it to ground forces, again, for force protection, so that the forces that are deployed know the potential threats that are out there.
And obviously, we want our forward-deployed troops to know that, number one, they may come across these things in their activities and second, that if they fall into the wrong hands, they may be used against our troops.
QUESTION: My question was, number one, if the statement -- you quoted those senators at the outset who say there were no weapons of mass destruction. You're saying here's a document that establishes that in fact there were.
Why is the Bush administration, why is Secretary Rumsfeld or President Bush not holding a press conference a high noon to say, Look, this makes the case that we've been trying to -- we were making for three years...
SANTORUM: I think that's a question you have to ask them. It's certainly a question that we have asked them. You'd have to ask them that question.
This is from the intelligence community. This document is one I have complete confidence in.
HOEKSTRA: Let me also answer that.
I think the president has very much been focused on forward looking. I mean, the threats are out there and we want this Iraqi government to be successful. And we want to secure the country. You know, this is not a proverbial silver bullet, smoking gun. This indicates one more time that there is a lot of things in Iraq that we don't fully comprehend and understand.
But what it does dispel is the very simple notion that there was not a single weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, but that actually hundreds of these existed and continue to exist in Iraq from various time frames.
It appears that most of this was pre-'91 production, but they're still there.
SANTORUM: And the other thing that I think is important to understand, that one of the reasons that at least I supported the intervention into Iraq was the fear of Saddam transferring these weapons to terrorist organizations for use. And so I think it's pretty clear that, from the standpoint of what a terrorist might need, there were plenty of munitions around for Saddam to do nefarious things with.
QUESTION: But is that news, the fact that there were pre-1991 munitions in his stockpiles that still existed on the day we invaded in March 2003? Is that news or is that old?
SANTORUM: To my understanding -- you can talk about the Duelfer report. They said they found no weapons of mass destruction.
HOEKSTRA: Or that what they found was in contained dumps and these types of things.
I think what the news here is is a couple of things. Number one, the quantity that actually is publicly being reported -- hundreds of warheads filled with -- perhaps in some cases degraded -- but still very, very lethal material.
And you know, when you say 500, you know, big deal -- 500. I think in some of the attacks that have been identified with Saddam, 15 or 20 of these shells strategically placed in a city can have a very, very deadly impact, impacting, you know, killing hundreds, if not thousands of people.
This is not, you know, 500 artillery shells of the standard type that are going off on a regular basis. This is chemical weapons. And if they're in the stockpile -- you're not talking about transferring hundreds to make an impact in New York, in a subway or anything like that. One or two of these shells, the materials inside of these, transferred outside of the country can be very, very deadly.
SANTORUM: Just recall -- the Duelfer report said there were no stockpiles. And I remember when the report came out. The whole mood was: There was no WMD at the time we went into Iraq.
And you hear three United States senators today saying there was no WMD. So I don't know -- maybe it's not news to you, but I think it's news to at least those three senators and a lot more and I think to most of the American public who believed that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the time we went into Iraq.
QUESTION: Then why isn't it a smoking gun...
HOEKSTRA: Because I don't think that -- I think the overall picture on Saddam's intent and capabilities on WMD and how those of us in the House and the Senate reached a conclusion was, number one, this guy had them and he used them. All right? That's a piece of the puzzle.
The second piece of the puzzle was the Duelfer report saying there was ongoing research in the ability to turn some of the manufacturing capabilities from conventional sources to WMD, and also the statement saying that he would be willing or had the capability to start producing anthrax within four weeks of lifting of sanctions.
And now, actually finding some stockpiles of WMD, when you put all of that together, you get an overwhelming case -- any one of those pieces in and of themselves is not the silver bullet. They all help put a complete.
SANTORUM: This is a missing piece -- a very important missing piece of the puzzle.
HOEKSTRA: And there are still other additional pieces that from my perspective need to be filled in and other questions.
So that's why I'm up here, saying there's not a single stockpile in Iraq that says: Whew, now we've answered that objection. You put the whole thing in context and the overwhelming weight of the evidence says that the conclusions that many of these senators reached three years ago, where they said he is a threat, was the right one. And now, all of a sudden, when they said he wasn't a threat, that's the wrong one.
They were right before they were wrong.
QUESTION: If you have pre-'91 weapons, and you have research going on in the '90s, do you think there was a program in the '90s?
SANTORUM: The Duelfer report says very clearly there was a program.
HOEKSTRA: There was a program of research -- maybe not production. Production was very, very difficult to do.
Remember, if he had the weapons, why produce more under the eyes of the United Nations?
And the focus was on developing the research and the capabilities, recognizing that, as soon as sanctions were left and the U.N. was gone, he could start production relatively quickly.
SANTORUM: Within weeks.
QUESTION: Has the attitude of the Bush administration on the release of this document been not encouraging, not cooperative?
Have they been, essentially, saying: Please go away and stop bothering us?
And if so, why?
SANTORUM: I can only answer it the way that Peter has answered, is that the administration has been very clear that they want to look forward.
They, talking to several members of the administration who have reviewed the report, they were comfortable with its release but felt that their focus is going to be the current state in Iraq and what we're going to do to be successful.
And they felt it was not their role to go back and fight previous discussions.
QUESTION: And why are they releasing this one little...
SANTORUM: Because we asked them to and...
HOEKSTRA: Not like this.
SANTORUM: We asked them to release a lot more than this. And there's a lot more to release. And the chairman and I are both, as he said it, I will agree with him.
I am completely dissatisfied with the extent of this release. And we hope to get more information out.
QUESTION: Is there any chance, or do you believe there could be other, similar reports that have findings like these, that are...
