UPDATE: RealClearPolitics shows Kerry up in several polls. This can't be making the Bush camp happy.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Some thoughts on the Bush / Kerry polls at Power Line. "We knew this was coming; the media story line for the next 30 days is Kerry's comeback, which has the effect of wiping the slate clean and avoiding discussion of how he got behind in the first place. Is the comeback real? Rasmussen shows the President continuing to enjoy a three-point lead. Among his respondents, 6% say they changed their vote as a result of the debate--3% now voting for Kerry, 2% for Bush, and one percent now undecided."
The silliest thing Dick Cheney has ever said was a couple of weeks after 9/11: ‘One of the things that’s changed so much since September 11 is the extent to which people do trust the government — big shift — and value it, and have high expectations for what we can do.’
Really? I’d say 9/11 vindicated perfectly a decentralised, federalist, conservative view of the state: what worked that day was municipal government, small government, core government — the firemen, the NYPD cops, rescue workers. What flopped — big-time, as the Vice-President would say — was federal government, the FBI, CIA, INS, FAA and all the other hotshot, money-no-object, fancypants acronyms. Under the system operating on that day, if one of the many Algerian terrorists living on welfare in Montreal attempted to cross the US border at Derby Line, Vermont, and got refused entry by an alert official, he would be able to drive a few miles east, attempt to cross at Beecher Falls, Vermont, and they had no way of knowing that he’d been refused entry just half an hour earlier. No compatible computers.
On the other hand, if that same Algerian terrorist went to order a book online, amazon.com would know that he’d bought The Dummy’s Guide to Martyrdom Operations two years ago and their ‘We have some suggestions for you!’ box would be proffering a 30 per cent discount on The A-Z of Infidel Slaying and 72 Hot Love Tips That Will Have Your Virgins Panting For More. Amazon is a more efficient miner of information than US Immigration.
Is it to do with their respective budgets? No. Amazon’s system is very cheap, but it’s in the nature of government to do things worse, and slower. To take another example from September 11, on three planes the crew and passengers followed Federal Aviation Administration procedures largely unchanged from the Seventies and they all died, along with thousands of other people; on the fourth plane, Flight 93, they used their cellphones, discovered that FAA regulations weren’t going to save them, and then acted as free-born citizens, rising up against the terrorists and, at the cost of their own lives, preventing that flight carrying on to its target in Washington. On a morning when big government failed, the only good news came from private citizens.
Don't count on John Edwards making this point Tuesday night, though.
posted at 07:52 PM by Glenn Reynolds
MR. SUN IS PAGING WONKETTE. Follow the link, look at the photo, and you'll see why.
THE OTHER DAY I linked to a column by Tim Chavez in the Nashville Tennessean calling attention to unreported successes in Iraq. Various letter-writers over at Romenesko disagree. (The absence of permalinks means you'll have to scroll). Excerpt: "I can tell you firsthand that the report Tim Chavez supposedly received from a Marine lieutenant colonel claiming that 'HUNDREDS of dead women and children were brought out after Sadr left' the shrine of Imam Ali is entirely false."
UPDATE: Chavez responds here. Read the whole thing.
Tehran, the nation's capital, as well as several other cities have been wracked in recent days with widespread anti-government protests and violent crackdowns by government forces. Buildings have been set ablaze, and exiles are calling for revolution. According to reports on Activistchat.com, a Web site dedicated to freeing Iran from the oppressive rule of the mullahs, numerous protestors have been killed. Ledeen - who has many sources inside Iran and out - reports that the roundups and executions of young men have picked up at a terrific pace. Iran has staged 120 public hangings since March alone, according to the government's own news agency.
The unpopularity of the mullahs, primarily with the younger, Western-oriented generation, is causing panic inside the regime. The appeal of revolutionary theocracy has been bled dry. The Christian Science Monitor reported - some would say "reluctantly reported" - that discontent with the regime and a desire for "change" according to various "polls" equals 90 percent. And we all remember those famous soccer games where Iranian fans chanted "USA! USA!"
Even if this weren't such a powerful human interest story, it would still be appalling how completely the mainstream media have downplayed what could be one of the most important news stories of our lives. If Iran were to throw off the shackles of the mullahocracy in favor of anything like a sane, decent and democratic regime, it would be the most significant advance for freedom and decency since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It would be a national security victory of staggering proportions.
Congressional investigators say that France, Russia and China systematically sabotaged the former United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq by preventing the United States and Britain from investigating whether Saddam Hussein was diverting billions of dollars. . . .
The paper also accuses the United Nations office charged with overseeing the program of having "pressed" contractors not to rigorously inspect Iraqi oil being sold and the foreign goods being bought. The program office, headed by Benan Sevan, who is also under investigation by a committee appointed by the United Nations, turned a blind eye to corruption charges, the paper says, because it apparently saw oil-for-food "strictly as a humanitarian program."
Representative Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican who chairs the subcommittee, said in an interview that there was no doubt that the abuses were systemic and that blame for the widespread corruption must be shared by Security Council members, the United Nations office that administered the program, and the contractors hired by the United Nations to inspect Iraq's oil exports and aid purchases.
October 2, 2004: As promised, the government began its campaign to retake control of Sunni Arab towns and cities that had fallen under the control of al Qaeda, criminal gangs and Baath Party gunmen. For the last two days, some 4,000 American and Iraqi troops have surrounded and regained control of Samarra, a Sunni Arab city with 100,000 residents, a hundred kilometers north of Baghdad. So far, about a hundred Iraqis have been killed, some 75 percent of them gunmen who have resisted the Iraqi police and American troops. Iraqi troops quickly seized major mosques in the city, preventing them from being used as fortresses by anti-government forces. At least one kidnap victim was released by advancing troops, and others will probably be found as well. A third of troops involved are Iraqi, and this includes a new Samarra police force, drawn from other parts of Iraq and led by more experienced and reliable commanders.
The nearby town of Tikrit, Saddam's home town, did not go the way of Samarra mainly because of local politics. The local power brokers in Tikrit make a deal with the coalition and kept it.
That's the good news. Here's the cautionary note:
The real battle for Samarra [will] take place in the next few months. The people fighting American troops at the moment, and getting killed, are the dummies. The smart guys just hide their weapons and wait for an opportunity to take over the town again. If the new police force cannot hunt down and arrest most of the smarter gangsters and terrorists in the next few months, Samarra will lapse into anarchy again.
There's also this:
A recently published survey of attacks on police and troops in Iraq revealed what had long been taken for granted, over 80 percent of the attacks took place in just four Sunni Arab provinces. The other 14 provinces were pretty quiet, most a dozen or fewer incidents a month. Interrogation of captured gunmen has made it clear that most of the attacks are planned, and the attackers recruited, by the gangs that have found refuge in the "outlaw" towns like Samarra and Fallujah. Especially in light of last week's terror bombing that killed and wounded some 200 children in Baghdad, the new government, and most Iraqis, are determined to put down the gunmen, terrorists and gangsters, and restore law and order.
And because of these bombings, a degree of force that might have aroused resentment among Iraqis is now more likely to produce satisfaction.
posted at 10:44 AM by Glenn Reynolds
COMING NEXT, AN EFFORT TO REHABILITATE PHLOGISTON CHEMISTRY: Jim Lindgren notes that an attempt at demonstrating that CBS's forged documents might have been done on a typewriter has fallen apart.
This is hardly a surprise, of course. But it wouldn't be much of a vindication for CBS even if, through some miracle, the documents turned out to be genuine. It's quite clear now that CBS acted without concern for the genuineness of the documents, and in fact in the teeth of opinions from its own experts that the documents were probably bogus. No amount of after-the-fact lawyering can change that evidence of journalistic bias and ineptitude, though CBS's namecalling of its critics, and general stonewalling, compounds the offense and moves it from negligence to the category of 'reckless disregard."
UPDATE: Former 60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt would seem to agree:
"I never would have done the story," said Hewitt, who retired in June as the show's executive producer after 36 years.
