I heard a great commentary on 'Morning Edition' while driving back from Greensboro today. Give a listen to this short piece by former Marine, Steve Licktie (scroll down to the story called "Rules of War").
One of the things going through my mind upon listening to Iraq tactics is this: 1) Shouldn't we expect that, having given up most big-time weapons, Iraq will use desperate measures? Surely we had in mind the worst of terrorist-like force; considering Bush has been at pains to identify Hussein as a part of this general anti-terror war.
and 2) (the unspeakable, politically)- is the Iraq method of unconventional warfair really unlike the colonists' methods during the Revolutionary War?
Well, finally I heard someone make that second point. His larger thesis is this- We should not expect Iraq to 'play by the rules' during this conflict.
As i said, give a listen- its short.

I enjoyed this stairical Apology from Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks a great deal...only wish the chicks would give a big finger to the (government-whipped) Clear channel and say this outright:

As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I now realize that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect. I hope everyone understands, I'm just a young girl who grew up in Texas. As far back as I can remember, I heard people say they were ashamed of President Clinton. I saw bumper stickers calling him everything from a pothead to a murderer. I heard people on the radio and tv like Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott bad mouthing the President and ridiculing his wife and daughter at every opportunity. I heard LOTS of people disrespecting the President. So I guess I just assumed it was acceptable behavior. But now, thanks to the thousands of angry people who want radio stations to boycott our music because criticizing the President is unpatriotic, I realize it's wrong to have a liberal opinion if you're a country music artist. I guess I should have thought about that before deciding to play music that attracts hypocritical red necks. I also realize now that I'm supposed to just sing and look cute so our fans won't have anything to upset them while they're cheating on their wives or getting in drunken bar fights or driving around in their pickup trucks shooting highway signs and small animals. And most important of all, I realize that it's wrong for a celebrity to voice a political opinion, unless they're Charlie Daniels, Clint Black, Merle Haggard, Barbara Mandrell, Loretta Lynn, Ricky Skaggs, Travis Tritt, Hank Williams Jr, Amy Grant, Larry Gatlin, Crystal Gayle, Reba McEntire, Lee Greenwood, Lorrie Morgan, Anita Bryant, Mike Oldfield, Ted Nugent, Wayne Newton, Dick Clark, Jay Leno, Drew Carey, Dixie Carter, Victoria Jackson, Charleton Heston, Fred Thompson, Ben Stein, Bruce Willis, Kevin Costner, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Bo Derek, Rick Schroeder, George Will, Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly, Joe Rogan, Delta Burke, Robert Conrad or Jesse Ventura. God Bless America, Natalie

HERE is part 1 (slate's sum up) of my discussion on the Texas sodomy case heard today in the Supreme Court.
Let's have a ball, shall we?

WOW...i have a new favorite blog of the day (and just in time, i see). Normally, i'd quote something- but this one is too good for a wee quote. Go read this post at David Neiwert's blog. It's more or less a sum up of the wag-the-dog accusations against Clinton for his '98 strike against Osama...and the flip-flop that has happened recently. To wit, the rampant finger pointing at Daschle as unpatriotic, or what not. (See post below on George Will's playing into this.) OK, here's one quote: "This is an important point, because this hypocrisy demonstrates with crystal clarity just how the Republicans' manipulation of the "patriotism" issue for their own convenience has been detrimental to the American public as a whole" There...i don't think i gave anything away with that one.

God Bless the mighty coalition!!!
From united press international:

"RABAT, D.C., Morocco, March 24 (UPI) -- A Moroccan publication accused the government Monday of providing unusual assistance to U.S. troops fighting in Iraq by offering them 2,000 monkeys trained in detonating land mines.

The weekly al-Usbu' al-Siyassi reported that Morocco offered the U.S. forces a large number of monkeys, some from Morocco's Atlas Mountains and others imported, to use them for detonating land mines planted by the Iraqis.

The publication quoted a highly-informed source as saying, "that is not a scientific illusion but a well-known military tactic."

