Sinclair Broadcasting decded to preempt "Nightline" from all of its local stations tonight. Nightline will be reading, without comment, the names of every US soldier to die in Iraq. Senator McCain's letter to Sinclair Broadcasting:

I write to strongly protest your decision to instruct Sinclair's ABC affiliates to preempt this evening's Nightline program. I find deeply offensive Sinclair's objection to Nightline's intention to broadcast the names and photographs of Americans who gave their lives in service to our country in Iraq.

I supported the President's decision to go to war in Iraq, and remain a strong supporter of that decision. But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our government to order Americans into combat. It is a solemn responsibility of elected officials to accept responsibility for our decision and its consequences, and, with those who disseminate the news, to ensure that Americans are fully informed of those consequences.

There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq. War is an awful, but sometimes necessary business. Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves.

Sinclair Broadcasting and local news. This, from alternet:

Tune into the evening news on Madison, Wisconsin's Fox TV affiliate and behold the future of local news. In the program's concluding segment, "The Point," Mark Hyman rants against peace activists ("wack-jobs"), the French ("cheese-eating surrender monkeys"), progressives ("loony left") and the so-called liberal media, usually referred to as the "hate-America crowd" or the "Axis of Drivel." Colorful, if creatively anemic, this is TV's version of talk radio, with the precisely tanned Hyman playing a second-string Limbaugh.

Fox 47's right-wing rants may be the future of hometown news, but --believe it or not -- it's not the program's blatant ideological bias that is most worrisome. Here's the real problem: Hyman isn't the station manager, a local crank, or even a journalist. He is the Vice President of Corporate Communications for the station's owner, the Sinclair Broadcast Group. And this segment of the local news isn't exactly local. Hyman's commentary is piped in from the home office in Baltimore, MD, and mixed in with locally-produced news. Sinclair aptly calls its innovative strategy "NewsCentral" - it is very likely to spell the demise of local news as we know it.

Apologies for absent Andrew. I've had a mini-vacation the past wee bit, enjoying the end of what I hope were my last exams ever. Weather's been nice here, keeping me away from this old computer.
I can also now relay the name of the best smelling flower in the world.

Apparently dianthus comes from the Greek 'divine' and 'flower,' and was one of the flowers used to make up crowns. In fact, it may be that carnation derived from coronation- pink carnations being the other name for Mr. Dianthus.
Regardless, the things smell something nice to me....and it turns out I have a bunch growing right outside the apartment door.

Can we call a truce? No more national guard questions for no more how many medals questions? It really is getting old.

Karen Hughes, via Kevin Drum:

...and speaking of abortion, here's what Karen Hughes had to say about it today:

I think that after September 11, the American people are valuing life more and we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life....Really, the fundamental issue between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life.

So if you get an abortion, you're no better than Osama.

Did Kristof and Atrios plan to write these post/articles on the same day?
Obviously, Kristof comes off as the fair one, and Atrios the bitter. But atrios is being honest, we can give him that. Kristof raises, I think, a meek point, albeit reflection serving: liberal means open. We all (we being the people reading this blog) know that too many college kids think they're 'liberal' when in fact their minds are closed to everything with which they disagree.
But, while I disagree with plenty of Atrios' assumptions- his post makes me think there is something other than who's really the open minded crowd. Beyond all that, I think there is a sociological and perhaps theological issue that he scratches the surface to...which is:
When we identify ourselves with a group, are we compelled to think we're in the minority? Atrios obviously feels he's in a minority...while Kristoff wites that evangelicals feel they're in a minority. And I've heard on good athority that devoutly religious people feel, too, to be in the minoriy...in a world of secularism. And each person will, I'm taking a wild guess, simply say the other is wrong in their thinking.
I'm lost- and tend to change my mind with each encounter. Luckily, my point isn;t to reach a conclusion of who's right...only to wonder aloud what's up with that?

Speaking of Media's Role, someone had the same argument back in February 2001 that is made by the New Republic below. Guess who said this:

It is the media's responsibility, and an important one, though very uncomfortable for people in government, to put a very strong spotlight on the government's policies and practices on terrorism, especially given the current disorganization of the federal government's fight against terrorism. In this area, the federal government is in complete disarray. There's been remarkably little attention to the major recommendation the Gilmore Commission made for a substantial reorganization of the government's approach to terrorism. Journalists shouldn't let politicians get away with that.