"I would have been very wary injecting myself into a campaign. You've got to be very careful that you're not perceived as doing the job that one of the two candidates should be doing himself." . . .
During the radio show, Hewitt said he's sorry that "60 Minutes" and Rather were perceived as doing Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's job for him "by bringing up an old issue, and they weren't careful enough to not make mistakes. And the minute you make one mistake, you're dead."
He also thinks that Kerry was "stupid" to make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign.
Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."
UPDATE: More here: It's somewhat hard to see how this stuff saw print. (Saw pixels? Got on the website, anyway.)
posted at 07:35 PM by Glenn Reynolds
READER DANIEL LARSEN EMAILS:
Bush's interview with Bill O'Reilly, aired Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday was amazing, and O'Reilly wasn't exactly throwing him softballs. I just watched the videos, and if Bush had been like that last night, Kerry would have been toast. Yet, so far as I can tell, there's been next to no blogosphere reaction. Watch it and call some attention to it, could ya?
(Click the "videos" tab)
I don't have time right now -- just finished mulching, and now I have to cook dinner. But there's the link, for anyone who's not as occupied with domestic chores.
He is the conservative bastion of the US supreme court, a favourite of President Bush, and a hunting partner of the vice-president. He has argued vociferously against abortion rights, and in favour of anti-sodomy laws.
But it turns out that there is another side to Justice Antonin Scalia: he thinks Americans ought to be having more orgies.
Challenged about his views on sexual morality, Justice Scalia surprised his audience at Harvard University, telling them: "I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."
I wonder why he didn't mention this in the confirmation hearings? (Via Ann Althouse).
UPDATE: Many people are angrily emailing that Scalia was joking. (Some send this story which says so). Well, yeah, that's what I figured. I didn't really think that many people would see Scalia as pro-orgy. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
It's not just that he has exaggerated what has gone wrong in Iraq. His entire speech was premised on the assumption that there were European troops and Muslim troops and United Nations gendarmes who would have gone to war with us against Saddam had Bush only waited another few days, weeks, months in the spring of 2003. That is a lie. And now, he holds out the same false promise. It is true, he admits, that there is a Security Council resolution calling on U.N. members to provide soldiers and trainers and a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission in Iraq. "Three months later," he admits, "not a single country has answered that call." Of course, Bush is to blame. And what should Bush do? He should "convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers" and "insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution."
There is something risible in Kerry's faith in these hopeless transactions brokered by Kofi Annan and in the United Nations itself, which is staging yet another tragic, do-nothing performance on Darfur. He surely knows there is no cavalry of Europeans and Arabs about to ride to Iraq's rescue (especially since he intends to withdraw American troops, hardly a move that will give other nations confidence). He surely knows there are no foreign funders willing to bear the financial burden, either. But, if he admits that, then much of his critique of Bush's Iraq policy collapses, and with it his confidence in the honorable community of nations--the kind of phrase of which liberals are fond. Except that the nations to which it refers are neither honorable nor a community nor, in many cases, even nations. Kerry may want to rely on their goodwill, but I don't.
Ouch. Meanwhile Alex Flowers emails with some questions:
About that global test...
1) Is there an old copy of it floating around we can get our hands on?
2) Is it multiple choice or essay form?
3) Is the test written in French, German or English?
4) Who determines if we can retake the test?
5) Is it pass/fail or is it more like the SAT?
Thanks in advance.
I'm pretty sure that the answer to (3) is "French."
UPDATE: Reader Randy Pickett has found a copy:
Global Test for Pre-emptive Military Action by the U.S.
1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?
2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?
3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?
4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?
5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?
6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?
7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?
8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?
9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?
10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?
Must've been in the frathouse files.
MORE: Interesting observation from reader Brian Faughnan:
I think that while Kerry might have helped himself a point or two last night - pushing some undecideds into his camp - we should also at least consider the question of whether his promises to (essentially) stay the course in Iraq will push any of his support on the left into the Nader camp. Between his promise to win in Iraq, to expand the military by two divisions and to consider pre-emptive war against Iran and North Korea, it must at the very least beefen-up Nader's stump-speech a little. And as they say, in a close race, it may not take all that many votes to shift a swing state from one camp to another.
Hmm. In that sense, the Nader percentage may be the best indicator of whether Kerry's tougher talk was credible with the electorate.
STILL MORE: Eric Muller thinks the "global test" stuff is being taken out of context. I don't know -- the language about "proving to the world" seems to me to support the less-friendly reading.
IT'S THE THIRD ANNUAL BLOGGER BOOBIETHON -- meaning that you can stare at pictures of major-league yabos and tell yourself that it's all for charity. There's even a page of male bloggers' chests, for those who are so inclined.
TRAFFIC: A shade over 8,320,000 pageviews in September. I imagine this will fall off some after the election.
posted at 10:33 AM by Glenn Reynolds
JAMES LILEKS HAS WRITTEN THE AGENDA for Kerry's proposed summit. I like it! He also has observations on the "global test" bit:
I’d really like to live in John Kerry’s world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well.
Mr. Bush slouched and stayed coiled tight, but Mr. Kerry seemed at times to be waltzing with his partner, the lectern. Mr. Kerry moved his hands almost continuously, at one point folding them over his heart like a French mime as he explained that he felt "nothing but respect" for Tony Blair and British soldiers serving in Iraq.
(Via the vigilant SoxBlog, where many things were noticed: "If Ed Gillespie called Kerry a French mime, John Edwards would sue him.")
UPDATE: Reader Dick Sears says I misread the graph:
I think you made a small error this morning.
There was no Bush debate dip, modest or otherwise. He did lose ground against where he had risen to during the debate, but all that meant was that he was back to where he'd been at the start of the debate.
I followed Tradesports and Iowa closely before, during, and after the debate to see who they "thought" was winning.
Tradesports most recent trades immediately before the debate started at 9:00 were 65.0 for Bush and 36.4 for Kerry. Bush gained steadily during the debate. For example, by 10:00 it was 67.4/33.7, with the same repeated at 10:35. But by 11:35, it was back pretty much where it had started, 65.5/36.0. This morning it was 65.0/35.9.
Iowa was perhaps closed for the day last night, because its 65/32 never wavered during the debate. But this morning it was 68.2/32.8.
So, if anything, I would say Bush had a modest gain.
The stock market seems to agree, except who ever knows why it does what it does?
Not me, and I've got the porfolio to prove it. More on the futures markets, and what they mean, here.
Kerry managed to not contradict himself within the space of a single sentence. Bush succumbed to vapor lock a couple of times but everyone knows that just makes him seem like a normal guy. All in all, we don't know who won. We're going to wait for the media to tell us.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Mickey Kaus scores it as a Kerry victory, though not a smashing one. Interestingly, the Insta-Wife thought it was a smashing victory for Bush. It didn't seem that way to me, but while I thought Bush's visible exasperation hurt him, she saw it as the natural response of a man who was busy fighting a war at having to listen to someone talk about its impact on prescription drugs. Go figure.
MORE: Lots of women are emailing to say that they agree with the Insta-Wife. I don't know if that's representative, though. It'll be interesting to see the polling on this in a few days as people think about it.
TOMMY FRANKS ON CNN: Osama bin Laden is not in Afghanistan, as Senator Kerry said he is.
On lacking a plan for winning the peace: "If you read my book, you'll find I mention a term called 'catastrophic success.' It's a good news thing. . . . But it takes a long time to bring stability to a place that hasn't known stability for a long time. It's inaccurate to say that there was not a plan . . . but some in our media built expectations that that would happen more quickly than was possible."
UPDATE: Reader Chris Greer doesn't think Franks was as positive as I make him sound above. I don't have a TiVo, but I was typing it as he spoke. He did say that he's a civilian now, and doesn't have secret info -- but he also said what I reported. Maybe there'll be a transcript tomorrow.
WRAPUP: Both closing statements were pretty good. Overall, while neither of these guys is an especially good orator (or maybe because neither is an especially good orator) it was a more substantive debate than I had expected.
