Amar on recusals


When people gather with their various placards outside the Supreme Court this spring as it hears Newdow's complaint against "under God" in the pledge, there will undoubtedly be several news stories about Justice Scalia's decision to recuse himself. Indeed, unless the public feels fairly sure the court will rule against Newdow (as The New Republic seems certain it's clear cut patriotic, not religious) there will be a tremendous anticipation in the press that the decison might come down 4-4.

Thus, Scalia's recusal is a big story- and Professor Amar covers it well. In fact, he argues against the recusal.
Here's my favorite bit:

There is a difference between an open mind and an empty mind, and impartiality requires only the former. All that we should ask of a judge -- be it in a speech, a law review article, or in a published opinion -- is that he do nothing to undermine the presumption that he is open to revisiting his own views if there are new or better-packaged arguments than he has seen in the past. If a judge satisfies this standard, then, in my view, he is not acting in a closed-minded and biased way, and there is thus no reason for him to recuse himself.

And to boot, Amar throws in some ideas about the judicial nominee process- and that Senators ought to be able to ask potential judges about their positions on potential issues. Read the article- it makes a strong case for honesty and reasonableness in reagrds to the role of ideology (in the most non-threatening sense of the word) and where such ideas are expected of judges and where they ought to demand recusal.

The Dem Alternative

Listen to some pundits on the news (any channel) discussing Iraq, and you will not wait long before hearing the pundit representing Bush's side complain that Democrats are only coplaining and not offering alternatives to apply to Iraq. (Actually, they're extending this line to everything- purpoting the "planless" Democrats are merely noisy irrelevants. Hard to understand that line- have they not tuned into any debates nor logged on to any websites wherein various plans from early education to foreign policy are discussed?)
In any event, E. J. Dionne Jr. has an important piece in today's WaPo opinion section. He discusses Yesterday, a manifesto that was put together by a group of Democratic foreign policy specialists organized by the Progressive Policy Institute. You can find that document here. The statement is the "first draft" of a plan on what to do in Iraq.

The document is important for many reasons. The group that signed it is made up of relatively hawkish Democrats who were sympathetic to an aggressive policy against Saddam Hussein and still believe that the Middle East and the world "are better off now that this barbaric dictator is gone." The statement was put together by the think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist group that has been highly critical of Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean and his antiwar views.

the document has much of what we've heard: while we supported an ousting of Hussein, the threat was less immenent that we were told; thus there was time to gather much more international backing. Had we had such backing, the situation now would be, no one can deny, much better. But the statement goes on, and lays out very well a vision:

"Instead of mobilizing our friends and isolating our enemies," the manifesto declares, "this administration is isolating the United States from the rest of the world, squandering the good will and alliances built up over decades by successive U.S. leaders. American military strength is at an all-time high, but our moral authority around the world is at an all-time low."

In proposing an alternative approach to foreign policy, the document calls for "progressive internationalism." It offers specific ideas on curbing weapons proliferation, improving homeland security and reorganizing the military for the new tasks it faces. Its authors identify with the policies of Harry Truman, who built strong international institutions to combat the threat of communism after World War II. The idea is that there is nothing "soft" about believing the United States needs friends.

"We see no contradiction between national strength and international cooperation," the authors declare. "We should make it more attractive for foreign leaders to build alliances with us in the world than to build electoral campaigns at home premised on anti-Americanism."

The authors endorse "a robust military presence in Iraq for as long as it takes to help that country achieve security and stability." But they argue that the United States should "not allow arrogance or ideology to stand in the way of forging a broad coalition to bear the burden of peacekeeping, governance and reconstruction in Iraq."

"The surest way to isolate America -- and call into being anti-American coalitions," they declare, "is to succumb to the imperial temptation and attempt to impose our will on others."

Very thoughtful...as is Dionne's commentary.

Fox News, Idiots

The Fox News Channel nearly sued the makers of "The Simpsons." Yes, the same Simpsons that are aired on Fox.

Fox took exception took a Simpsons' version of the Fox News rolling news ticker which parodied the channel's anti-Democrat stance, with headlines like "Do Democrats Cause Cancer?"