The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?' That's too bad. They've been given a window of opportunity with very little terrorism now, and they're not taking advantage of it. Maybe the folks in the press ought to be pushing a little bit.

And another thoughtful post from Marshall, on the firing of an independant contrator that released a photo of flag draped coffins.

Congrats to TPM's Josh Marshall for penning this op-ed for the Times. His conclusion is especially strong:

In wars abroad, Americans don't want their presidents to fail.

In part that's because a failure for the president is a failure for the nation. Indeed, the logic may apply with more force in cases like Iraq, in which the president has cast the nation on what is essentially a war of choice. To admit that the president blew it is to say the same of the public that followed him into the conflict. And like its leaders, the public not only doesn't like admitting it was wrong, but it will go to great lengths to avoid doing so.

The danger for President Bush is clear: the public's patience is not unlimited, and eventual failure in Iraq will almost certainly sink his candidacy. (Sometimes the conventional wisdom is actually right.)

For John Kerry, the risks are less obvious but no less real: running a campaign that focuses the voters' gaze solely on the president's manifest failures will probably run into resistance, especially with the voters he most needs to win over, those from the ambivalent middle. Mr. Kerry is far more likely to win if he has a plan to show how he — and thus the American people — can succeed rather than simply showing how President Bush — and thus they — have failed.

Blame the media. Very interesting online article in The New Republic. It wonders why, if we're going to blame administrations for, in hindsight, giving too little attention to warning signals, we don't extend the blame to media. The media shapes out what issues matter to the people. And, like the administrations, media companies are avalanched with too many issues to cover--thus, they choose. That choice has consequences. Here are the first two and the last graphs:

On June 25, 2001, one of those infamous warnings rattled down the wire. Aides to Osama bin Laden were promising attacks against United States interests "in the coming weeks." Officials handled the threat in a way that now sounds familiar: They ignored it. But unlike other similarly discarded warnings, this one isn't currently under investigation by the 9/11 Commission. That's because it didn't appear in a CIA memo or a Presidents' Daily Brief. It was a story on the Associated Press wire, datelined Kabul and attributed to a Dubai-based cable channel. And the officials who didn't pay attention weren't spooks; they were foreign editors, who must have seen the story as thinly sourced and terribly obscure. The three big, agenda-setting national papers--The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times--all passed on the story.

The 9/11 Commission's work has forced Americans to think about their government's decisions in the months and years leading up to 9/11. But if it is legitimate to scrutinize the work of politicians and policymakers in hindsight, then it is also legitimate to ask similar questions of America's biggest, smartest intelligence agency: the media itself. It was the press, after all, that--unlike the CIA--managed to get its employees into Afghanistan before 9/11. These were not-so-secret agents like ABC's John Miller, who caught wind of bin Laden's designs in 1998, simply by asking the terrorist leader what he was planning. "If the present injustice continues with the wave of national consciousness," bin Laden replied, "it will inevitably move the battle to American soil. ... This is my message to the American people."
...
Yes, government officials had access to information journalists didn't have. And yes, their jobs are to protect U.S. citizens. But journalists, too, know what's going on in the world; sometimes they know what's going on in the world better than government officials. No one, of course, would argue that journalists could have single-handedly stopped the attacks--only that a determined campaign to keep Al Qaeda on Page 1 of The New York Times or The Washington Post might have pushed policymakers to take the threat more seriously. The worst that would have happened? Well, it couldn't have seemed nuttier than the Times's drumbeat of Augusta National Golf Club stories. So blame Bush and Clinton and Rice and Freeh and Ashcroft. But if you do, blame us too.

The Founders Guarded Against the Ignorant Vote
A couple of post down brought about a discussion of the right to vote. The effect of political television commercials prooves something: many many many voters are utterly vacant of meaningful thought when policy and governance are the issue. This is not to judge; it is a valid question whether we all ought to be mini-pundits. I do have an opinion (yes), but I could be wrong. One might wonder why we appoint people to represent us if we are not indeed appointing their service to do the thinking for us.