Kerry was tougher than I had expected, which is good -- except that you never know what he'll say next time. If I hadn't been paying attention to the campaign, though, I'd be fairly impressed -- and Kerry has to hope that most people who watched the debate fall into that category. [LATER: Andrew Sullivan seems to agree with this take.]
Bush started off weak, got better as it went on, and finished well ("the transformative power of liberty"). Both did a pretty good job of sticking to issues and there weren't too many cheap rhetorical tricks. I don't think it'll change a lot of minds. But I have a very consistent track record of getting this stuff wrong (I thought Carter beat Reagan. . . .) so take my opinions with a large grain of salt.
Overall, a near draw, which translates to a win for Bush. Kerry started strong a few times then failed to move in for the kill. Unwilling or unable? . . . Both men seemed at a loss for words at times when I expected them not to be. Jitters?"
LAME QUESTION FROM LEHRER: Kerry says you're a liar. Does that raise any hackles? Bushy: I'm a pretty calm guy. Kerry thought Saddam was a threat too.
Kerry: Bush didn't go to war as a last resort.
N.Z. Bear: "OK, I'm not hypersensitive about such things. But these questions are turning out to be extraordinarily biased. Every question seems to be 'so, let's talk about the mistakes Bush has made...'"
UPDATE: Reader Charlotte Muhl writes that there weren't many questions about Kerry's record:
Is anyone saying the obvious? This foreign policy debate was all about putting Bush on the defensive. Why no attention to Kerry's 20 year Senate record of votes and statements on foreign policy, military and intell issues?! All I heard from Lehrer the entire evening was one sorta, kinda follow-up question on Kerry's post Viet Nam protest.
posted at 10:26 PM by Glenn Reynolds
N.Z. BEAR IS LIVEBLOGGING TOO, and observes: "Not that this is a revelation, but thus far, it looks like this will be a draw. Both candidates are doing ok, no obvious gaffes, no big moments (yet). I don't see a lot of minds being changed by this..."
posted at 10:24 PM by Glenn Reynolds
IF I WERE KIM JONG IL, I'd be worried no matter who wins.
posted at 10:17 PM by Glenn Reynolds
THE CHARACTER ISSUE: Bush: He changes positions on something as fundamental as what you believe is right in Iraq. You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. They send the wrong signals to our troops, our allies, and the Iraqi citizens. There must be certainty from the United States President.
Kerry: Bush has done it more than I have in terms of the Presidency, and it's tough. Nice words on the daughters, and Laura Bush. To the point: It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong. You've got to change and get your policy right. He's not acknowledging the truth on the ground, on stem cells, on science. (Stem cells must be polling well.)
Bush: You shift tactics based on what's working, but you don't change your core values because of politics and because of pressure.
Kerry: I've never wavered in my life. I've been consistent on Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a threat, he needed to be disarmed but we didn't need to rush to war. Hmm.
posted at 10:16 PM by Glenn Reynolds
A DARFUR QUESTION: Do we send in troops?
Kerry dodges by talking about Iran. Finally gets to Darfur: "Yes it is a genocide. Many of us are pressing for action." But do it through the African Union. Give 'em logistical support. But we're overextended. That's why I want to make the Army bigger. (But I'd send troops to Darfur.)
Bush -- responds on Iran, noting sanctions predate his administration. True, but a distraction. On Darfur: I agree it's genocide. We're the leading donor. We'll commit more. We're very much involved. (What Bush should say: The problem with my approach is that it's too Kerryesque, working through the UN and other organizations. Okay, maybe not.)
posted at 10:10 PM by Glenn Reynolds
DID KERRY JUST SAY he might "preempt" in Iran and North Korea?
Bringing up Kyoto seems silly though.
Jonah Goldberg: "WHY Does Kerry keep saying we didn't secure Saddam's nuclear facilities if he thinks he didn't have any?"
Bush is hitting Kerry on North Korea, contrasting the Clintonian bilateral strategy with his own multilateral strategy -- see, he can bring in allies! "Now there are 5 voices speaking to Kim Jong-Il."
Kerry straddles in response to a Lehrer followup: I want both bilateral and multilateral talks!
posted at 10:00 PM by Glenn Reynolds
BOY, IF BUSH produces Osama next week, Kerry's going to look bad.
C-SPAN'S CONSISTENT SPLIT-SCREEN is the best of the TV treatments, I think.
posted at 09:53 PM by Glenn Reynolds
NOW KERRY'S TALKING TOUGH: Don't back off on Fallujah; close the borders. No long-term designs on Iraq.
His best moment so far. Kind of loses his thread with the training angle, though, as he echoes Bush so closely.
Bush quotes Allawi. Slaps Kerry for criticizing Allawi, Lockhart for calling him a puppet. Good comeback. Bush's consistent theme: Kerry's not serious here, and hasn't made the tough decisions a commander-in-chief has to make.
UPDATE: Reader Doug Jordan emails: "Kerry's position boils down to: US troops don't work; let's use some others. The Prez should say so."
posted at 09:50 PM by Glenn Reynolds
KERRY PUTS HIS FOOT IN IT: The President says that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction he would have gone in the same way. I would not.
HUGH HEWITT is posting a debate scorecard with questions and answers.
I'm surprised that Bush hasn't mentioned this story in support of his forward strategy on homeland security:
A man arrested by U.S. authorities in Iraq had a computer disk in his possession containing a public report downloaded from a U.S. Department of Education Web site on crisis planning in school districts, including San Diego Unified.
The man was described as an Iraqi national with connections to terrorism and the insurgency that is fighting U.S. forces in Iraq. Officials in San Diego said the man's intentions were unknown.
posted at 09:21 PM by Glenn Reynolds
STEPHEN GREEN will be liveblogging the debate. He's already warming up.
UPDATE: Shape of Days will be liveblogging, too, and will be hosting the Bush campaign's instant-fact-checking RSS feed. As far as I know, the Kerry campaign doesn't have one of those.
UPDATE: Capt. Ed will be liveblogging, too. The Northern Alliance guys will be gang-live-blogging (live-gang-blogging -- no, that sounds like something Wonkette would make off-color comments about. . . .). And there will be group-chatting (Wonkette again!) over at The Command Post.
DEBATE PREDICTION: Unless Kerry melts into a puddle on the floor, the media spin will be that he did well and helped his campaign. This is for two reasons. One is, as Newsweek' Evan Thomas remarked, that the press "wants Kerry to win."
The other, of course, is that they want the race to remain interesting -- which is to say, a race -- for another month, and it'll be hard to do that if everybody's pronouncing Kerry doomed after tonight.
"People keep analyzing these things as a great opportunity for Kerry—his last opportunity to define himself," said Democratic operative Chris Lehane. "But usually what happens is that someone makes a mistake, and that ends up defining the debates, which end up defining the last four weeks of the campaign." Mr. Lehane should know: He was Al Gore’s press secretary in 2000.
Wasn't Al Gore orange for one of the debates, too?
The woman who helped swing the vote at the Labour conference over pulling troops out of Iraq today accused party members of naivety about the situation in the country.
Shanaz Rashid – whose husband is a minister in the interim Iraqi government – was earlier given a standing ovation when she made an emotional appeal not to pull troops out.
Close to tears, she told party activists that many friends had perished under Saddam Hussein and she had kissed the ground with joy on arriving back at Baghdad after the war.
She praised the Prime Minister for “standing up” to Saddam and liberating the country.
“Yes, there have been difficulties. Yes, there have been mistakes perhaps many mistakes. No, you did not find weapons of mass destruction.
“But for the great majority of Iraqis WMD was never the issue. We don’t understand the criticism of your Prime Minister. All we wanted was to be free.”
She added: “I appeal to you all ... to help us build a new democratic federal Iraq that would respect the lives of human beings.”
Asked later if she considered Labour members naive about the situation for Iraqis, she said: “Yes I do think so. They don’t know the reality of their lives. . . . If they are concerned about the Iraqi children they should not be asking the British Government to leave them alone at the mercy of others.”