HOEKSTRA: We're going to do the survey. OK, we have asked for a couple of things. We have asked for all of the documentation that backs up the report so that we can actually get into the tactical reports, as to where and when and how they found them, what they did with the materials, so that we can verify the accuracy of the report that was put in front of us.
And the very nature that this report has existed for upward of two months.
SANTORUM: Over two months.
HOEKSTRA: Over two months. And, you know, neither one of the intelligence committees, as far as I can tell, were notified of the existence of the report. It just says, you ought to ask the question.
We always ask the question of the intelligence community: What is it that we don't know?
And sometimes we go through a process which we call 20 questions. You don't get the information that you want or you believe that the intelligence committees are entitled to until you've asked 20 questions and you finally get to asking the right question in exactly the right way.
QUESTION: Did the administration folks that you talked to agree with you that this was a very significant finding?
SANTORUM: I think the administration is prepared to make a statement on this release that Peter and I are doing today. And so you'd have to ask them.
QUESTION: But with all the debate over weapons of mass destruction, do you find it -- just from a political standpoint, have you tried to make your argument about Iraq?
Do you find it frustrating that the administration hasn't been more forthcoming?
SANTORUM: You know, from my perspective, the story is this: The story is not how the administration is going to interpret this to the American public. The story is what it is.
QUESTION: And, Chairman Hoekstra, you said one or two of these shells could do a lot of damage. Could you try to quantify how dangerous this stuff is and how you know that one or two could do so much damage? And how much damage are you talking about?
HOEKSTRA: Well, it depends on exactly the purity of it. I think we know that when the sarin shells were used in some of the attacks -- I think, either against the Kurds -- I think, in the Kurdish region, they were very, very deadly.
There is information, again, in the report that would help you better understand that.
But again, the lethality of the material will depend on the purity of the material, when it is released and then, obviously, the number of people within the dispersed area.
And the purity will determine the deadliness over the area.
SANTORUM: Also, the size of the munition, obviously.
I didn't answer your question.
QUESTION: I'm just trying to get a scope of the find here.
SANTORUM: Yes, we just can't discuss the details.
HOEKSTRA: Yes, but I mean, I think there are videotapes showing -- where was the attack?
QUESTION: We have video, a DVD of a nerve gas attack, March 16, 1988, in Halibayah (ph), Iraq. And 5,000 people were killed. Fifteen shells were reportedly used in this attack. HOEKSTRA: So 5,000 people killed, 15 shells?
I don't know exactly what size artillery shells or whatever, but it may be very similar to the type of stuff that we are finding today.
QUESTION: And can you talk at all about where these munitions were found, where in the country?
SANTORUM: I can't.
HOEKSTRA: I can tell you, but then we couldn't leave the room.
QUESTION: But you said they were found by troops who stumbled across them. Can you talk at all about, you know, were they in warehouses, were they...
HOEKSTRA: I cannot discuss that. That information has not been released.
Are Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas (of the famous Daily Kos) engaged in a pay-for-play scheme in which politicians who hire Armstrong as a consultant get the support of Kos? That's the question that's been bouncing around the blogosphere ever since The New York Times's Chris Suellentrop broke the news last Friday about a 2000 run-in Armstrong had with the Securities and Exchange Commission over alleged stock touting. But Armstrong, Kos, and other big-time liberal bloggers have almost entirely ignored the issue, which is a bit surprising considering their tendency to rapidly respond to even the smallest criticism.
Why the strange silence in the face of such damning allegations? Well, I think we now know the answer. It's a deliberate strategy orchestrated by Kos. TNR obtained a missive Kos sent earlier this week to "Townhouse," a private email list comprising elite liberal bloggers, including Jane Hamsher, Matt Stoller, and Christy Hardin Smith. And what was Kos's message to this group that secretly plots strategy in the digital equivalent of a smoke-filled backroom? Stay mum!
As usual, I wasn't invited, but then I don't smoke that stuff. As for the scandal aspects, well, this seems to me like politics as usual. Perhaps, following Kinsley's Law, that's the real scandal, but -- except to the extent, probably small, that this causes Kos's readers to lose faith in him as something new and special -- I don't see a big scandal in this, though I can't help noting that if something like this were going on on the right, the bloggers of the "Townhouse" list would probably be somewhat less charitable.
But remember -- it's not the crime, it's the cover-up!
UPDATE: Ann Althouse: "I wonder who's the leaker among the elite bloggers."
Outside the Beltway has a roundup, and notes that Stirling Newberry is accusing The New Republic of libel, though his post doesn't actually say that the email isn't genuine. (He may want to look here for some libel advice.) He also attributes the story to both "Nasty Republicans" and "establishment Democrats." It's a conspiracy so vast . . . .
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Patrick Kelly emails: "FWIW, I put a link to the TNR article in the comments at Firedoglake (Hamsher and Smith’s blog), it didn’t last 5 minutes." Hey, it could have been worse.
And Will Collier observes: "Yep, this one just crossed the entertainment threshold. Time to make some popcorn."
MORE: Zengerle says it's all about the Benjamins for the liberal bloggers. "Kos (along with Armstrong and Bowers) gets to decide which blogs belong--and don't belong--to Advertising Liberally, which means a lot of these blogs' financial health hinges upon staying in Kos's good graces. Is it any wonder they're so obedient?" Still no scandal here, exactly, but boy would these guys be making a stink if this stuff were happening on the right. (Via the Hotline Blog.)
Meanwhile, Blogometer asks: "If Kos is so beholden to Armstrong, why would he support James Webb? Webb wasn't the candidate of choice in Mark Warner's world."