In an earlier post, i pointed to a findlaw column expressing some dismay at George Will's flip-flopping on legal analysis (all with an air of supposed-principle). Well, there's more Will-dismay to come. Did any readers catch his recent comparison of Tom Daschle to Trent Lott...it ended with this:
""As for Daschle, he has become the Democrats' Trent Lott, with two differences. Lott was embarrassing about 1948, not 2003. And his fellow Republicans were embarrassed."
Huh?
The comparison is between Lott's infamaous remarks to Thurmond and Daschle's criticism that the Bush administration blundered in the diplomatic field.
George Will, if your comparisons are this fallible, should you think about giving up the comentator's word processor?
Here is a link to a (new for me) blog that digests this topic. The main thrust is this:
"Sorry, George. Your attempt to compare Lott's comments that we would have been better off with Strom Thurmond's election in 1948 (and resulting legalized segregation) with Daschle's comments that the President has done a lousy job of bringing allies along to his foreign policy is a classic apples and oranges situation. Indeed, it goes beyond that-- it's apples and orangutans. Lott endorsed a policy that has been discredited for 35 years. (Further, Will's characterization of it as "about 1948" is disingenuous spin: Lott's statements offended people living now, including many blacks who suffered under the policies Thurmond advocated.) Daschle may or may not be right about W (I happen to think he is right), but his comments certainly do not endorse any sort of extremist ideology; indeed, people like Josh Marshall, Kenneth Pollack, and Tom Friedman and many others have been making the same argument."

I tell ya what, Will's sliding quickly down the roof into pure-stupid-partisanship.

My My My...
Krugman's article, today manages to land a blow (if other media sources pick up on this) to one of my personal beasts...big radio. Clear Channel, Krugman asserts, is behind the several pro-war rallies around the country.
" Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious � and widely hated � for its iron-fisted centralized control."{

and there's more, to boot:

"Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire."

As always, Krugman gives a good read.

On his website, Eric Alterman has a link to this site, offering a clip of Alterman of "the Daily Show." I have it here as a chance to cheer for "what liberal media" as it climbs it's way up the amazon best sellers list.
Go Eric.

Go check out this post from "counterspin" for the links to full stories.

"WHAT THE...?: Iranian armed forces are FIRING at coalition troops near the Iran/Iraq border!

JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT: Oh...and Presidnt Musharraf admits that Osama Bin Laden may be in Pakistan!

Think either of these two gems will make the evening news broadcasts?

UPDATE: Now the Pakistanis are denying that Musharraf ever said it.

Read this article on Bush's Strong Arm tactics. It was pulled from the post to allow for Iraq coverage. This is, to some degree, an extension of the Esquire piece on Rove- except this Post article extends the political pressuring to the White House in general.
To me, it is sickening. Here's a bit:
"Conservative interest groups get similar pressure. When the free-market Club for Growth sent a public letter to the White House to protest White House intervention in GOP primaries for "liberal-leaning Republicans," the group's president, Stephen Moore, picked up the phone at a friend's one evening to receive a screaming tirade from Rove, who had tracked him down. On another occasion when Moore objected to a Bush policy, Rove called Richard Gilder, the Club for Growth's chairman and a major contributor, to protest.

"I think this monomaniacal call for loyalty is unhealthy," Moore said. "It's dangerous to declare anybody who crosses you an enemy for life. It's shortsighted." Leaders of three other conservative groups report that their objections to Bush policies have been followed by snubs and, in at least one case, phone calls suggesting the replacement of a critical scholar. "They want sycophants rather than allies," said the head of one think tank."

international law and the Iraq war:

In this essay, Professor Dorf offers a nice run through on the position this conflict has within international law.  He analysis the two major paths that would give authorization to U.S. use of force: 1) a security council authorization or 2) self defense.

Dorf concludes that there is no legal authorization; however, he makes the point that political legitimacy, to the extent it exists, may also have an impact here.  In any event, the essay is a good primer on the international law issue.

 

Here's another blog from inside Iraq.

Affirmative Action and Textualism

some fun discussions going on over at Balkinization regarding the upcoming affirmative action case; but more specifically, about Scalia's understanding of textualism. give a read if interested in original intent, textual, living constitution, ET AL discussions regarding the constitution. Here's a taste: "So we return to the question that a textualist (or more correctly, an original meaning textualist) like Scalia would ask: Were the words of the Fourteenth Amendment fairly understood at the time of their adoption to prohibit democratically elected legislatures from race conscious remedial relief? The answer is quite clearly no. The best evidence of this understanding is what the Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment actually did, not what their secret intentions were. They passed a whole slew of relief acts for "colored" people, both former slaves and free blacks. Many of those concerned special educational benefits for blacks." mmm...now go see Balkin's site.

 

Which Supreme Court Justice are you? Click here and take the quiz.

In the spirit of disclosure...I'm O'Conner.
who are you?

In other news, the blog world has been abuzz about this Iraqi blog. seems to be a neat one...