"What they did was very stupid," Halberstam said. "But they have been heading in that direction for a long time. I've always been critical of this whole business of star journalism, where you have a big anchor coming on air and acting as a prosecutor with someone else's reporting. In many instances over the years on that program the reports have been lightly or poorly sourced and the reporting suffers as a result. Dan Rather right now is the principal anchor of the Evening News, but he is also the program's main reporter. Then he's the anchor of 48 Hours. On top of that he's the star of 60 Minutes II. That's just too much for one person and it leads to the kind of sloppiness in their reporting that just happened.
"In general, the last couple of years have not been very good ones for the media," Halberstam added. "There has been too much corporate control, and I wouldn't be surprised if the broadcast networks eventually got out of the news business. They've been moving to get out of it for years anyway."
Interesting. It's occurred to me that Halberstam's book, The Reckoning, about the decline of the American automobile industry, sheds a bit of light on what's going on with Big Journalism now. (Via Bill Hobbs, who has further thoughts.)
UPDATE: Some thoughts on the draft from a serviceman in Iraq.
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader sends me a copy of this email he sent to the anti-draft crusaders interviewed by Rather:
Our 22 year old son is a US Marine, SpOps. His Btn just returned from the al Anbar region of Iraq. They have the unfortunate distinction of having taken the most casualties of any Coalition unit in Iraq (33 KIA 200+ WIA, sent home). However, they - in the proud tradition of US Marines, and specifically the 7th Marine Regiment - killed over 3,000 of the enemy bringing peace to the region o which they were assigned. They took on an area where there was murderous errorist activity on a daily basis and today, it's as safe as most of Philly.
I can guarantee you, because I had this conversation with Josh and with his comrades-in-arms, they DO NOT WANT conscripted kids with them. At home, hey are the finest men this country has to offer. Polite, generous and even lightly patriotic. At work they are the worst enemy of people who attack the S. They are committed to what they do. They don't need whining, snotty children linging to mommy's apron who they would have to babysit.
So, please contact Rep. Rangel and the other Democrats who put forth this egislation. Tell them to withdraw it - not that it has a snowball's chance in Baghdad of passing anyway. And please, don't fear for your sons. My son and his friends, WILLINGLY sleeping in holes in the sand and eating MRE's will make sure you and your sons can all sleep well in your soft beds after a quiet dinner.
very proud father of LCpl Josh. The best man we know...
I am writing in furtherance of the comments made by Michael Becker, father of the Marine who just returned from Iraq.
My son, Michael, is a 22 Marine Corporal. On 9/11 he was a sophomore in college. We live in Northern NJ, about 15 miles from ground zero. Michael called home and said that he had to do something about 9/11, so he left college and joined the Marines.
I am an attorney and my wife is a teacher. Our oldest son is a graduate of New York University Law School and an associate at a major NYC law firm. Michael was doing fine in college and did not 'have to join the Marines". He joined as a calling.
Michael has been in the Corp. for for almost 3 years and has not yet had an assignment overseas. That is about to change. He is presently assigned to the 15th MEU in Camp Pendelton. They will be deployed sometime on or before December 6th. We do not know where they are going, but we expect that Iraq is part of the plan.
Michael and all of his Marine buddies can't wait to go. That is why they signed up. In fact, someone is his company made a mistake. They entire company was threatened that if mistakes continued, there would be a punishment. That
punishment was that they would not go to Iraq. That is correct, if they mess up, they will not go to Iraq. This is very upsetting to them.
The Marines do not want conscripts. Every one of these guys or gals will have his (or her) life on the line depending on the Marines around them. They do not want people who have to be forced to be there. Every one of them is prepared to give their all for the other Marines, their family and their country. They do not need anyone there who does not feel the same way.
People who do not know military families just don't understand. Maybe some day they will finally realize how much we all owe to LCpl Josh Becker, my son Cpl Michael Wishnia, and thousand of Marines and soldiers.
Best bit, from producer Linda Karas: "The truth of the e-mails were absolutely irrelevant to the piece, because all the story said was that people were worried. It’s a story about human beings that are afraid of the draft. We did not say that this (e-mail) was true, it’s just circulating. We are not verifying the e-mail."
UPDATE: See this post, as reporters who were in Iraq dispute some of Chavez's reports.
posted at 08:57 PM by Glenn Reynolds
IT'S BLOGGERIFIC! This week's Carnival of the Vanities is up, featuring a vast number of posts from a vast number of blogs. Statistically, quite a few of 'em are likely to be better than this one, so check them out!
posted at 08:27 PM by Glenn Reynolds
MOVEON VS. GALLUP: The Mystery Pollster weighs in.
ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT VOTER FRAUD, and lots of Bush supporters have been emailing me stories and anecdotes in support of the notion that the Democrats will be "emptying the cemeteries" to ensure that there are plenty of dead people voting for Kerry.
I've tended to scoff at these reports -- a certain amount of fraud is inevitable, and there are all sorts of reasons for people to make a big deal of the prospects in advance. (Though for a contrary argument, read this.) But having driven by the cemetery pictured at right, I'm beginning to wonder if the dead-people-for-Kerry vote might not be bigger than I thought. . . .
UPDATE: Several readers think I'm underplaying the importance of voter fraud, and one notes that John Fund has a new book out on voter fraud. (More here: "the level of suspicion has grown so dramatically that it threatens to undermine our political system.") I'm all for positive voter ID, secure voting technologies, and so on. I just hope that the election isn't close enough for this to matter.
SPACESHIP ONE had some control problems and rolled, forcing an early engine shutdown. But CNN and Fox are reporting that it reached the requisite altitude for a successful X-Prize mission. It's scheduled for reentry shortly.
UPDATE: A successful flight, and a safe landing. Woohoo!
First, we must acknowledge that the blogs have truly arrived. It is hard for journalists who have led a sheltered life without public accountability to acknowledge that those days are over. . . .
There's then an acknowledgment that their "swing voter" wasn't quite as swinging as advertised
"We should have known about his political contributions and we should have been tougher when we set out to do this story. We'll ask him those questions on the air when he comes on the program this week." Feeney adds that they quizzed Ridley intensively prior to the first interview. He was open about his previous voting record (he has voted for both parties) and that he is now a registered independent. The donations, it seems, never came up.
Part of the problem is describing Ridley as a "swing-voter" -- a term that means someone who is waiting to be persuaded, according to NPR's political editor, Ken Rudin. Ridley has made up his mind enough to give money to political causes in the past. Perhaps a more accurate term (Morning Edition's gadfly? fence-sitter? wry observer?) might have been coined for the occasion.
UPDATE: Jim Geraghty is less impressed with NPR's admission: "Ladies and gentleman, in the long and varied history of lame excuses and spin, this may just be the lamest." You've got to walk before you can run, Jim.
posted at 11:12 AM by Glenn Reynolds
I'M GUESSING THAT FahrenHype 9/11 won't get as much attention as Michael Moore's film.
I asked my local Blockbuster last night if they were getting it in on Oct. 5 and the guy didn't know what I was talking about. But he looked it up anyway and once we had settled on a spelling of Fahrenheit it was quickly revealed that they are in fact recieving two copies. Seeing as how it will be shelved next to Moore's agitprop I don't think it will need an enormous advertising budget to attract attention. And word of mouth spreads fast on stuff like this so I'm very encouraged.
posted at 11:00 AM by Glenn Reynolds
DON'T GET COCKY: Howard Kurtz thinks that Republicans are getting overconfident. And Salon's Farhad Manjoo -- who's been betting on Bush in the Iowa Electronic Markets -- now thinks that Bush is overvalued there. ("I think the IEM is overvaluing Bush shares, maybe by a little and possibly by a lot. I've arranged my portfolio accordingly.") Is this right? Beats me.
UPDATE: Reader Karl Bade emails: "Howard Kurtz is ostensibly a media critic. But today's column reads like a memo to what the Note calls 'the Gang of 500,' the message of which is: it is crucial that the media's post-debate spin favor Kerry."