"Fox fought against it and said they would sue the show," Groening said.


"We called their bluff because we didn't think Rupert Murdoch would pay for Fox to sue itself. So, we got away with it."


Other satirical Fox news bulletins featured in the show included: "Study: 92 per cent of Democrats are gay... JFK posthumously joins Republican Party... Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple..."

Really now, to all those sincere folks that really want to believe in the intellectual honesty of Fox News: wake up! Even the most inattentive ear to laws of trademark, copyright and defamation know of the term parody. One would assume that after being laughed out of court in the Franken 'Fair and Balanced' case, Fox, too, might have some understanding of the concept.

"Now Fox has a new rule that we can't do those little fake news crawls on the bottom of the screen in a cartoon because it might confuse the viewers into thinking it's real news," [Groening] said.

Pity the television watcher that thinks the news reported on the Simpsons is real. Yes, Kent Brockman has an air of officialdom, doesn't he? Especially in quotes like these: "Tonight on eye on Springfield we meet a man who has been hiccuping for forty five years."
I shouldn't kid. In point of fact, Fox may have a point--insofar as Fox asserts that the people that watch Fox News might be confused by the Simpsons "news." Note, the study finding that Fox News watchers had the most misperceptions about the facts involved in leading up to the Iraq war. Perhaps these Fox News viewers would take serious such claims, purported to Fox News, that Democrats cause cancer.

Reads

Starting out here at home:
Julie Hilden has an article in FindLaw's commentary section on the Guilford Colege student that placed the box cutters, et al in Southwest Airlines' bathrooms. The article doesn't so much go into whether or not the student should be prosecuted; rather, she argues that the punishment ought to be on the minor end of the possible ten year jail term.
One important point: I keep hearing folks argue that his crime deserves greater punishment because of the cost and trouble it put on the airlines (having to comb through every bathroom). Hilden: "costs like these can be addressed through civil liability, not the criminal law. It's one thing to ask Heatwole to pay for the costs he caused, and quite another to send him to jail. Thus, these costs are properly taken into account in figuring out what fine, or civil settlement, Heatwole should pay. But they should not pay a large role in assessing what prison term he should serve -- since they can be recouped separately."



On the 9/11 Commission: NY Times Op-Ed: "The independent commission's mandate is to supply a definitive account of the government's handling of the terrorist plot that killed almost 3,000 people. But the White House continues to fence with requests for classified documents crucial to the inquiry."


Accomodating Scarves:
(from awhile back, but worth mention). Professor Balkin makes good points regarding Nashala "Tallah" Hern, the Oklahoma girl, whom the school suspended because her Muslim head scarf violates dress code policies. Because of Employment Division v. Smith, the Free Exercise clause will not give the girl a positive right to wear the head-scarf so long as this is a non-religiously based regulation that is generally applicable.
The problem here is that the school official does not seem to understand that he may, should he choose, grant an exception. Balkin:

The school's policy makes no exception for religious headgear, and school officials stated that they would not create one:
"As I see it right now, I don't think we can make a special accommodation for religious wear," said school attorney D.D. Hayes. "You treat religious items the same as you would as any other item, no better, no worse. Our dress code prohibits headgear, period."
...
Generally speaking, the Establishment Clause does not prevent government from lifting a burden on religion it has itself imposed through a rule of general applicability. Such a rule could be unconstitutional if it specifically mentioned particular religions by name for exemption, or if it gerrymandered the exemption with the intention of benefiting some religions for accommodation but not others. But a well drafted rule can usually avoid such problems.

lies and the lying liers
Josh Marshall chimes in on the quite blatent lie-like response from Bush yesterday. This all swirls around the "Mission Accomplished banner that hanged behind Bush during his speech aboard the USS Abraham. Here's Bush:

I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way.

The banner was, in fact, supplied by the White House. The response now is: "It was the Navy's idea to have the banner."
This is all absurd, as Marshall points out. Absurd all over- as Marshall ends:

I doubt the Navy actually suggested this idea. But if they did -- and they may have -- there is no way that the idea was not debated, planned, vetted and everything else in the White House's political and communications offices. No way.