The angry tobacco farmer:
Standoff Continues Near Washington Monument
So a man with a john deer says he's got exposlives. He's holding up a large section of D.C. near the Washington Monument. I hope this story remains funny and that NC's reputation will not go all to hell.

Department of Bush's lies:

Here is the transcript from Bush's recent press conference, via ABC's web site. Let me quote one section, :

"QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the votes?

BUSH: Well, first, I don't think � it basically says that he is in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says.

And it's hard to believe anybody saying he isn't in defiance of 1441 because 1441 said he must disarm.

And yes, we'll call for a vote.

QUESTION: No matter what?

BUSH: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council.

And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam. "
-------------------------

So, Mr. Bush...why did you lie?

well dang, one spends a week apathetic of incoming news and look what happens. spent more time watching espn than the cnn- and visiting cold phili and warm wilmington. hopefully some pictures of that soon. in the meantime...

Metaphysics?

In Phili, i visited the two brothers, jon and adam. we were fairly fortified on tuesday night, and after visits to fussball tables and mystery fun bars, we crashed on the clean spots in adam's apartment. be ready, here comes the metaphysics:
we watched "the warriors," the soon-to-be cult classic on the rough and ready gangs in new york. the catalytic speech from the film is offered below. a fine piece of cinema- and it was a nice capstone to the visit with my brothers.
now, move forward a few days, and we find me in wilmington, north carolina, looking at shirts in a marshall's-esque store (imperfects and cheap). i find a blue shirt, and being one to never turn down that tint, i snatched it and tried it on right there in the aisle. as i adjusted my hair in the adjacent mirror, i noticed a card-shaped object in the front pocket of this new, blue shirt. pulling the card out, i faintly recognized the writing...the insiration, i should say...indeed; it was the speech below.
and on the flip side of this card was the promo picture from "the warriors." the gang walking purposefully with vests and no shirts. 'the warriors' scrawled in graffiti font above.
what was this card doing in a shirt from the express found in an imperfects store? warriors brand clothing? i looked around, but saw no leather vests or black jeans.
no, this was something more.
i reprint the speech below, straight from my destiny card:
(and please note, the speech is written as found on the card)

"Can you count, suckahs?!
I say the future is ours...if you can count.
Now, look what we have here before us...
you have the soransons sitting next to the Jone Street Boys
we've got the moon runners right by the cortland rangers
nobody is wasting nobody... this is a miracle
and miracles is the way things ought to be.
You're standing right now with 9 delegates from a hundred gangs,
and there's over a hundred more.
That's twenty thousand hard core members
forty thousand counting affiliates
and twenty thousand more not organized but ready to fight...

sixty thousand soldiers.

can you dig it...CAN you DIG IT.....CAN YOU DIIIIG IT !!

cause we got the streets suckahs!"

Iraq
Below is John Kiesling's resugnation letter, in protest of the U.S. policy toward Iraq. Kiesling has served in our foreign service for 20+ years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Letter of Resignation, to:
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell

ATHENS, Thursday. 27 February 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to do to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism.

Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum metuant" really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and E.U. in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid.

Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet? Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America's ability to defend its interests. I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.

/s/John Brady Kiesling

alright...the comment power is, i hope, returned. feel free to blow hard against my lazy logics.

CalPundit says it best, i think:
"I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO'S CONFUSED, AM I?....Things have gotten completely nuts. Maybe Osama is alive, maybe not. Maybe we've captured him, maybe not. The president decided last night whether to invade Iraq, no he didn't. There's a press conference today, the first in four months, but it's not about Osama or invading Iraq � or is it? We're willing to settle for a compromise UN resolution, but maybe we don't care about UN resolutions anymore. Saddam is destroying weapons, no he's not. We've quietly accepted a nuclear North Korea, no we haven't.
This is crazy. What the hell is going on in Washington DC?"