ANOTHER UPDATE: More on the futures market here, saying that Manjoo is right.
You'd think they learn. Of course, judging by the collapsing ratings, the only people left watching CBS News are probably fact-checking bloggers. Dan's gotta give them something to keep them tuning in. . . .
UPDATE: RatherBiased.com has succumbed to traffic overload. You can find the item mirrored at RatherGate.com. And here's a donations page if you feel inclined to help.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Jim Lindgren observes: "can the Nigerian funds transfer letter be far behind?"
HAD DINNER WITH JIM HAKE of Spirit of America, who was passing through town on his way to New York. He shared some interesting stories of his trip to Iraq, and talked about some cool new things they'll be doing in the near future.
Drop by their site, or their blog to see what they're doing to help bring about a peaceful and prosperous civil society in Iraq.
posted at 08:52 PM by Glenn Reynolds
DANRATHERMUSTGO.COM -- the commercials there are apparently running during the CBS Evening News in some markets. Ouch.
The news story on these ads is here: "Last week, a Texas congressional candidate launched a television campaign ad linking his opponent to Rather, accusing the incumbent of airing advertisements that have 'more holes than a CBS News story by Dan Rather.'"
UPDATE: Reader Bruce Bretthauer emails:
If people want you to blog about other things than Dan Rather, what about Sandy Berger removing files from the National Archives? Is he still connected with the Kerry Campaign? Why doesn't Kerry have Berger take "administrative leave" while those accusations are sorted out? Why doesn't MSM care about this? Is the MSM explanation another example of "fraudulent but true"?
They do seem to have let that one drop.
ANOTHER UPDATE: In response to the email above on Berger, a reader objects that Berger is no longer advising John Kerry, citing thisWashington Post article. ("Berger Quits as Adviser to Kerry.")
Sandy Berger, former White House National Security Advisor and key foreign policy and security advisor to Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry, hinted Wednesday that should Kerry win the U.S. presidential election in November, it was possible that the decision to reduce U.S. troops in Korea would be reconsidered.
Perhaps this is just a misunderstanding. Or perhaps Berger's resignation was only for domestic purposes?
He's not there quite yet, but at this rate Carter is looking like the Ramsey Clark of the 21st Century.
posted at 03:50 PM by Glenn Reynolds
PLAME UPDATE: Tom Maguire's got the Plame roundup, with lots of interesting questions and observations.
posted at 02:13 PM by Glenn Reynolds
KERRY'S POLL TROUBLES: I'm no expert on polling, but these numbers just sound terrible to me -- in fact, it's probably a measure of Bush's weakness as a candidate on an absolute scale that he's not doing better in the vote-for numbers given Kerry's weakness on all these specifics.
UPDATE: Ouch. Somewhat more positive take (for Kerry) here.
IF I HAVEN'T BEEN RESPONDING TO YOUR EMAIL, there's no need to engage in shameless (if largely well-founded) sucking up.
Over the past few weeks, the volume of email I've gotten has exploded beyond its already-unmanageable levels. If you want to tell me that there's a factual error in a post, please make that clear (e.g., "FACTUAL ERROR IN POST ON ___"). But about all I can do is skim the subjects and read the stuff that looks most important. I apologize for that. I try to read as many emails as I can, but if I read them all there would be no time to blog.
posted at 01:48 PM by Glenn Reynolds
ANKLE-BITER UPDATE: Reader Mark Gist sends this link. Heh.
The bureaucracy’s use of junk science is especially troubling because it calls into question the reliability of potentially life-saving information. If we cannot trust the government about the drinking age, some might argue, how can we trust it about the need to use seat belts, or the danger of HIV?
When it comes to alcohol policy, federal officials should stick to dispassionate, peer-reviewed research, not slick marketing aimed at promoting one point of view. They should act more like public servants and less like pressure groups.
OKAY, I DON'T BLOG ABOUT HEALTHCARE as much as some people seem to want me to. (I've got a post on malpractice reform that's simmering, but it's not quite tasty enough to serve up yet.)
But the blogosphere is a big place, and that means that if you want people to blog on healthcare, you can let the people who actually know things about healthcare do the blogging. For that, you might want to visit Grand Rounds, a sort of "Carnival of the Caregivers" featuring blog posts from a wide variety of medical professionals.
This is scheduled to be a weekly feature, and if they'll send me the links, I'll post 'em. That's my role here, apparently. . . .
And Sally Pipes and Bejamin Zycher wonder why the press pays attention to doctors when they talk about economics, not medicine.
ANOTHER UPDATE: More healthcare blogging from Lorie Byrd: "I am probably the perfect target for John Kerry's pitch for a new approach to health care. . . . Since I am currently working nights and weekends solely because we are currently unable to get health coverage any other way, I would love to see some innovative alternatives to the current system."
No doubt her post will receive a lot of Big Media attention.
MICKEY KAUS comments on David Broder's what's-gone-wrong-with-journalism take:
The "damaging failures" were the failures of hazed and certified members of the journalistic caste (Rather, Raines, Kelley)--professionals who had come up through the ranks, worked their beats and were in theory "deeply imbued with the culture and values of newsrooms." ... Broder blames bloggers, politicos, good writers--everyone except those who actually did the screwing up. Projection! The obvious possibility he doesn't want to consider is the one Shafer hammers: That the practices of Broder's profession were never that terrific.
As I've said before, I don't know what worries me more -- the thought that the standards of journalism have been slipping recently, or the thought that, maybe, it's been this bad all along and we just couldn't tell before. . . .
UPDATE: More here: "The veteran Washington Post columnist penned an almost note-perfect epitaph for the age of monolithic media by somehow confusing thread-bare bloggers with celebrity-chasing corporate chieftains. Evidently all that matters to Broder is that there exist people outside of the priestly caste of High Journalism who make news decisions. And that is wrong, heresy perhaps." RatherGate is really bothering these guys.
posted at 08:16 AM by Glenn Reynolds
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: "What will it take to convince these people that this is not a year, or a time, to be dicking around? . . . How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart?"
A must-read. I do think that the Democrats have made unfortunate choices in this election, and that it will probably work out badly for them.
AS THE X-PRIZE COMPETITION TIGHTENS, Allen Boyle reports that someone wants to set up a new prize: "Robert Bigelow, the millionaire behind Bigelow Aerospace and a plan to develop inflatable space modules for commercial use, is floating the idea of setting up a $50 million prize for the development of a new orbital space vehicle."
Meanwhile, donations to the Methuselah Mouse Prize, in the area of longevity research, have topped $500,000 already. I think this approach may be catching on.
But he also misrepresents the quote of mine that he uses. The quote is: "The basic system where we talk about facts and policies is broken."
I said that, but as part of explaining why the media-criticism aspect of blogging is so important, and not just raucous hackery as he suggests. I didn't -- as he makes it appear -- suggest that bloggers' partisanship makes serious discussion of issues on blogs futile. Rather, I was arguing that you can't have a serious discussion of issues in the society at large, when so much of Big Media is partisan and dishonest, and that this is why it's so important to point out the dishonesty and try to make things better, which is what I see bloggers doing.
Levy, however -- though in our interview he said he thought that bloggers' emphasis on Trent Lott's racial remarks was fine -- was very unhappy about my emphasis on Kerry's now-admitted misrepresentations about having spent Christmas in Cambodia in 1968, and he also makes that clear in his piece. (He also seems upset that bloggers have spent so much time on RatherGate. Yeah. I've also blogged a bit on Darfur, but never mind that.) In his opinion, I should be blogging on health care. Maybe I would be, if Big Media covered things like the Cambodia story honestly, as it did not. (Even now, Levy doesn't mention the Kerry campaign's admission that he wasn't there.) Indeed, as I wrote back when the Cambodia issue was hot, "the press -- and this, to me, is the most interesting and disturbing part of the story -- has been shamelessly covering for Kerry." That seemed like a big deal to me, and still does. Follow the link to read much more on that subject.