And as an aside, I see some blog-commenters are speculating that Kos is gay. Why that should matter, I don't know, but I remember -- back when the blogosphere was younger and people were nicer -- commiserating with Kos over his wife's miscarriage (my wife and I had several) and assuring him that it didn't preclude successful pregnancies later on, which I believe his wife has since had. So try to keep things at something better than a seventh-grade level.
STILL MORE: Kos is defended at TAPPED: " I'm a member of the Liberal BlogAds Network. I've mocked Kos's "Libertarian Democrats" concept, derided his elevator pitches, and generally been surly and disagreeable when it suited me. The idea that Markos can just throw folks off the list is a bit silly, particularly for any of us who remember the endless e-mail thread when Jerome and him tried to create some uniformity in the rules for entry." Also, see Max Sawicky: "I have run afoul of Kos -- f** him and all -- and I am still in the network. Got an ad or two this past month too. If you're big enough for exclusion from the network to be financially meaningful -- I'm not, that's for sure -- then being excluded would not prevent you from getting ads independently. There are other blog networks too."
Blue Crab Boulevard: "it sounds like old fashioned backroom politics. Not exactly cutting edge. . . . The email is a different story. If lefty bloggers are indeed following Kos' directions to starve the story of oxygen by not writing about it, those bloggers may damage themselves in the long run."
posted at 05:10 PM by Glenn Reynolds
THIS SEEMS PRETTY DAMNING where college admissions are concerned:
In “Negative Action Versus Affirmative Action: Asian Pacific Americans Are Still Caught in the Crossfire,” William C. Kidder takes issue with the Princeton study and similar findings by other scholars. It’s not that the demographic shift seen by the Princeton researchers wouldn’t take place in an admissions system that’s truly race-neutral, says Kidder, a senior policy analyst at the University of California at Davis. Rather, it’s the question of why those slots would go to Asian applicants.
The reason, he says, isn’t the elimination of affirmative action, but the widespread use of “negative action,” under which colleges appear to hold Asian American applicants to higher standards than they hold other applicants. Using the available data from the Princeton study — and not all of it is available — Kidder argues that the vast majority of the gains that Asian American applicants would see come from the elimination of “negative action,” not the opening up of slots currently used for affirmative action. Based on the data used by the Princeton study, Kidder argues that negative action is the equivalent of losing 50 points on the SAT.
The lead author of the Princeton study did not respond to messages about the findings. . . . Kidder argues that all the references to growing Asian enrollments in a post-affirmative action world encourage a return to the “yellow peril” fear of people from Asia taking over. More broadly, he thinks Asian Americans in particular aren’t getting accurate information about the real cause of their perceived difficulties getting into competitive colleges. Their obstacle, he says, isn’t affirmative action, but the discrimination Asian Americans experience by being held to higher standards than anyone else. He says that the differential standards appear to be growing and are similar in some ways to the way some Ivy League institutions limited Jewish enrollments in the first half of the 20th century.
Quotas for asians have been suspected for a while, and this is troubling. Would more asians mean more "diversity" or less? Read the whole thing.
PROBABLY NOT: "You know, what the Democrats need is a presidential candidate who was critical of the war early on, but who now firmly supports the successful completion of the mission. Gore?"
posted at 01:06 PM by Glenn Reynolds
BAD NEWS FOR AHMADINEJAD AT THE WORLD CUP: "Did you ever think you'd see the same people waving Israeli flags and singing Deutschland über alles?"
No, but I wouldn't want to get on their bad side . . . .
UPDATE: The Independent report seems to be in error.
posted at 12:56 PM by Glenn Reynolds
THIS IS MORE LIKE IT: An Army of Davids tops NRO's summer reading list. " I admit I’m already half-way through this book, and it’s great — an exhilarating and provocative exploration of how technological change is empowering individuals and spurring the creation of a new, dispersed entrepreneurial class."
In other news, Jesse Walker sends this link to a bad review of a Christine Rosen piece on videogames. She just doesn't seem to like, or understand, technology much. She likes Leon Kass, though, which may explain her antipathy to my work. Good thing I didn't have a chapter on eating ice cream cones in public!
When most people hear the word "Enron," they mentally complete the phrase by adding the word "scandal." As reporter Lester Holt of NBC's "Today" put it in a Jan. 1 story, "Enron has been the poster child, if you will, of corporate scandals."
It isn't the only one, though. There's $40-billion scandal with most of the same elements -- even connection to prominent politicians. Just don't expect to see much about it on TV. After all, the top people involved here are Democrats.
Welcome to Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored mortgage giant. As part of a scandal that's been running nearly two years, Fannie Mae has "misstated earnings" to the tune of $10.8 billion. That's some tune.
Ironically, part of the impetus for the no-knock raid is the safety of police and civilians. There's a certain logic to that: A quick and efficient raid, in which the power of the police is immediately established and no resistance is possible, would seem like the quickest means of assuring domestic tranquility. But what happens when a citizen with a legally purchased handgun reacts to a home invasion, by people who have not knocked and are less than prompt in identifying themselves as police officers, in the most reasonable manner available—by shooting one of the invaders? The Mississippian Cory Maye is famously sitting on death row for shooting a cop who didn't identify himself before trespassing on Maye's residence. But Officer Ron Jones, by all accounts an excellent cop and standup guy, is dead. This case is not directly applicable (Maye's home was not part of the search Jones was conducting), but the principle is the same: A violent home invasion increases the likelihood that somebody will get hurt, and the Supreme Court ought to proceed with caution before raising the likelihood of an event like that. We can take a charitable view and assume that Scalia and the high court majority are committed to reducing the amount of violence in America. But the best way to avoid a fight is not to start it.