Everybody knows that it's ridiculous. And yet the president is on the record saying it.

And unlike a lot of other inherently more important issues, this is the sort of thing the White House press corps grabs onto and won't let go of.

In any event, this is all the type of parsing that Bush many voters supposedly despise when they vote for the simple, plain spoken Bush. Tip: he, too, is a politician.

something to look out for

quick thought: I've been noticing a rising linguistic trend in televised news. While introducing a story, the speaker will say something like: "this has been circling around the internet," or "with rumors catching on throughout the interent today... ."
In any event, the news stories increasingly refer to internet information sources and politico blogs.
Initially, I assumed this new nod to the internet news hounds was an attempt for the tv newsfolks to sound hip: 'hey, we read blogs too.'
But I'm starting to think something else might be at work here. Feeling threatened by the instant access and anyone-can-publish nature of the web, perhaps the old-school network news folks are trying to discredit the web with little innuendos at the beginning of stories.
Recently, during the flap with the form letters coming home to various op-ed pages, ABC news began its story with something like this: 'the interent was abuzz today with stories of fake letters coming home from soldiers in Iraq. The letters all contain the same language, and purport to come from a soldier in Kirkuk. On the Internet, rumors abounded that the White House was behind a propaganda plot. However, our reporter has the real story.'
Regardless of the merits of this case (ie- whether or not, empirically, the web contained more stories than not imputing that bush was behind these letter (I don't remember that being the case)) the implication in the intro is clear. The net is not a trustworthy news source...you'd better tune in nightly to ABC World News Tonight in order to get the real story.
Very interesting. And if this is the broadcasters putting up a backdoor fight against online information gathering, I'm interested to see how things go. As I'll say over and over, if the object is comprehensive and accurate news, the broadcasters fight a losing battle. While they simplify stories to the lowest denominator and make their news as close to entertainment as possible in order to reign in the tv crowd, the online news surfer has already seen the story in various complexities. Because of the plurality of the net, and the lack of presumed authority- the reader takes an active role in newsgathering. We are all reporters and publishers. Thus, we check the story for accuracy, and find how it stands on every side of the debate. No news channel can provide an active role for the viewer.

what was that Friedman said about listening?

from the Times:

A yearlong State Department study predicted many of the problems that have plagued the American-led occupation of Iraq, according to internal State Department documents and interviews with administration and Congressional officials.

Beginning in April 2002, the State Department project assembled more than 200 Iraqi lawyers, engineers, business people and other experts into 17 working groups to study topics ranging from creating a new justice system to reorganizing the military to revamping the economy.

Bush: I'm in charge here...

(via TNR's etc)
The Phili Inquirer is a paper I'm starting to love. Their reaction (see post below) to Rush's idiocy on espn was superb. And now this:

Concerned about the appearance of disarray and feuding within his administration as well as growing resistance to his policies in Iraq, President Bush--living up to his recent declaration that he is in charge--told his top officials to "stop the leaks" to the media, or else.

News of Bush's order leaked almost immediately.

Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.

A good run down, over at Orcinus, of Bush's "first amendment zones," or, the policy of placing all protesters during Bush's pubic appearances to an area off camera and away from Bush's ears.

Friedman on Listening

nothing but praise for this lastest Friedman op-ed.

There was a headline that grabbed me in The Times on Saturday. It said, "Cheney Lashes Out at Critics of Policy on Iraq."
"Wow," I thought, "that must have been an interesting encounter." Then I read the fine print. Mr. Cheney was speaking to 200 invited guests at the conservative Heritage Foundation — and even they were not allowed to ask any questions. Great. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein issue messages from their caves through Al Jazeera, and Mr. Cheney issues messages from his bunker through Fox. America is pushing democracy in Iraq, but our own leaders won't hold a real town hall meeting or a regular press conference.
Out of fairness, my newspaper feels obligated to run such stories. But I wish we had said to the V.P.: If you're going to give a major speech on Iraq to an audience limited to your own supporters and not allow any questions, that's not news — that's an advertisement, and you should buy an ad on the Op-Ed page.
...