I've always thought well of Levy, and I'm sure that he didn't intend to misrepresent my meaning. But -- as is so often the case with Big Media folks -- he came in to the interview with his storyline predetermined, and he put things into that mold whether they fit or not. (It also, as always, makes me wonder where else this is happening without my noticing it.)
And, sadly, that -- together with the condescending notion that bloggers are "biting the ankles" of their betters -- says it all about what's wrong with Big Media today. Levy's disappointed in the blogosphere. But I'm disappointed in Levy, and much of his profession.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt: "In a column complaining about snarkiness, what's with the 'ankle-biter' stuff?"
ANOTHER UPDATE: A better cautionary note for bloggers can be found here.
MORE: Levy sends this email:
Well, I knew you wouldn't be on board with my take. But I don't feel I took you out of context. What you said you meant was excactly the context I intended--that the system itself was broken. If it came out to your eyes that I was trying to put some other implication, that's my failing. (But on rereading it, it seems clear to me. Maybe it's a block.) My belief is that by and large, the blogosphere hasn't lived up to its potential to work in some way to improve the system. I meant it when I said there was good stuff to find out there.
I love reading blogs, but wanted to make a point, even knowing that I'd get whacked by bloggers. But that's part of the open marketplace of ideas that I do fully support. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be as free to say whatever they hell they want but--as the last graph concluded--this is one more example of the larger phenomenon that just because something's on the Net it doesn't mean we're instantly free of the problems we have offlline.
What I would really love is if when someone who writes on dead trees criticizes something on computer screens, the knee jerk reaction isn't "No wonder he's griping, he's just a terrified/embittered/envious old media guy." Please.
Well, that's sure how I read it, though I suppose it may have been meant differently. (At the risk of blogger triumphalism, note how easily I add Levy's response here, while mine is not available on the Newsweek site. . . .).
But I think the piece was quite unfair. There's a useful cautionary tale for bloggers to be written, but that piece absolutely wasn't it. Let me add a few points on why.
While bloggers have been true to their promise to "fact-check Big Media's a--," their motives are often fiercely partisan. Name-calling and intolerance of opposing points of view have reached epidemic levels on Web logs.
Hmm. Motives are in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but if they encourage people to fact-check, isn't that good? And there wasn't partisanship involved in CBS's decision to run with the bogus Rather memos, or AP's "fake boos" story, or the burying of the (admittedly true) Cambodia story, or. . . Well, you get the picture. The difference with blogger partisanship is that it's open.
As for name-calling, well, the only blog Levy used as an example was InstaPundit, and I'm not a big name-caller -- though anyone who refers to bloggers as "ankle biters" has limited standing on this subject. Levy continues:
Judging by its dominance in the blog world (I'm talking about the civic sector here, not the countless blogs on other topics or people's personal lives), you'd think that Rathergate was bigger than Watergate, Iraq and Britney's putative wedding combined.
Hmm. Well, I don't blog much about Watergate it's true, but then it was 30 years ago. (And Britney got married? Why wasn't I invited?) But is Rathergate bigger than Watergate? Well, one involved a corrupt attempt to swing an election through dishonest means, and, er, so did the other. . . .
And RatherGate isn't bigger than Iraq, but neither is the blogosphere. I'm sure that I, and most other bloggers, devoted a smaller fraction of our annual output to Rathergate than Levy did, with this one column, to the blogosphere.
Besides, the whole point of having a blog is to write about what you think is important, as opposed to what somone else thinks is important. Don't like it? Start your own blog and write about your favorite topics.
Levy goes on:
We were promised a society of philosophers. But the Blogosphere is looking more and more like a nation of ankle-biters.
Er, what part of "fact-check your ass" sounded like it was promising a society of philosophers?
It seems to me that the big complaint here is that blogs are angrily pointing out the flaws of Big Media, instead of existing in an insulated parallel world in which they, well, philosophize. I guess I can't argue with that, exactly, but I don't know who ever promised the latter. It wasn't me.
All I've suggested is that blogs, regardless of their imperfections, are more honest than Big Media. And there's nothing in the column that refutes that.
As for stereotyping print guys who dis blogs, well, yeah, I guess we should try not to do that. It's just that, well, the attacks on blogs seem to fit a pattern. And the "ankle biters" line didn't exactly break the mold.
I'd be happy if Big Media were as fair, and honest, and capable, and superior to the works of people like me as its practitioners pretend. But it's not. And I don't think that it's "partisan" or rude for bloggers to keep pointing that out.
STILL MORE: Reader Allen S. Thorpe emails:
What I find really annoying in these attacks on bloggers is the implication that journalists aren't "often fiercely partisan." Somehow these jerks have convinced themselves that they are being objective and even-handed when they press stories like the forged memos and the renewal of the draft. Are they really so cut off from reality that they can't see their own partisanship?
There was another blurt like this today at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune
calling bloggers "like ticks to elephants" and stating that "Most bloggers are not fit to carry a reporters' notebook."
It wasn't the bloggers who claimed to be superior to the rest of humanity, after all. All they did was point out that the emperor had no clothes. These sanctimonious "journalists" don't seem to realize how absurd they look to those who don't spend all their time in the company of other journalists. It is looking less and less like a profession and more like a form of brain damage.
It's not brain damage, but insecurity, coupled with the effect of the cocoon. As reader Brian Rogge emails: "The first step to recovery is realizing the problem exists. Mr. Levy doesn't sound like he's there yet."
Put it this way: there are thousands of news junkies out there doing research and analysis for free. In their spare time. For fun. It would kill us to listen? After all, if the Rathergate tale taught us anything, it’s that ordinary people could blow ten-foot holes in the Good Ship CBS simply by comparing their knowledge to the manifest ignorance of the news division’s producers. Because I’ll tell you this about "ordinary" people: they know stuff.
posted at 08:05 PM by Glenn Reynolds
TOOLS FOR IRAQI TRADESMEN: Spirit of America reports on this, and has a link to video from CNN on the project. (More here, too.) I've given money to SOA before, and I think they're a worthy cause.
I should note that it's easy for Americans to miss what a big deal this is. But my brother (who's quite the motorhead himself) spends a lot of time with Nigerian mechanics and often remarks how under-tooled they are. He always takes a bunch of stuff over there with him to give away, as it can make a huge difference in someone's ability to earn a living. Things aren't quite as scarce in Iraq, I imagine, but it's still a much bigger deal there than it would be here.
UPDATE: Virginia Postrel emails that next time my brother goes, I should solicit reader donations for him to take more tools. Not a bad idea.
Via our effectively-nonprofit (well, it never turns one) record company, we had a sort of foreign-aid program for African musicians going for a while. We put their stuff on MP3.com and let them earn the "payback for playback" royalties. Those weren't a lot of money for most Americans (a few people made a lot, but a few hundred dollars a month -- what my band, Mobius Dick, was earning -- was doing pretty well). But a few hundred dollars a month is a lot of money in places like Uganda and Nigeria. Sadly, that was another casualty of MP3.com's collapse. If we can get micropayment-style systems working, I think that African musicians and artists would really benefit. There's a lot of talent there that's going underutilized for want of capital, in a whole range of fields.
posted at 07:29 PM by Glenn Reynolds
FLOOD DEATHS IN HAITI: Hugh Hewitt has more on this undercovered story, and some suggestions on what you can do to help.
This is a laughably parochial reaction. Does Dowd think that Allawi is only talking to her and her ilk? Iraqis know very well that Allawi was flown to the United States for U.S. election purposes. What Dowd forgets is that Allawi knew that Iraqis too were listening to his speech. As a leader, he has to sound positive for his own people about the future of the country. Morale is vitally important to the nation's future.
It's exactly that future -- the Iraqis' future -- that Dowd can't be bothered with. To her, it's an occasion for cheap sarcasm. "Faced with their dystopia," she writes, amusing herself. "the utopians are scaling back their grand visions for Iraq's glorious future."
Critics like Dowd see Iraq and Iraqis as beyond redemption, if not beneath contempt.