I tend to think that if we are to be citizens, we must have a knowledge, to the extent possible, of our government's workings. And if we vote, we should do so with an intent to affect those workings. Of course, a great many forces work to cloud this simple truth. To the extent a person figures a corporate entity has access to lawmakers greater than an individual, it is all the easier to fall into apathy (or, if not apathy, helplessness).

A commercial society
Further, we are an entertainment and commercial driven society, and this dilutes the importance of menaingful political thinking. Here, the evidence is clear: political commercials, and not the Lincoln Douglas debates, are today's paradigm of politiking. Political commercials are meant to do one thing- get a person's vote; just like the sole purpose of finding a buyer with any other commercial. Political commercials don't exist to educate, and they don't exist to clearly state the politician's nor their foes ideas. They only want a vote. This is precisely why any thinking person thinks they are obsurd. It is much like wondering why Shakira would make someone want to buy Pepsi.
But, baby, it works....
Now, no one doubts that commercials do not fairly compare one product against the next. If so, we'd all just subscribe to consumer reports and watch commercial free tv. Most people don't rely on commercials alone- but what of the person that does? It is one thing to buy Sprite over 7-Up because you think the commercials are more funny...what if the choice is over prescription drugs?
No way. Indeed, that's why they're prescription...some expert intervenes to make an informed and thoughtful choice.

Votes
And this brings us to voting. First, a clip from the comments section to a post below. The context is un-informed voting.

there are questions about the voters ability to do that task.

... indeed they HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE because they are citizens...in our Republican Democracy government doesn't "allow" us our rights, WE ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE LAWS AS WE HAVE COVENANTED. This is a hugely important concept, the very foundation of the nation's democracy.

This is in response to the (hyperbolic) question of whether the politically ignorant should be allowed to vote.
I won't adopt the far-fetched fantasy of requiring a certain amount of knowledge to vote, but I will play devil's advocate. (very quickly, the primary reason I don't want to bar the ignorant vote is the inumerable problems: at what point is someone too politically inable? who tests? and mainly- its just not constitutional.)

Structural Guards against Ignorant Votes
But:
Why is the voting age 18? Why were woman and man (that were not landowners) formerly barred from voting? Why did the Constitution write out that legislatures (and not people) send the 2 Senators?
In 1870, the 15th amendment passed on the right to vote to non-whites. It took another 50 years to bring in women, and it was not until 1971 that 18 year olds were guaranteed the right. Further, not until the 17th amendment in 1913 did the people elect Senators.
And we still have the electoral college.
WHat does all this say about the founders' opinion on the percieved ignorant vote? (maybe I should chime in right quick on "ignorant." by the term, I mean, literally, the lack of political knowledge.)
Why can't kids under 18 vote now? Does the answer have anything to do with the competence to understand political issues and consequences? Certainly it isn't because the results of elections have no consequence for them. The Constitution makes clear, with, for the time being, the penultimate amendment, that the right to vote, when over 18, shall not be denied. So the right may be denied before said age.
The denial of women and non-whites (and non-landoweners) brings to fore many of the same questions.

Most clearly, though, is the Article II Section 3 method of selecting Senators. Our Congress and Senate are Constitutionally set up much like the Houses of Commons and Lords in Britain. Why weren't Senators popularly elected? Distrust of the people.
Anyone that studies 5th Century Athens understands that the demos was much to blame for its demise. Government cannot run solely on the whim of the majority. For this reason (in part) comes the purpose of a Lords or Senate...to check the whim of the popular.
Back to the prescription drugs: Sometimes choices are dire enough to require expertise. The same applied to selecting the state's 2 Senators: the political experts (legislators) selected the Senate. This arrangement lasted until 1913.
So, is it really so that the founders expected an ignorant vote? While I disagree with the founders, and would argue the basic need, and even value of the ignorant vote, I cannot say they did. Indeed, they jealously guarded against it.

Can treaty power allow the federal government to act outside its enumerated powers? Read Professor Volokh's discussion of the Court's recent decision of United States v. Lara.

