BEHIND THE CURVE: Reader Mark Winburne emails:

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

I didn’t see today’s comics, but according to the Doonesbury website the Miers strips were withdrawn, and replaced with a timeless strip on Zonker’s competitive tanning career.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

And yes, more papers should run Day by Day.

VIOLENCE SPREADS IN EUROPE: This isn’t good.

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

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

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

Indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EUGENE VOLOKH writes on Judge Alito and the First Amendment.

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

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

Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

WALLACE: You’re not?

Heh. Read the whole thing.

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

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

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

A LOOK at the psychology of Bush-hatred.

UPDATE: Related psychological post here.

BRUCE WILLIS AND MICHAEL YON on Iraq and media coverage.

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Tom Maguire has much more, including this:

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

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

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

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

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

Read the whole thing.

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

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

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

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

Froggy Ruminations thought it sucked:

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll emails:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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