The feeling seems to be mutual. . . .
posted at 02:28 PM by Glenn Reynolds
RATHERGATE UPDATE: This excellent column notes that news media people know less than they think -- but that more importantly, they sharply underestimate what ordinary people know:
If you have not been famous or otherwise insulated, you have likely had half a dozen jobs by the age of 50. You have perhaps started, or tried to start, your own business. You have moved at least four times in adulthood, and bought and sold perhaps that many houses or condos, You have researched a number of areas of the country and lived in two or three (and not just Washington, New York, and Los Angeles). You have perhaps served a military hitch. You have had children in public schools or you've been home-schooling; you've raised funds for a church or a lodge or a Boy Scout troop. In some context or other, you have sold something door to door, published a newsletter, sold advertising, served on a committee, had a hand in hiring and firing.
If you've ever had a hobby, you probably have an expert education in something like motorcycle mechanics, photography, flying, firearms, railroad history, or ornithology.
Just to the matter at hand: Like Buckhead, who is a 46-year-old lawyer, you have probably had to work with, or even specify the purchase of, several computer systems. Indeed, you're old enough to remember when there were no computers in offices. You have participated in the entire computer revolution. You're old enough to have learned to type on a typewriter, and maybe even to have worked on one.
So what's the big mystery? Not that ordinary people knew "arcane" things about typefaces and spacing, but that the big machers at CBS didn't know perfectly ordinary things.
posted at 02:09 PM by Glenn Reynolds
X-PRIZE UPDATE: I've got a post over at GlennReynolds.com (don't ask me why it's time-stamped 4:03 p.m. today -- I sent it in last night). And The Speculist notes that Richard Branson is entering the space tourism business with a new company called Virgin Galactic. What's not to like? (More here.) This is actually a pretty big deal.
posted at 01:37 PM by Glenn Reynolds
ANDREW SULLIVAN has joined BlogAds, though he's not featuring any ads yet. Resistance is futile; assimilation is inevitable. And reasonably lucrative.
On the other hand, it's not always bad, as InstaPundit's Afghanistan correspondent, Major John Tammes, reports:
As I came into our HQ building, I saw one of our NCOs, CSM Mark Bowman, in the hallway. I asked him what was going on and he related a wonderful example of an alliance in action. A group of French soldiers had come to our base for a couple of days [they are collecting heavy weapons from a local militia commander who is turning them into the central government] and were trying to coordinate support. CSM Bowman spoke to the French Sergeant Major, but had a rough time understanding him. CSM Bowman told the Frenchman it was too bad they could not talk in German, as he knew that tongue fairly well. The French Sergeant Major turned to one of his soldiers and instructed him to finish the conversation - which they did, in fairly comfortably paced German. The French soldier had been a member of the Franco-German Brigade, and CSM Bowman had spent many years in Germany with the Armored Cavalry. So an American and a Frenchman conversed in German about helping an Afghan.
Those pesky aides and speechwriters sure do get him in a lot of hot water.
posted at 10:37 AM by Glenn Reynolds
HARVARD PLAGIARISM SCANDALS: People have been emailing me about this stuff, and it's even inspired a blog of its own with links to various news treatments, etc., but I haven't taken a position. That's because identifying plagiarism requires more than just pointing out some parallel passages (see this post quoting Alexander Lindey on why that is) -- it also requires knowledge of context, an analysis of the work as a whole, and, in short, more time and attention than I'm willing to give this subject. That said, there's certainly nothing here for the people in question to be proud of. Peter Morgan and I had a chapter on this in The Appearance of Impropriety, which you can read for free online here.
Many readers might be interested to read what Mark Tushnet has to say about the use of research assistants. His use of them sounds more extensive than mine, but that's partly a function of the differences in our kinds of work, I think. It's certainly far less than what we're hearing about at Harvard.
There's another issue, though, beyond questions of plagiarism. Getting together a bunch of research assistants and outsourcing a book to them, with the product of their work appearing under one's own name, isn't exactly immoral -- but it isn't scholarship, either. I've never used research assistants that way, and it seems obvious that doing so isn't a very good idea. Whether it results in plagiarism, or simply a shoddy product, you're not getting the work product of the person whose name is on the cover. With celebrity autobiographies and the like, that's okay, since everyone knows it, and most celebrities couldn't turn out a book on their own. I don't think that either of those considerations holds true where academics are concerned. Or, if it does, then our problems are even bigger. . . .
Years ago I was part of an odd panel discussion sponsored by the American Society of Newspaper Editors. It was a flat-footed version of those role-playing dramas that Fred Friendly constructed so brilliantly for PBS, the ones where he would walk around the room posing hypothetical questions that often tied famous journalists up in ethical knots. I was assigned the role of a newspaper editor who had the option of running a political expose that would have had many wondrous effects on his town but that simply did not check out as true. I said I wouldn't run the story until my reporters nailed it down. This apparently unexpected position brought the whole poorly thought-out hypothetical to a screeching halt. No complex ethical dilemmas could be built on it. The Fred Friendly stand-in that day, assigned the role of badgering me to run the big story that didn't check out, was Dan Rather.
This brings us to a little-asked question about Rathergate: Why was CBS so determined to broadcast its alleged scoop about George Bush's National Guard service before the story was properly checked out? Four of the six documents involved had been in the possession of 60 Minutes for only two or three days, and three of the four experts consulted by the network said they couldn't authenticate them. Why didn't CBS just wait a week and do some elementary checking?
TODD ZYWICKI: "A David Broder column in today's Washington Post mourns the decline of journalistic standards and emphasis on accuracy in the modern media business. Given Broder's track record of sloppiness and bending the truth to score his own political points, however, his complaints seem somewhat misplaced." Unlike Broder, Zywicki provides specific examples and support for his statements.
Despite the flurry of exposed journalistic fakes (a decade-long flurry, if one throws in the usual suspects, including Ruth Shalit, Stephen Glass, Mike Barnicle, blah blah blah, along with Jayson Blair, the USA Today guy, the recent Rather boo boo, etc.), there's little reason to believe that mainstream journalism is any more corrupt than it ever was. Indeed, the only thing that has probably changed is that it's easier to get caught, which should be a good thing in anybody's book.
Except, apparently, Broder's.
posted at 11:51 PM by Glenn Reynolds
JUST IN CASE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TO WORRY ABOUT: "Seismic activity at Mount St. Helens has changed significantly during the past 24 hours and the changes make us believe that there is an increased likelihood of a hazardous event, which warrants release of this Notice of Volcanic Unrest."
posted at 10:35 PM by Glenn Reynolds
ON FRIDAY, I promised that I would take some pictures with the new 28-200mm lens I bought for the D70. I did, and I've posted them over at the Exposure Manager gallery. Bottom line: Very nice results. For a proper test, these should have been done on a tripod, and on a less-hazy day. Nonetheless, I've got shots at the wide and tele settings, and a very nice quasi-macro close-up shown below. Complaints: The autofocus can be a bit slow. Overall, especially when shooting into the sun, the lens seems a bit softer than the 18-70 kit lens that comes with the camera, and more-than-a-bit softer than the 50mm 1.8 lens. And, as a drawback to the low weight, the lens is light enough that holding it steady at the longer focal lengths is harder than it would be with a heavier lens.
On the other hand, as you can see by comparing this photo taken at 28 (equivalent to about 42mm on a 35 mm film camera) with this picture taken at 200 mm (equivalent to about 300 mm), you get a very impressive zoom range, quite good quality, very small size, and -- key -- a very reasonable price. The 70-200 mm VR lens that the camera-shop guy tried to sell me is undoubted a lot better, but at around $1800 it had better be. ($1600 -- cheap! -- here). It's also heavy. Sometimes that doesn't matter, but sometimes it does.
posted at 08:33 PM by Glenn Reynolds
OKAY, I haven't done any catblogging lately, but the last time I did some people requested dog pictures. Sadly, I don't own a dog. But I spotted this fine specimen at in Sequoyah Park this morning.