For instance, the Supreme Court has struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as applied to the states, on the grounds that it exceeds the federal government's enumerated powers -- if the President signs a treaty mandating all signatories to exempt religious objectors from many generally applicable laws, the Senate ratifies the treaty, and Congress reenacts RFRA to implement the treaty, would that be constitutional? (Some people argue that our human rights treaty obligations already provide an authority for such a statute, but I'm skeptical.)

The question isn't whether the Treaty Power can trump the Bill of Rights and other individual rights protections can't be trumped by treaty; it's pretty well-established that it can't. Rather, the question is whether it provides an independent source for federal power, or whether it's governed by the article I limitations on federal power as well as by the individual rights limitations.

Volokh observes that Rehnquist and O'Connor, despite their standard conservative view in respect to limiting federal power, endorsed the 1920 Missouri v. Holland precedent that allows treaties to authorize federal power where such pwer would othewise be absent. Still, the issue was not taken up head-on; I'd be interested to see the direct opinions on topic.

Steps to Deliberative Democracy. Bookmark Opinion Duel. It is a joint project between The New Republic and National Review- and if it continues on, will be a great pleasure to read. The two editors write out their views, then debate via posts. The topic currently is pre-war Iraqi intelligence.
Here are Chait's opening remarks:

I'm genuinely excited to be taking part in this project. I've long believed that our political discourse needs more places where liberals and conservatives can engage each other without merely preaching to the choir. We've found a perfect partner in the staff of National Review -- by far the smartest, most honest, best-written conservative magazine published today. (Trust me, that's not just a sop--my colleagues can attest I've been saying that around the office for a while.)

The Science of Being Partisan. The Times gives us a nice work-break read. Scientists have studies M.R.I. scans revealing reactions in the brains of admitted partisans upon their seeing political commercials and images of politicians. Sorta a fun read, albeit no huge conclusions yet.

One of the most striking results so far is the way subjects react to candidates after seeing a campaign commercial. At the start of the session, when they look at photographs of Mr. Bush, Mr. Kerry and Ralph Nader, subjects from both parties tend to show emotional reactions to all the candidates, indicated in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain associated with reflexive reactions.

But then, after the Bush campaign commercial is shown, the subjects respond in a partisan fashion when the photographs are shown again. They still respond emotionally to the candidate of their party, but when they see the other party's candidate, there is more activity in the rational part of the brain, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. "It seems as if they're really identifying with their own candidate, whereas when they see the opponent, they're using their rational apparatus to argue against him," Professor Iacoboni said.

Brown v. Board. The Nation has, online, a massive forum on the big time decision 50 years ago.
By the way, I listened to a great "State of Things" (a NC radio show) that reflected on Brown. Professor Jack Boger spoke about the reasoning of the decision, and the Court's decision--overturning Plessy--that separate is not equal. The other way of saying this, of course, is that equality requires integration.

During the show's discussion, a caller spoke about his fine education at a either all-black, or largely black school. The caller echoed what has been argued in various circles regarding historically black schools; to wit, that the schools should not forced to level out black/white admittance when the education is arguably stronger as is. It is a sensible argument--that we should focus on the quality of education rather than have "integration-blinders" that cause us to seek further integration before improving the quality of education in the schools

While the argument is compelling---is it not a refutation of Thurgood Marshall's argument in Brown? Indeed, it sounds like the Plessy reasoning; that, as long as the schools are equally qualifies, integration is not required to assure equality. The emphasis, under Plessy, is on school quality. The profound revelation in Brown is that equality requires co-mingling. That separate is inherently not equal.

I tend to think that sentiment in Brown was not simply that separate but equal was a fraud. Otherwise, the court would not have required integration, but would have required better black schools. In that sense, some would have Brown's decision really a conclusion that racism was creating apathy towards black schools and quality white schools.
Rather, the court made a sort-of sociological observation- that even in schools that seem perfectly equal, segregation means unequality. It is, so to say, a per-se rule.

FindLaw reviews Free Culture. here.

Here, in his third book, Lessig expands beyond the Internet his previous warnings about the threat technology poses to "free culture."

Lessig projects that, in an ideal world, new technologies could allow low-cost access to almost all creative content ever made, much of which no longer has any commercial value anyway. He envisions the building of virtual libraries on the web that would be akin to the wonder of the world built in ancient Alexandria. A world of tinkerers, according to Lessig's vision, could create new content by borrowing from all that's come before.