Armed people breaking into homes unannounced ought to be in danger of being shot at. Police shouldn't put themselves in that situation except in extraordinary cases -- where, for example, someone's being held hostage. Worries that someone might flush a bag of reefer don't qualify, in my opinion.
posted at 08:03 AM by Glenn Reynolds
ARMED ROBOTS for urban warfare. Is it too late to trademark the name "Bolo?"
DARFUR UPDATE: "Despite rapidly escalating violence throughout Darfur and eastern Chad, the UN Security Council refuses to push for urgent measures to protect civilians and humanitarians. Instead, deferential Council members have repeatedly insisted that the genocidaires of the National Islamic Front regime in Khartoum will determine whether an international force deploys to Darfur, even as the regime continues to send explicit signals that it has no intention of allowing for such deployment."
The US now has approximately 950 Border Patrol agents stationed on the 5,525-mile long US-Canadian border. The 1,950 mile-long US-Mexico border has 10,300 agents. In 2005 the Canadian border had approximately 1000 agents and the Mexican border 9,600. The increased number of agents and troops along the Mexican border makes a difference, but the net result is just to make people smugglers richer. As more areas of the border become well guarded, smugglers charge more to get people in via more remote areas. The greed, and often callousness, of the smugglers has helped change Mexican public opinion towards the illegal migrants. More and more Mexicans are looking at the exodus as a sign of Mexican failure. Why must Mexicans move north of the border to find economic success? Why not in Mexico?
Good question. As I've noted before, it's a question that Mexican Presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has been asking, too, and he's gone up in the polls since he started asking it.
A few sporadic crimes, none of them inspiring a wave of copycats; a campaign whose body count over several years could be dwarfed by just one night of gang warfare; a would-be soldier who's willing to slay one man then turn himself in—this isn't a sequel to 9/11, it's a short-lived spinoff that never made it past the pilot. These attacks are so rare, they if anything highlight how unwilling American Muslims are to kill for Allah. If this country were swimming with volunteer fifth-columnists, we would have seen a lot more mayhem by now.
It hardly matters whether isolated murderers are driven by their interpretation of the Koran, by some deficiency in their brains, or by any other explanation for their deeds. You can deal with them the way you deal with any other solitary criminals. There is real danger in an organized network of terrorists, and there is real danger in a substantial subculture willing to engage in unorganized terror. But attacks like the hit-and-run in North Carolina, the airport shootings in L.A., and this maybe-Muslim murder fit neither category. Bloody and evil as they are, their chief effect is to make jihad seem mundane.
At the moment, I think he's probably right. And, as I've mentioned before, I think that it's a good reason for the FBI not to be indiscriminate in its pursuit of potential terrorists in the United States, since that may do more harm than good.
posted at 05:38 PM by Glenn Reynolds
U.S. SOLDIERS TORTURED BEFORE DEATH: And yet Guantanamo will get more ink. And, again, the argument is that it's a man-bites-dog story when Al Qaeda tortures -- but that's belied by the moral equivalence that we keep seeing in the coverage.
UPDATE: Okay, the above doesn't really capture what I think, and at the moment I'm at a loss to phrase it better. I'm quite upset by the events, obviously, but I feel that too many people in the coverage are trying to make hay out of it, and, after a few minutes, looking at my post it seems like I did the same thing. I don't want to take it down, though, since I don't generally do that. I'll try to come up with something more coherent later, but I do think that claims that Al Qaeda is torturing our soldiers because of some policy-manual for Guantanamo are implausible, to say the least.
I guess I should have followed Dan Riehl's advice and stayed silent, though I hadn't actually read Sullivan's post when I wrote the initial entry.
Officials said the suspected senior al Qaeda in Iraq member captured in yesterday's raid is known to be involved in facilitating foreign terrorists throughout central Iraq, and is suspected of having ties to previous attacks on coalition and Iraqi forces. Troops found an AK-47 with several magazines of ammunition and destroyed them all on site.
Several women and children were present at the raid sites, officials said. None was harmed, and all were returned to their homes once the troops ensured the area was secure, they added.
Yes, I know -- it's a "dog bites man" story. But that's the point, isn't it?
I hope that this gets a lot of attention, but given the behavior of Dennis Hastert, Jerry Lewis, et al., it's hard for me to believe that we'll see reform in this Congress, even though the failure to enact such reform is likely to be very damaging to the Republicans.
Meanwhile, N.Z. Bear has dramatically enhanced the news-aggegation aspects of the PorkBusters website, and it's filling up with pork-related news.
Before he emerged as the "InstaPundit," he was just a law professor at the University of Tennessee, writing on administrative law and the Second Amendment for publications like Law and Policy in International Business and Jurimetrics.
And publications like The Columbia Law Review, but that wouldn't fit her put-down-a-plow-and-picked-up-a-laptop storyline. As for the rest, it's a bit hard to discern a storyline beyond her dislike of InstaPundit, me, and the prospect -- which I don't actually advance in the book, and have quite explicitly disclaimed on InstaPundit -- that professional journalists and pundits will be replaced by amateurs.
Still, the amateurs are looking pretty good these days and, as Rosen's piece demonstrates, the professionals aren't exactly overwhelming us with their fairness and care. And there's no such thing as bad book publicity! Get your copy today!
UPDATE: Dave Price notes that the piece -- as is seemingly required for old-media attacks on the blogosphere -- contains the usual self-refutational errors, one of which comes in the form of inability to follow a hyperlink. There seems to be a lot of that going around these days . . . .
posted at 12:52 PM by Glenn Reynolds
THE NOTE: "Could it be that the Democrats' inability to come up with a consensus 'anti-war' position is more of a midterm problem for them than HarrietMiersDubaideficits -Katrinaearmarksimmigrationgasprices is for the Republicans? After all the private meetings (including just endless ones in the Senate caucus), Democrats remain united in their disunity, defensiveness, and distraction."