UPDATE: More thoughts from Russell Wardlow. And I didn't realize it -- somehow CBS missed the story, I guess -- but the Bush-volunteered story actually came out in February.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Shockingly, this was even reported in Newsweek:
The standard rap against Bush is that he was ducking combat by joining the Guard. Actually, the Texas Air Guard had a program called Palace Alert that allowed pilots to volunteer for flight time in Vietnam. Three of Bush's fellow pilots—Udell, Woodfin and Fred Bradley—recalled to NEWSWEEK that Bush inquired with the base commander about signing up for Palace Alert. He was told no; he had too few flying hours at the time and his plane, the F-102, was by then deemed obsolete for air combat.
Funny that this hasn't gotten more attention. Does anyone read Newsweek?
posted at 06:50 PM by Glenn Reynolds
RATHERGATE UPDATE: Bill at INDCJournal has an interview with Bob Schieffer. Who says bloggers don't do original reporting? (It's worth noting, as some otherwise-good histories of RatherGate haven't, that he was also the first to bring in an outside forensic expert to evaluate the CBS documents.)
NATO: A "FRAUDULENT ALLIANCE?" Germany is pulling out of a joint training exercise because of a Ralph Peters column? Peters' reply is on-target:
Called for comment at home in northern Virginia, Peters said, “It’s perfectly all right for the Germans to call President Bush a Nazi, it’s perfectly all right for the Germans to criticize everything about America, to lionize [“Fahrenheit 911” director] Michael Moore and treat our soldiers as second-class human beings … but they want to try and censor the American media.”
Peters said the German decision was disappointing but not surprising.
“I think the fact that they’re pulling out is the best imaginable indicator of how weak our alliance is, how meaningless Germany’s contribution is,” said Peters. “If they pull out because they can’t stand one 800-word opinion piece in an American newspaper, how could we possibly expect them to stand by us in a violent crisis?”
We've already learned how much we can expect from them in that regard, I'm afraid.
UPDATE: Reader Eric Lundberg emails:
While sharing Medienkritik's general disgust with the German double-standard regarding criticism, I think it is pertinent that the reason the German general pulled out of the exercise is that Ralph Peter's is scheduled to be a featured speaker at the event (according to the September 24 "Stars & Stripes"). That said, I can't imagine the U.S. Army being as thin-skinned.
posted at 04:05 PM by Glenn Reynolds
JOANNE JACOBS is thanking Dan Rather and Big Media generally for subsidizing her work on more worthy, but less salable, topics. Or something like that.
A car bomb in the Syrian capital, Damascus, has killed a senior member of Palestinian militant group Hamas. Izz El-Deen Sheikh Khalil died after the bomb exploded in his car, completely destroying it.
Perhaps some of the Iranian mullahs who are supporting Sadr might be next? I don't know, but when you put it together with this story it gets interesting:
An Arab state provided Israel with valuable intelligence on the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas and its leadership overseas, the London-based Arabic daily al-Hayat reported Friday.
According to the newspaper, an intelligence agency belonging to an Arab state supplied Israel with intelligence on Hamas leaders living in Beirut, Damascus, Tehran and Khartoum at the request of Mossad head Meir Dagan.
Hmm. Meanwhile, in a gratifying, but probably unrelated, development we have this report:
KARACHI, Pakistan (AP) - Paramilitary police may have killed a suspected top al-Qaida operative Sunday in a four-hour gunbattle during a raid on a house in southern Pakistan that led to the arrest of two other men, a senior Pakistani intelligence official said.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the dead man was thought to be Amjad Hussain Farooqi, who was wanted for his alleged role in the kidnapping and beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002.
Other intelligence officials said earlier that the raid was launched after police received a tip that Farooqi was hiding in the house.
America has mounted a covert operation to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and prevent warheads from falling under the control of rogue commanders or Islamist terrorists.
Teams of American specialists, deployed in Pakistan's most sensitive military sites, have formulated launch codes to prevent the unauthorised use of nuclear missiles.
"They are sending their experts to our nuclear sites to roll back our nuclear programme and declare Pakistan a rogue state," said Munawar Hassan, deputy leader of Jamaat-I-Islami, the main Islamist party. "Pervaiz Musharraf is playing into the hands of the US. He is not our ruler, he is serving the interests of America."
America's involvement in compiling missile codes raises the possibility that it might be able to prevent Pakistan from launching its nuclear weapons.
I don't see a downside to this, and I hope things are as reported.
posted at 03:03 PM by Glenn Reynolds
GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS offers thoughts on what's going on in Iraq. Very much worth reading.
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Afghan security forces killed a senior Taliban commander and two of his comrades in a raid in southern Afghanistan, an official said Sunday.
Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar, reportedly a former inmate at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, died in a gunbattle Saturday night in Pishi, a village in the southern province of Uruzgan, said Jan Mohammed Khan, governor of Uruzgan.
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs. . . .
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.
"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.
Many refugees in Sudan's wartorn Darfur region still live in a climate of fear and are reluctant to return home as they do not trust the government to protect them, according to the United Nation's (UN) human rights chief.
"The stories we heard in all three states of Darfur convey an acute sense of insecurity," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said.
Many refugees "continue to live in a climate of fear".
An estimated 50,000 people have died and 1.4 million have been displaced in Sudan's western Darfur region where UN officials say pro-government Janjaweed militias have carried out a scorched earth campaign of ethnic cleansing against non-Arab minorities.
The Arab News, on the other hand, says this is just more Crusader-talk.
In interviews appearing in the October issue of Outdoor Life, Mr. Kerry and President Bush were asked whether they were gun owners, and, if so, to identify their favorite gun. . . .
"My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam," Mr. Kerry told the magazine. "I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."
Mr. Kerry's campaign would not say what model rifle Mr. Kerry was referring to, where he got it and when, or how many guns he owned. A spokesman for the senator, Michael Meehan, said Mr. Kerry was a registered gun owner in Massachusetts. On Thursday morning, Mr. Meehan said he had not been able to ask Mr. Kerry about the rifle because of Mr. Kerry's hoarse voice; he did not respond to further inquiries.
A BUNCH OF PEOPLE ARE EMAILING ME about this article on political bloggers in today's New York Times magazine.
Yeah, it calls me a "conservative," but I've just about given up fighting that since to so many people "conservative" is just a synonym for "supports the war." (Me and Mark Hatfield! And Barack Obama!).
I think it's a pretty good article. Some people are unhappy that it focuses on the lefty bloggers, but that was the intent of the piece from the get-go, and it's been underway for a while -- I had a long conversation with the reporter a few weeks back -- and it's not as if folks like me and Andrew Sullivan and Mickey Kaus haven't had our time in the media spotlight.
One theory is that not only is Obama a conservative for suggesting the need to get rid of Iranian nukes, as you suggested, but maybe he is a nefarious neoconservative who, like his fellow Jews, cares only about helping Israel. Oops, he isn't Jewish. Oh well.
Hey, me neither. Another thing that Barack and I have in common!
Meanwhile Paul Seyferth emails:
I would call you a sober liberal, sort of a "classic liberal" with your shoes off and your pant legs rolled up. It's not your fault the Left made a muck of everything.
I do think that nominating Kerry was a mistake. And I suspect that it'll be an even bigger one if he wins, since he has no real base of support beyond the "anybody but Bush" crowd.
But though I think Kerry is probably beyond the point of credibly reassuring me on the war, I invite him to move left and join me in open support for gay marriage, drug legalization, and abortion rights without any of that "personally opposed but still in favor" weaseling.
It is a vast cry for help, a plea for reinforcements. The bloggers are inside the citadel, so call in the allied bloggers.
On the other hand a more -- or maybe just differently -- cynical reader thinks this is all about excuse-making, arguing that they're setting up the lefty bloggers for blame when Kerry loses. First Dean, then Kerry: It's all those lefty bloggers' fault! I suspect that in both cases, this is looking too deeply for agendas. But I could be wrong.