But Lessig charges that this glorious future is threatened by giant media companies who are stifling creativity in the name of fighting piracy. They're going too far, he argues, by rigidly enforcing copyright laws and limiting what flows into the public domain after its commercial value has shrunk. And the issue isn't limited to the Internet -- it affects virtually all copyrightable material, meaning any fixed expression that the law protects.

I usually avoid the bash-Ashcroft bandwagon--namely because the silly standard attacks are just that, silly.
But Zengerle, in TNR, gives a wonderful review of the Attorney General's testimony from this week.

Indeed, Ashcroft is now such a boogeyman that it's almost tempting to feel sorry for the guy. You find yourself thinking: He can't be that bad, can he? But then Ashcroft goes up to the Hill, as he did yesterday to testify before the 9/11 Commission, and he gives a performance that makes you conclude his harshest critics aren't nearly harsh enough.

You may need a subscription to read it all- but its worth it. Zengerle lays out serious questions about the questions and answers- spending some time on the Gorelick memo.

The attorney general blamed the failure to prevent 9/11 on the "wall," a government-imposed legal barrier that prevented intelligence investigators from sharing information with criminal investigators. Disparaging the wall is, in itself, relatively uncontroversial: Not long after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration and Congress tore down the wall as part of the Patriot Act, a decision that a federal appeals court upheld in November 2002. But then Ashcroft went a step further: He claimed the Clinton administration was responsible for building the "wall" in the first place--and that the administration's primary bricklayer had been none other than current 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick. Brandishing a secret memo that Gorelick wrote as deputy attorney general in 1995--a memo that Ashcroft had helpfully declassified for the occasion--the current attorney general declared, "Somebody built this wall. ... Full disclosure compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum is a member of the Commission."

It was a smug bit of political theater, but it was both disingenuous and irrelevant to the proceedings at hand. For one thing, Gorelick didn't exactly build the wall on her own. In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret intelligence court and relaxed the standard Fourth Amendment rule requiring "probable cause" when the government sought search warrants for the "primary purpose" of gathering foreign intelligence. But over the years, in order to prevent criminal investigators from abusing FISA--and its lower threshold for obtaining search warrants--the government built a wall to keep criminal and intelligence investigations separate. Gorelick's memo merely codified what was already standard practice. What's more, if Ashcroft really thought the wall was such an impediment to combating terrorism, he could have moved to tear it down himself before 9/11. But as 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gorton, a former Republican senator from Washington, noted, the Bush Justice Department actually ratified the existence of the wall, noting in its own secret memorandum on August 6, 2001, that "the 1995 procedures remain in effect today."

The Gorelick memo was a way for Ashcroft to turn the harsh spotlight on someone other than himself--which he needed to do since his responses to the criticisms leveled by Pickard and Watson were decidedly unpersuasive. Ashcroft initially said that the May 2001 memo that didn't list counterterrorism as one of DOJ's top priorities--the memo that almost made Watson fall out of his chair--was based on a strategic plan issued by his predecessor, Janet Reno. But he also conceded that Reno's strategic plan did indeed include mentions of terrorism. As for his rejection in the summer of 2001 of Pickard's request for $58 billion more in counterterrorism money for the FBI, Ashcroft tried to fudge matters by noting that the FBI was working under a Clinton administration budget when the attacks occurred and that the first Bush budget for the FBI, which was for fiscal year 2002, substantially increased counterterrorism spending. But of course it did; that budget was crafted after the 9/11 attacks. Finally, Ashcroft just denied that he ever told Pickard he didn't want any more briefings on terrorism issues.

What in the World?
Apparently, looters don't care only about ancient art. They like radioactive material from unguarded nuclear facilities as well. via TPM, comes this bit of disturbing news. Here's the Guardian:

Some Iraqi nuclear facilities appear to be unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported after reviewing satellite images and equipment that has turned up in European scrapyards.

The International Atomic Energy Agency sent a letter to U.S. officials three weeks ago informing them of the findings. The information was also sent to the U.N. Security Council in a letter from its director, Mohamed ElBaradei, that was circulated Thursday.