UPDATE: It's a Murtha-o-Rama over at Hot Air. Grampa Simpson makes an appearance.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Marc Cooper says the Democrats are hedging their bets after the fashion of loser gamblers.
posted at 10:11 AM by Glenn Reynolds
I'M READING CHARLES STROSS'S NEW NOVEL, Glasshouse, and enjoying it very much. I think he didn't try quite as hard as he did with Accelerando, which is good because there, even though that was a good book, it felt like he was trying a bit too hard. The Amazon blurb says that this is set in "the same far-future universe" as Accelerando, and I guess that's right, but the two books are pretty much freestanding; you certainly don't need to have read Accelerando to follow the story in Glasshouse.
posted at 09:55 AM by Glenn Reynolds
IMPRISONED EGYPTIAN BLOGGER ALAA has been freed. That's terrific news, though it doesn't get the Mubarak regime off the hook.
UPDATE: Oops, not quite. Sandmonkey emails: "Just spoke to Manal again. He will not be released today. Probably by tomorrow night or after tomorrow morning. The reason? Paperwork! They will take him to every place he was taken to while arrested (the Police precinct, the state prosecutor, the initial holding prison, etc…) to finish up paper work in regards to him. But at least now he is getting out, which is still awesome news. Thanks for all of you who helped, who signed the petition, who google-bombed, or even put that banner up. Thank you so much!"
MICKEY KAUS notes more revisionist history from Paul Krugman -- only this time it's not about the war.
Plus, "A stunningly cynical move by Senate Democrats." But that one, unsurprisingly, is about the war.
And, on BloggingHeads TV, Mickey Kaus and Robert Wright debate "Kos-ola." I continue to be unimpressed with the Kos scandals, which to me just look like politics as usual. I do note, though, that if I had similar connections to Republican politicians, the Kos crowd would probably be calling me a sellout . . . .
James Joyner, meanwhile, thinks I'm wrong to downplay this, makes an interesting distinction between blogs like InstaPundit and blog communities like Kos, and notes debate on the left. Bill Ardolino, on the other hand, offers a Kos defense of sorts: "For as much rightful criticism as that distasteful being receives, backing Mark Warner is one of the few smart political moves I've seen him make."
ANOTHER UPDATE: Jim Geraghty has a comprehensive Kos-Armstrong timeline. I still don't think it's a smoking gun, but he's right that this may dilute the trustworthiness of the Kos "brand" with some of his readers. But that's the blogosphere -- people who don't like him will go elsewhere, and they get to make up their own minds.
In political terms the blogosphere is like white noise, insistent and meaningless, like the wash of Pacific surf I can hear most days. But MoveOn.Org and Daily Kos have been hailed as the emergent form of modern politics, the target of excited articles in the New York Review of Books.
Beyond raising money swiftly handed over to the gratified veterans of the election industry both MoveOn and Daily Kos have had zero political effect, except as a demobilizing force.
Earmarks increasingly are the source of corruption and ethical transgressions on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Yet, the cardinals defend the practice. They argue constituents want pork, not reform.
The authentic prevailing congressional attitude toward reform was expressed by a Democrat who often is less discreet than his colleagues. The Sun Gazette newspaper in northern Virginia reported that Rep. Jim Moran told a party dinner June 9 in his district: "When I become [a House Appropriations subcommittee] chairman, I'm going to earmark the s--- out of it."
Appropriators stalk the House taking names of colleagues who dare disrupt logrolling. Every time, however, a coterie votes against pork. Their ranks include conservative reformers Jeb Hensarling of Texas, Mike Pence of Indiana, John Shadegg of Arizona and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. They can kiss goodbye goodies for their districts.
At Charlie Palmer's restaurant on Wednesday, assembled GOP campaign contributors cheered as John Boehner was introduced as the majority leader who never has sponsored an earmark. Later that day, Boehner voted against each of Flake's attempted earmark removals. In the House, one conservative reformer said to another seated beside him: "With this leadership, we never will get rid of earmarks."
Speaking of good-looking right-wing Frenchwomen running for office, do note the most unexpected -- but not unwelcome -- things coming out of the mouth of Ségolène Royal, who happens to be the top Socialist contender for next year's presidential race. She's dabbling in what her kind used to call Right-deviationism -- no doubt in an effort to steal the ground right out from underneath Sarkozy's feet; and her gambit may very well work, especially since she's so much better-looking than Sarko. She's recently revealed herself, for example, as being only slightly to the left of Le Pen on law-and-order. Suburbs in flames? Zero tolerance. "We need a return to the heavy hand." French teenagers burning cars? Straight into the military with you, mes potes; it will help you "get to know ... [your] good fortune to live in France." Troublemakers go to reform schools at the first infraction, and if your kids get out of hand, we cut off your welfare payments, capisce? Immigration quotas? Yes, what an interesting idea. Traditional family values? All for them. Oh, and that 35-hour work week? Scrap it. So suddenly, she's shot straight to the top of the polls, sending an arctic chill into the Sarkozy camp. Of course her comrades on the Left are getting their bowels all in an uproar; particularly exercised, evidently, is her consort and father of her four children, party leader François Hollande. Wouldn't want to be joining them at the family dinner table any time soon.
Definitely someone to put on the "wait and watch" list.
France is overdue for an upheaval. Let's hope it's a constructive one. More here.
posted at 09:34 PM by Glenn Reynolds
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION UPDATE: "The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would expand its review of a federal law banning some abortion procedures by deciding a California case on whether the law was too vague and imposed a burden on women."