Had this ingrown administration ever exposed itself to people even mildly opposed to its policies, let alone foreigners, it might have avoided some of its most egregious errors. Had it listened to its own Army chief of staff, who had served in Bosnia, it might have put more troops into Iraq, as he advocated. Had it listened to its own State Department, it might not have recklessly disbanded the Iraqi Army without having enough U.S. troops to fill the security vacuum.

Listening is also a sign of respect, and it is amazing how much people will allow you to say to them, by way of criticism, if you just bother to go listen to them first. I heard Richard Brodhead, the dean of Yale College, give some very smart advice along these lines to incoming freshmen the other day. He should have been talking to the Bush team.

Kristoff is right, in his editorial today: it is wrongheaded to desire a quick pull-out of Iraq.
One hesitation, though, after reading his column: he assumes most folks that criticized our entry into the war want to simply pull out and hand over Iraq to Iraqis now. Certanily there are those saying that (mostly domestic-centered anti-nation-builders and the presidential candidate(s) saluting them). But most folks I know, and the presidents-to-be I support, are not saying this. It would be nice if the media (and the politicians looking for an easy foe) didn't try to divide the public into simplistic camps of anti-war = pull out and pro war = stay the course.

In point of fact, lots of those who were pro-war without the UN are now wanting out; while those that were anti-war unless we get the security counsel's approval are more willing to nation-build. Why? Because those wanting the security counsel's legitimacy wanted, through that, a broad force in Iraq for the war, but more importantly, for the post war. Having UN-authority would bring in more nations and give the whole effort a legitimacy (message being, the whole world is behind this effort). Instead, we've ended up with what we have. It will compound Bush's mistake to pull out. And I think it is a mistake to think those wanting to take the entry into war slowly now want to pull out hastily.

LLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTT"S get ready to rumble

The high court will hear the 9th circuit pledge-under-god-in-school case.
And to make things interesting, Scalia has recused himself at the behest of appellee Newdow. (more on that later, i hope- the recusal at Newdow's request is somewhat rare...and I hope to find out whether this is an honorable move by the Justice.)
So it's an 8 Justice panel. I know 1 vote will side with the 9th circuit (Souter), and I'm pretty sure about 2 others (Ginsberg and Breyer). In light of Lee v. Weisman, Kennedy might go the way of Souter on this one too- in that the "under God" portion of the pledge is recited in classrooms with all the coercive peer pressure therein.
Four votes will do it: that creates a tie, 4-4, thus the circuit court is upheld.
I'll also take a shot in the dark and say Stevens will side with Souter.
To boot, I can see O'Conner deciding this a government endorsement.
I promise you today that Rehnquist, Thomas will vote against the 9th circuit, in favor of keeping under God in- citing tradition, perhaps...or the uncoercive nature of the facts at hand.
Most folks are probably betting O'Conner and Kennedy will side with Rehnquist- but, as mentioned above, I'm really not so sure. I reckon this will depend on the extent to which O'Conner finds endorsement and Kennedy finds coercion.
There's my guess. And that puts us at 4-4 at worst (I think they should uphold the 9th circuit) and 6-2 at best. Catching me off-guard might be Stevens and Ginsberg. Watch out.

Josh Marshall will be on CNN's Aaron Brown tonight (7pm), talking about phony letters to the editor.

Also, Marshall has some input on the letters (see below).

Finally, blogger Hesiod deserves credit for getting this ball rolling and taking a principled position on the matter.

It's not quite so egregious as I originally thought. Most of the soldiers agree with the sentiment, if not the specifics in the letter. But, I also agree with Sgt. Grueser. It diminishes the integrity of the letter considerably the way it was distributed. I wonder who that "military public affairs officer" is?