Law and Truth
Just came across a great little piece on findlaw's commentary. A pet peeve of mine: watching intellectual dishonesty being pulled off by politicos who, while telling untruths or flip-flopping their idealogies, continue to carry on an air of moral-correctness.
Well, here's a wonderful essay. The example of our supposed-man-of-principled-arghument is George Will. But beyond the example of his legal pragmatism, Edward Lazarus gets to a broader, moral point. Some highlights:
"I've always believed here is such a thing as a "true" answer (even if we cannot know it with certainty), and that there are ways of discerning better from worse, whether in argument or music or literature.
Nowhere did these beliefs seem to be more important than in the field of law. Courts wield great power to shape the social order and control the destiny of individuals. Their integrity rests ultimately on the belief that their decisions are not merely just that - exercises of power - but are, in addition, principled attempts to discern the proper meaning of the law. And the idea that there is a "proper meaning" in the first place, in turn presumes a universe that recognizes a genuine ability to choose better arguments over weaker ones, regardless of what one thinks of the results the arguments lead us to."
...
"Intellectual dishonesty is pure poison to the enterprise of the law. Yet countless examples show intellectual dishonesty has now become a routine, expected part of American discourse. The most obvious half-truths and hypocrisies are greeted with shrugged shoulders and a grunt of "what did you expect?"
These dishonesties that we have come to accept too easily range from the non-reasoning of Bush v. Gore, to the logic-defying economic rationale for more tax cuts, to the ever-shifting justification of war in Iraq. And they extend to just about every other significant issue of law and policy that affects American life."

Read, for your soul...

NC Politics
So here's the story, for those of y'all out of state: recently, north carolina's representative Howard Coble has been under some fire for comments he made on a radio talk show. Speaking on the internment of japanese americans during ww II, Coble argued that they were placed there for their own protection. When called on the inaccuracy of that remark, Coble said he was just "stating historical facts."
Senator Edwards has issued a statement this week denouncing Coble's remark, and suggesting an apology.
NC congressman Richard Burr (Bush's pick to run against Edwards for the senate seat in '04) now wants Senator Edwards to apologize for demanding an apology.

My outlook on this (that Edwards is in the right and Burr should be told to hush up by mr rove) is informed by a former law professor that reports all this much better than i on his own site. Give it a look.

Indeed, he WROTE A BOOK about the japanese american internment.

Here's a link to a Bill Moyers article, Patriotism and the Flag. He says what i wish i could put as eloquently:
"The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo - the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the Good Housekeeping seal of approval."
"I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that war -- except in self-defense -- is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomatic skill. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country."

its a nice read.

Aha...and destiny setps in. Maybe i should have surfed around before writing the post below.
Julie Hilden has an article up on the FindLaw commentary pages: Should Universities crack down on file swapping?

* "Indeed, under the No Electronic Theft Act (NETA), enacted in 1997, illegal file swapping is a federal felony, punishable with a prison term. Meanwhile, swappers also face potential liability under longstanding federal copyright statutes, and the more recent Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA)."

* "[U]niversities should take the lead in mounting free speech and "fair use" challenges to the application of NETA and the DMCA. They should also take the lead in spearheading lobbying efforts that seek to achieve a more moderate legislative solution - one under which legal file swapping is plainly protected, and its parameters are clear."

* "The central argument that illegal file swapping is a serious crime comes from an analogy that compares it to simple theft - that is, to going into a store to shoplift a CD by hiding it in one's jacket.
The analogy isn't quite fair, however - for unlike with shoplifting, the jury is still out as to whether illegal file sharing costs record (or movie) companies money, or whether the free promotion counterbalances the loss from the free listening (or watching)."

Tried to post something...and failed. let's try again.

MP3s and social norms:

I'm too lazy this afternoon to retype what I did in the failed post, so I'll sum up the thoughts.
What should we, and what does, society think of downloading mp3s. My thinking in this area has been only along lines of Larry Lessig/Legal debates on whether a copyright is infringed. Clearly, a copy right is infringed. But, what does that mean? Is infringment more similar to tucking a new shirt in a bag and walking out of a store...or more like j-walking? To wit: theft, or petty offense?
The standard argument I hear is this: when you download an mp3, you get something that you would otherwise pay for, thus you steal. Is this necessarily the case?
Quickly, my response is no. Stealing necessarily involves one loss for one gain. One stolen shirt is added to a person's closet for each stolen shirt deleted from the display rack at the store. With mp3 trading, this is not necessarily the case. Rather, (in my experience) it is only a gain situation. I download a song, but there is no song being lost from the record store. If i did not download the song, i would not purchase it. Quick example: I downloaded a backstreet boys song the other day. This is, as far as i can imagine, not something i would buy if it were not available online. What has happened is this- i gained a song, but, because i would never buy it, no one has lost the income that would otherwise belong to them. There is no negative result from my positive gain.
Of course, this only works in the my narrow experience. But if stealing NECESSARILY involves one person's loss with another's gain, mp3 trading is not stealing.

trying to get the "shout out feature to work....
one day. one day.