Of course, there's an argument that the Act is outside Congress's commerce powers, though that's unlikely to fly with the Court after the Raich decision.
posted at 09:30 PM by Glenn Reynolds
WAR CRIME ROWBACK: At the end of a Haditha update, the Los Angeles Timesnotes:
The American Civil Liberties Union on Friday released a heavily redacted version of a military report on detainee abuses by special operations forces in Iraq. The report concludes that a series of sensational allegations by detainees could not be substantiated.
The report, compiled by Army Brig. Gen. Richard P. Formica, was completed last year, but a declassified version was not prepared until this month. It says some of the minor accusations — such as that detainees were fed only bread and water for more than two weeks — had merit. But it found there was no evidence for most of the more controversial allegations.
While sticking to its demand for the establishment of an independent inquiry into a blast on a Gaza beach 10 days ago that killed seven Palestinian civilians, the Human Rights Watch conceded Monday night for the first time since the incident that it could not contradict the IDF's exonerating findings.
How much attention will these statements get, compared to the original charges?
Cowan's team, including first author Yeong-Hoon Choi in Children's Department of Cardiac Surgery, obtained skeletal muscle from rats and isolated muscle precursor cells called myoblasts. They "seeded" the myoblasts onto a flexible scaffolding material made of collagen, creating a 3-dimensional bit of living tissue that could be surgically implanted in the heart.
The cells distributed themselves evenly in the tissue and oriented themselves in the same direction. Tested in the laboratory, the engineered tissue started beating when stimulated electrically, and its muscle cells produced proteins called connexins that channel ions from cell to cell, connecting the cells electrically.
When the engineered tissue was implanted into rats, between the right atrium and right ventricle, the implanted cells integrated with the surrounding heart tissue and electrically coupled to neighboring heart cells. Optical mapping of the heart showed that in nearly a third of the hearts, the engineered tissue had established an electrical conduction pathway, which disappeared when the implants were destroyed. The implants remained functional through the animals' lifespan (about 3 years).
This is cool, though it's more a pacemaker-substitute than a pacemaker, I think. (Via Slashdot).
UPDATE: Reader Chuck Pelto emails to note that the above is actually better than a pacemaker, since it fixes the problem. He also asks how Don Ho is doing after his Thai stem-cell operation. Pretty well, according to this report:
In December, Ho flew to Thailand for treatment of a deteriorating heart muscle and abnormal heart rhythm. The operation was described as a last resort for the entertainer after doctors here said there was nothing more that could be done to treat him.
Ho was back in January doing two shows a week at the Ohana Waikiki Beachcomber Hotel.
The experimental stem cell procedure costs between $25,000 and $30,000, but has not been approved in the United States and isn't covered by insurance. . . .
Since last May, the Bangkok doctors have performed the procedure on 54 patients, mostly Americans.
"There is some light for the people who don't have any other option left and have severe end-stage heart failure," said Arom, who worked more than 30 years on the Mainland.
The main concern of American doctors is whether stem cells survive and actually contribute to improved heart performance.
While the procedure has been proved to work on rats, no one knows its effect on humans, said Livingston Wong, who retired from well-known transplant practice Surgical Associates in Honolulu.
I guess we'll find out. I'd like to see this get more rigorous evaluation, and I certainly hope it turns out to work as well as advertised. Note that these are autologous stem cells, not embryonic stem cells -- it's done overseas because normal U.S. regulatory barriers are too high, not because of any stem-cell-specific ban.
posted at 04:42 PM by Glenn Reynolds
AL GORE WON'T ENDORSE JOE LIEBERMAN. Comment: "I guess Lieberman would have been good enough to run the government if something bad happened to Gore. But he's not obviously the best qualified to be the junior senator from Connecticut, even though he had the same job when Gore tapped him in 2000."
posted at 04:18 PM by Glenn Reynolds
DANIEL DREZNER names his favorite international organization: "This, by the way, is why I love the IWC -- it's not that there isn't vote-buying in other venues (including the UN Security Council), it's just that the bribery at the IWC is so wonderfully blatant."
THE NATIONAL JOURNALpolls insiders on how much impact the netroots will have on the 2006 elections.
posted at 02:12 PM by Glenn Reynolds
A LOOK AT AMNESTY IN IRAQ, from UPI correspondent Pamela Hess. In one of our podcast interviews, Jim Dunnigan noted that a lot of what's going on with the Ba'athist part of the insurgency is basically a dicker for amnesty. Properly handled, this issue could split and shrink the insurgency. I'm not, however, sure what's the best way to go about it.
Over the past decade Vibration & Sound Solutions Ltd., a small Alexandria defense contractor, has received a steady flow of federal contracts to work on "Project M" -- $37 million in all from annual "earmarks" by congressional supporters such as Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.).
Project M, a technology involving magnetic levitation, was conceived as a way to keep submarine machinery quieter, was later marketed as a way to keep Navy SEALs safer in their boats and, in the end, was examined as a possible way to protect Marines from roadside bombs.
All the applications have one thing in common: The Pentagon hasn't wanted them. . . . Moran received $17,000 in campaign contributions from Conkling and his wife over the years.
Read the whole thing, which puts it in the context of the larger earmarks issue.