I thought multiplicity was just a movie

Here are some touching letters from the boys in Iraq (I am excerpting the fourth and last paragraphs from each soldier's letter):

Kirkuk is a hot and dusty city of just over a million people. The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms. After nearly five months here, the people still come running from their homes, in the 110-degree heat, waving to us as our troops drive by on daily patrols of the city. Children smile and run up to shake hands, in their broken English shouting "Thank you, mister."
...
The fruits of all our soldiers' efforts are clearly visible in the streets of Kirkuk today. There is very little trash in the streets, many more people in the markets and shops, and children have returned to school. This is all evidence that the work we are doing as a battalion and as American soldiers is bettering the lives of Kirkuk's citizens. I am proud of the work we are doing here in Iraq and I hope all of your readers are as well

from: Jason Marshall of Edgewood

Kirkuk is a hot and dusty city of just over a million people. The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms. After nearly five months here, the people still come running from their homes, into the 100-degree heat, waving to us as our troops drive by on daily patrols of the city. Children smile and run up to shake hands and in their broken English shout, "Thank you, Mister!"
...
The fruits of all our soldiers' efforts are clearly visible in the streets of Kirkuk today. There is very little trash in the streets, many more people in the markets and shops, and children have returned to school. This is all evidence that the work we are doing as a battalion and as American soldiers is bettering the lives of Kirkuk's citizens. I am proud of the work we are doing here in Iraq and I hope all of your readers are as well.

from: Sgt. 1st Class Edwin Gargas Jr

Kirkuk is a hot and dusty city of just over a million people. The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms. After nearly five months here, the people still come running from their homes, into the 110-degree heat, waving to us as our troops drive by on daily patrols of the city. Children smile and run up to shake hands and in their broken English shouting "Thank you mister."
...
The fruits of all our soldiers' efforts are clearly visible in the streets of Kirkuk today. There is very little trash in the streets, many more people in the markets and shops, and children have returned to school. This is all evidence that the work we are doing as a battalion and as American soldiers is bettering the lives of Kirkuk's citizens. I am proud of the work we are doing here in Iraq and I hope all of your readers are as well.

from: Spc. Nathan Whitelatch, ABLE Co., 2nd Battalion (Airborne), 503rd Infantry

Kirkuk is a hot and dusty city of just over a million people. The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms.
After nearly five months here, the people still come running from their homes into the 110-degree heat, waving to us as our troops drive by on daily patrols of the city. Children smile and run up to shake hands, and in their broken English, shout: "Thank you, mister."
...
The fruits of all our soldiers' efforts are clearly visible in the streets of Kirkuk today.
There is very little trash in the streets, many more people in the markets and shops, and children have returned to school.
This is all evidence that the work we are doing as a battalion and as American soldiers is bettering the lives of Kirkuk's citizens.

From: Sgt. Grueser who is from Poca

hypocrisy Watch
(via Dionne at WaPo)

Indeed, perhaps the new governor should be thanking Clinton for revealing that, by and large, past sexual misdeeds don't effect the politician (so long as the politician doesn't hold himself/herself out as a fully respectable family man)

But, should those that attacked Clinton, and praised every pry into his personal affairs wanted the same for the governor candidate. you bet? did they act consistently? you know the answer.
from todays WaPo:

In the California recall, the right wing's moralistic masters of attack choked on their own partisanship. These are the people who praised the "courage" of anyone who reported anything embarrassing about the sex life of a certain former president. Then they painted all who did not respond with indignation as "apologists" complicit in America's moral decline and the "death of outrage."

Guess who the apologists were this time? All of a sudden it was Arnold Schwarzenegger being accused of groping, fondling and humiliating women. Oh, yes, there was outrage on the right. But it was directed at the Los Angeles Times for investigating and reporting on the charges. The same folks who had insisted that our leaders should be moral exemplars were suddenly aghast when a news organization explored the "character" of, well, er, a Republican. Fox's Bill O'Reilly on Schwarzenegger: "The Los Angeles Times is out to get him, to destroy him. . . . Most guys have done dopey things with women." Bill O'Reilly on Clinton during impeachment: "The American people have a right to know everything there is to know about President Clinton's behavior."

Well said.

been meaning to write something on 'first monday.' in lieu of my amature thoughts, though, i commend marci hamilton from findlaw. her article today "contends that even the first two cases of the Supreme Court's October Term 2003 reveal that the Court's federalism is not reflexive and archconservative, but rather reasoned and moderate." it is a reflection on the first two cases, and a larger look at the makeup of the SCOTUS at the start of their new season.
btw, have you noticed how much folks like me have been pro-SCOTUS after the final decisions from last year? you'd think O'Conner was my new hero. hmm...

California ubber alles


So, it seems to me Cali has just mirrored the breakup scenario happening everyday in our cities' highschools. California, that daydream believer in search of cheering up, called it quits with her steady boyfriend. He was nice, sensitive, and always courteous around her parents. He was gentle and safe...but maybe a little soft in the gut.
But all around this couple, the world was turning. Outside forces closed in, and as those in relationships are wont to do, she blamed him. He tried...'baby, i'm doing what i can here'...But a ladies mind isn't like a bed. Once it's made up, it stays made up.
So with conviction and abandon, (perhaps she was fortified by the red red napa valley juice), she made the cut and sang ain't no lie, baby bye bye bye.
And where do all newly free passion heavy hearts go? To the opposite man, of course.
And there stood Arny, offering his bulky build and his lack of intellectual curiosity.

For better or worse, though...this is a rebound that lasts a few years. hope he's good to ya, Cali.

Heard Molly Ivans on Fresh Air last night. First time hearing her speak. I liked her a good deal.

Real Anglo Heroes



From the Times:

Although he hardly melts into the background, particularly when he switches on his noisy machine, Angle-Grinder Man has so far managed to elude the authorities by a mixture of luck, cunning and quick work: once he gets going, he can liberate a car in less than a minute. He does not accept money and says his main motivation is "anger at how politicians in this country treat people in general, but particularly in regard to motoring regulations."
...

Long-haired and lanky, he is becoming well known in some parts of south London. About a month ago, 25-year-old Petite Tendai arrived home to find a boot on her illegally parked car. ("There were no signs saying `no parking,' " she declared.) She had barely begun to rail at the injustice of it all when Angle-Grinder Man suddenly appeared.

"Basically, he jumped out of his car in his outfit and said, `If anyone can, Angle-Grinder Man can,' " Ms. Tendai said in a telephone interview. "Then he just started sawing it off. It was wicked." He was gone almost as quickly as he came. "It was just a `good luck,' and what-not, and then he was off," she said.

Angle-Grinder Man can be found at his website. Available are pictures, his manefesto, and testimonials.

Tom, over at Crooked Timber, has a list of 15 greatest jazz albums. It's in response to this list, by Norman Geras.
Both lists throw out some fine fine albums...if not a bit centered on post-bop "classic jazz." Tom's list is a little more adventurous...Miles' "Decoy", and some Sco. Well, its always fun to guess at best albums. And I think both these list-ors acknowledge the ultimate impossibility.
To make things somewhat reasonable, I'd have to break into catagories of either mood or style.
Although I did once see an essay arguing that Coltrane and Hartman is the best jazz album period. And quite honestly, I'm oft wont to agree.

Slate on Zorn

Alterman on Zevon and Cash

A fine tribute article in The Nation.

Warren Zevon fought cancer, and he won. Well, the cancer won too, but not before Warren taught the rest of us a lesson in death with dignity. After he got the bad news, Zevon thanked his friends, hugged his family and created--working in fits and starts as his health would allow--his finest record since his self-titled major-label debut back in 1976. This self-educated son of a Mormon mother and Russian-Jewish gangster father was perhaps the most casually literate lyricist in rock this side of Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen. How many writers, of any kind, can find inspiration simultaneously in the work of Rilke, Stravinsky, Philip Habib and Boom Boom Mancini?

Zevon's passing, Ry Cooder observed, was "unbelievably sad and unbelievably brave." Brave because Zevon kind of got to attend his own funeral--Huck Finn style. Letterman devoted a whole program to him; Springsteen chartered a jet to appear on the album; Dylan played three of his songs in one show. Sad, because Zevon was too sick to make it to the end of the Dylan show. And because the guy who wrote "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead"--a party animal's paean to imagined immortality--went to bed too early, for once, decades after he had beaten back his various demons and addictions.

go jobs..go! you can do it...