I'll add this comment, which is only somewhat on-topic: Not so much nuanced discussants like Posner and Stone, but press coverage and political rhetoric generally, tend to suggest that there's a "trade-off" between national security and freedom. But that's misleading. You don't buy national security by getting rid of freedom; you may, in fact, wind up less secure. (This is a point I was making back on September 13, 2001). Nor is it necessarily the case that improvements in national security burden freedom. They may, in fact, have no impact at all, or even result in more freedom in some ways. It just depends. Programs have to be judged on their merits.
posted at 11:34 AM by Glenn Reynolds
IN THE MAIL: Walter Laqueur's new book, The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism : From Ancient Times to the Present Day. From the blurb: "The book reveals that what was historically a preoccupation of Christian and right-wing movements has become in our time even more frequent among Muslims and left-wing groups. Moreover, Laqueur argues that we can't simply equate this new anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism and write it off as merely anti-Israel sentiments. National and religious minority groups have been systematically persecuted from Indonesia, to Bangladesh, Rwanda, and beyond, but their fate has not generated much indignation in Europe and America. If Israel alone is singled out for heated condemnation, is the root of this reaction simply anti-Zionism or is it anti-Semitism?"
I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
posted at 11:19 AM by Glenn Reynolds
FROM NOBODY TO SOMEBODY: Murtha challenger Diana Irey -- who I don't think I'd even heard of before this weekend -- will be on FoxNews Live at 12:45 today. The more Murtha talks, the more attention she gets!
posted at 11:06 AM by Glenn Reynolds
JUST THE OTHER DAY, I got a reader email asking what had happened to French libertarian firebrand Sabine Herold. I didn't know the answer, but now, via Captain Ed, I see that she's running for office:
Sabine Hérold, who sprang to fame when she led a protest movement against French workers' readiness to go on strike, now hopes to exploit growing disillusionment with her country's political elite by winning a seat in parliament.
Miss Hérold, 25, who regards her French media nickname - Mlle Thatcher - as a compliment, also refuses to rule out standing as a candidate to replace Jacques Chirac as president next year. . . .
Miss Hérold claims that neither Nicolas Sarkozy nor Ségolène Royal, the presidential front-runners from the main parties, will be able to impose the reforms France needs to shake it out of "trade union dictatorship" and excessive state control.
Her own politics, she says, would transform France.
They would, and for the better. And blogospheric France-bashing notwithstanding, the world would be a better place if France were stronger, richer, and more confident along the lines she proposes.
posted at 11:00 AM by Glenn Reynolds
DUKE LACROSSE UPDATE: "The Durham Republican Party will field a candidate to run against the district attorney leading the investigation in the Duke lacrosse rape case in the November election, ABC News' Law & Justice Unit has learned."
UPDATE: John Fund has a must-read piece on Democrats' problems with the war.
posted at 08:50 AM by Glenn Reynolds
THE GLENN AND HELEN SHOW has been downloaded over 10 million times now. If we got just a dollar per download. . . .
posted at 08:20 AM by Glenn Reynolds
NET NEUTRALITY UPDATE: Richard Bennett says that claims that Cox Cable is blocking Craigslist are false. And Andy Kessler has some thoughts on the general topic: "this is one of those bizarre issues where both sides are off their rocker."
The United States Commission on Civil Rights took up affirmative action at law schools during a five-hour session Friday highlighted by political posturing, jousting over statistics and moments of incivility.
Meanwhile, LaShawn Barber notes a successful lawsuit by white professors who say that their University paid minorities more money on account of their race. I suspect that there's room for a lot of lawsuits along these lines. The combination of deep pockets and easy proof may well lure a lot of plaintiffs' lawyers to the field; the harder part will be finding plaintiffs willing to bring suit.
He is greeted by the College students' stentorian chants of "Larry! Larry! Larry!" -- a fitting bookend to the throngs of crestfallen undergrads who surrounded him during his resignation announcement.
What endeared Summers so much to students was his fundamental commitment to restoring the noble values of academia -- namely, ensuring that professors actually taught students engaging, challenging material, partook of truly open-minded intellectual inquiry, and resisted the fatuous enticements of simplistic political sloganism.
The commitment to academic integrity that Summers urged upon Harvard transcends the impetuous politics of right and left. Summers himself, who served as President Clinton's Treasury Secretary, is an iconic New Democrat. Yet his calls for reform were met with implacable hostility from the most reactionary elements at Harvard.
SIGNS OF SANITY at the Presbyterian Church (USA)? Apparently they're backing away from an Israeli divestment move. "Just over an hour ago, the 62-member Peacemaking and International Issues Committee voted overwhelmingly to apologize for its action of two years ago and no longer officially endorse divestment."
posted at 09:06 PM by Glenn Reynolds
FIRST THEY BUILT KOS UP, now they want to tear him down. TNR's The Planknotes a lot of stuff that's coming out about Kos, Jerome Armstrong, etc. You can read the New York Times blog item here for the moment, and there's a piece in the Post, too. And Mickey Kaus has thoughts. (But beware the name-similarity-based hostility!)
Is this a big deal? I'm not sure it ought to be. Blogs are a low-trust environment, and readers should be judging bloggers by what they say and how well they back it up, not by their credentials. On the other hand, it's obvious that some blog readers are, well, not that bright and will do what they're told without even following a link. ("Poor, uneducated, and easily led?") But I think those are the exception, not the rule.
Still, for my bottom-line take, a suggestion that political consultants have a history of talking things up for personal gain seems less-than-earthshaking to me. Am I wrong here?
MORE: Hmm, a growing chorus seems to think I'm wrong here. I'm sticking by my guns, though. And I really don't think it's fair to put Jerome Armstrong in the same category as Jason Leopold, Jeff Gannon, or Ben Domenech, as Surber does.
GLENN GREENWALD SHOULDN'T BE THROWING STONES: At least not judging by my recent experience. In an earlier post from last week, I missed the fact that the Kos crowd had backed James Webb. I updated it when Markos and others emailed me, but that didn't stop Glenn Greenwald from putting up a post savaging me for the error and including my email address in the claim that I wouldn't correct the error:
I wonder whether Instapundit (firstname.lastname@example.org) will retract his false claim that the Virginia result represents a repudiation of the "the Howard Dean-Kos-fringe" given that this "fringe" supported the winning candidate.
As always, this has resulted in a steady trickle of mostly illiterate emails from Greenwald readers, none of whom seem to have actually read the post, or they'd know that I fixed the error days ago and that they wouldn't have to "challenge" me to make the correction. But here's my favorite email resulting from Greenwald's post, from a guy named John Malloy:
I read Glen Reynolds take down of your Virginia Senate Democratic Primary analysis. When are you going to fess up and admit you were completely wrong?
Oops. He seems to have his Glenns mixed up, something that it took a followup email from me to make clear. No wonder Greenwald has a thing about me -- even when he gets something right, I get the credit! Meanwhile, Greenwald has never updated his post to note that I corrected the error, even though, as I say, it's been days, meaning that each email from his readers merely confirms their cluelessness further. I'll refrain, however, from publishing his email address over the matter, as I think it pretty much speaks for itself.
UPDATE: Apparently, I'm not the only one to have this experience. John Hinderaker emails:
Glenn, I laughed at your post about Glenn Greenwald and his readers. I've never looked at that site, but we can always tell when he's attacked one of our posts because we get a stream of almost-identical emails of low literary quality, to say the least. But the funny thing about them is how obvious it is that the people who write them haven't bothered to read our post! I've often scratched my head over what would motivate a person to take the trouble to write an email denouncing a post--but won't, on the other hand, motivate him to take the trouble to read the post he's attacking.
Yeah, go figure. It's certainly nothing that makes me more likely to be persuaded.
MORE: Now Greenwald updates. I didn't mean to suggest that his post went up after mine -- sorry, as I can see why he'd think I was saying that; it was badly written. My complaint was that he never updated his post after I updated mine, so that I continued to get lame emails from his readers for days. As for his claims that I'm masquerading as a moderate -- I don't think I'm "moderate" at all. My views are pretty much orthogonal to the political spectrum. My ideal world, in which, as I've said before, happily married gay couples have closets full of assault weapons, isn't exactly "moderate." Greenwald's also tired of being told that the emails he aims at other bloggers are lame and badly written. Well, if he's hearing it a lot, it's because it's true. When three people tell you you're drunk, it's time to sit down.
STILL MORE: Reader Nathan Holmes sends a thoughtful and well-written email:
I like your blog and links, but since you are someone who consistently makes the case that the New York Times processes events through a particularly biased lens, you ought to fess up when you yourself make the same error. It isn't just that you made a mistake about the minor detail of who supported James Webb in the Virginia primary- you made a mistake based on a false stereotype concerning the kind of candidates the Dean/Kos folks are supporting these days. Adjust your notion that the Dean/Kos wing is hard left, and hold yourself to the same standard that you hold the NY Times. Your blog will be better for it.
That's a fair charge, I think -- I did respond to a reader email based on a stereotype. The funny thing, though, is that I'm happy if the Kos crowd moves toward the middle, and I've been positive on James Webb all along. A smarter political move would have been for Kos supporters to gently correct me (a la the email above) and stress the common ground as a way of increasing support for their candidates. Instead, I got jumped on in a way that reinforces the worst stereotypes about the Democratic lefty blogosphere, and that suggests they're more concerned with their own positioning than with their candidates' winning.
posted at 05:08 PM by Glenn Reynolds
SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS on the Rove non-indictment, with additional reflections on the Duke lacrosse case.
posted at 03:57 PM by Glenn Reynolds
THE INSTA-WIFE OFFERS advice on dealing with people -- especially spouses or boyfriend/girlfriends -- who have Borderline Personality Disorder.
I understand the importance of cutting off money-flows to terrorists. But the FBI should understand the importance of distinguishing between terrorists and non-terrorists. Leaving aside the obvious downside of injustice, it's just dumb. Our best line of defense against foreign terror, after all, has traditionally been the immigrant communities in which terrorists try to hide. Alienating them unnecessarily and unfairly is just dumb.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan seems to think that there's something new about this position on my part, which shows that he's woefully ignorant. Heck, I was making this point back when Sullivan was still publishing virtual love letters to President Bush, something that I've never done. Joining in popular hysteria about Guantanamo, however, is something different. But then, Sullivan's been all over the place on that topic, too.
I admit that my early fears of police-statism were -- as some warned me at the time -- overstated. Nonetheless, I think that especially when we're operating in a domestic rather than a battlefield context, it's very important to be careful about these things. We can't afford the frequent idiocies of law enforcement as usual.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader James Somers notices something I didn't:
What struck (and annoyed) me about Sullivan's swipe at you for your post on Kurds being mistreated by the FBI was Sullivan's sarcastic remark that you had gone "all librul." Maybe I'm a little sensitive, having grown up in the Ozarks, but I took the use of the word "librul" as a cheap shot at southerners, as Sullivan's been on the warpath against red America in general lately. Which is ironic, given that it's red America that largely supplied the electoral muscle to start the war in Iraq he spent so much of 2002 lusting after. How many of Sullivan's neighbors in Provincetown supported Operation Iraqi Freedom?
Sullivan doesn't understand the South, and cheap shots at the South, alas, have been one of his trademarks for a while. I suspect that those, at least, do play well in Provincetown.
More interesting, however, is what the Times can't bring itself to say in the story: there isn't a single mention of New York's high taxes and rampant government regulatory regimes, or the relative lack therof in the (er, "red") Sun Belt states. Was it just too much trouble for the Times to admit that jobs (and thus people) are leaving for places that are more amenable to, you know, employers?