Read for yourself:

Novak's July 14 column.

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

Novak's October 1 article.

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

Now, those are just what I regard key grafs- It's important to go through the entire articles, and get a feel for the tones and strategies Novak uses. Of note, in the second column, Novak puts down alot of verbiage to dismiss the whole thing. He dismisses the significance of the investigation ("current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks"), he dismisses Wilson("I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment"), he dismisses the importance of Wilson's wife's being undercover("she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment"), and quite predictibly, this is all party politics according to Novak("These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush").

Novak is covering his hide- which is a reasonable thing to expect as the wondering gaze turns to him asking "why in all hell did you out this agent?" But his attempt is misguided- and lots of folks are nailing just why this is so. I commend you to the TNR online debate between Spencer Ackerman and Clifford May. Ackerman writes:

The implication here is that no cover was blown, and the release of her name is a non-issue. For my part, I don't know if Plame was hunting enriched uranium on the trail from Islamabad to Pyongyang or designing the "Harry and Aeriel Pigeon" graphics on the CIA's webpage for kids. (The Post reports today that she's in the clandestine service but is now out of the field.) The fact is, as NBC reported yesterday, in July CIA lawyers affirmed to the Justice Department that Plame's identity was classified. Everything else is just noise.

And talking about that online debate- go read it. I should hope one goal of we democrats is to oppose Bush policy and politicing, where opposition is genuine, in a manner that counters the vitriolic opposition to Clinton in the 90's. In this, we need rational, thoughtful discussion- exactly what TNR is doing online with this debate.

Rushing the QB

Here's Rush's comments about Donovan McNabb on ESPN:

Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.

The Philidelphia Inquiry does a fine job on the absurdity of this remark. I would simply this: we all know McNabb is getting over his injury- and that's led him to act a little less aggressively. However, we saw in last week's win that McNabb is getting his feel back, and even running for yardage again.
Even charging him as over-rated is OK...I disagree, but it's fair to say. But Limbaugh, Limbaugh, Limbaugh. Why do you have to dig into your talking points bag and find an opportunity to repeat the BS line that "the Media" desires to see a black quarterback succeed. What in the sam hill are you talking about?
Here's the Inquirer:

The only thing tough about this is deciding where to begin. How about with "the media"?

Conservative sleight-of-hand artists like Limbaugh love to use the label "the media" (alternately "the liberal media") as a kind of blanket insult. Well, guess what, Rush? You've got a nationally syndicated radio show. You have your own Web site. You had a national TV show. Now you're on ESPN every Sunday morning.

You.

Are.

The.

Media.

Was that slow enough for you to grasp? You are the media.
...
let's take on the idea that the phantom "media" have hyped McNabb because of some agenda. A little history might be in order.

In 1985, Randall Cunningham was drafted by the Eagles. At his first news conference in Philadelphia, an older white reporter asked him, "What makes you think you'll ever be able to read NFL defenses?"

In January 1988, it was considered major news that an African American quarterback named Doug Williams was starting in the Super Bowl for the Washington Redskins. During the pregame week of hype, Williams was famously asked, "How long have you been a black quarterback?"

To his credit, he calmly replied that he'd always been a quarterback and he'd also always been black. Then Doug Williams went out and earned the most valuable player award in that Super Bowl.

The point is, this ground was covered a long time ago by those of us who cover sports for a living. Nobody is perfect, of course, but McNabb's tenure here has been marked by coverage that focuses on his performance, his progress and his work ethic. That includes positive coverage as well as negative.

From the most matter-of-fact wire service report to the most outspoken talk-radio shouter, McNabb's race has not been an issue.

Until now. Until Rush Limbaugh and his mouth made it an issue. But why is anyone surprised? This is the same man who once told an African American caller to "take that bone out of your nose and call me back." The same man who once said, "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

Rabbit Rabbit



Happy October...