The IAEA is waiting for a reply from the United States, which is leading the coalition administering Iraq, officials said.

The United Sattes has virtually cut off information-sharing with the IAEA since invading Iraq in March 2002 on the premise that the country was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

No such weapons have been found, and arms control officials now worry the war and its chaotic aftermath may have increased chances that terrorists could get their hands on materials used for unconventional weapons or that civilians may be unknowingly exposed to radioactive materials.

According to ElBaradei's letter, satellite imagery shows ``extensive removal of equipment and in some instances, removal of entire buildings,'' in Iraq.
...

The IAEA has been unable to investigate, monitor or protect Iraqi nuclear materials since the U.S. invaded the country in March 2003. The United States has refused to allow the IAEA or other U.N. weapons inspectors into the country, claiming that the coalition has taken over responsibility for illict weapons searches.

Lefty South Koreans win the day. Says the Times:

The congressional delegation of Mr. Roh's Uri Party will triple in size, according to the polls, probably winning a majority in South Korea's 299-seat National Assembly, the nation's single legislative chamber.

The liberal Uri Party was winning up to 172 seats, the polls showed, while the conservative Grand National Party, the main opposition, was falling to 115 seats. As part of a general shift to the left, polls indicated that the Democratic Labor Party, an antibusiness party, would win up to 12 seats, compared with none before.

Looks like some of this was backlash for a stupid impeachment trial:

Mr. Roh was inaugurated in February 2003 and his first year was marked by sharp acrimony between conservatives and liberals, a split that reflected generational shifts as well as ideological ones. Mr. Roh, a 57-year-old, self-taught human rights lawyer without a college degree, was seen as the standard bearer of young South Koreans, a group that voted overwhelmingly for him.

But conservatives faulted Mr. Roh for his style as much as his politics. They winced at hearing their president use informal language; they complained when he openly asked for advice, and when he expressed self-doubt. In a hierarchical Confucian society, this man with an easy grin was seen as a rule breaker.

A conservative coalition impeached Mr. Roh on what South Korean voters apparently saw as a technicality: public comments in favor of the Uri Party.

Is the 9/11 Commission partisan...or are GOP folks bracing for bad news?
The Times latches on to what I am increasingly seeing as GOP talking points- that the 9/11 Commission is on a partisan witchhunt. The current buzz is the extent to which the commissioners talk about their proceedings.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a Republican who worked as a lawyer for the Warren Commission, which investigated the Kennedy assassination, said in an interview this week that it had operated like a jury. "When a jury goes out, you don't give a report in midstream on what you're doing, expressing opinions," Mr. Specter said. In the case of the Sept. 11 commission, he added, "Speaking so freely to the press while they're in midstream tends to politicize it when they come to their conclusions."

Never mind that Chairman Kean said, "We made a conscious decision, and part of it was under strong pressure from the families, to make this commission as transparent and as visible as possible."
Of course, it goes both ways:

Late last month, John F. Lehman, a Republican commissioner, said of Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism official who has said the Bush administration did not take his warnings about terrorism seriously before the attacks, "I think he has a credibility problem."

Here is the Times' last few graphs:

The New York Post published a front-page editorial titled "National Disgrace" on Wednesday, criticizing as "sewn from whole cloth" a staff briefing paper that the newspaper said "paints a picture of alarm bells going off throughout Washington in the months before 9/11."

Last week, Senator Mitch McConell, Republican of Kentucky, charged from the Senate floor that the commission, made up of five Democrats and five Republicans, had "become a political casualty of the electoral hunting season." Mr. McConnell did not respond to requests for comment. The senator's remarks helped to persuade the commission leaders to urge their colleagues to tamp down any partisanship at the hearings, people close to the panel said.

But that did not stop Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, who said: "Mitch McConnell is the Republican whip of the Senate and he's accusing us of being too partisan? He can go to hell for all I'm concerned."

Mr. Kerrey said the tough questioning and the television and print appearances had helped shake loose information from the White House that would not have otherwise been released.

Acknowledging that, Ivo H. Daalder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who was on President Bill Clinton's national security staff, said that since this is an election year, "the commission ought to be well aware that too much public exposure will feed suspicion by those who are already so inclined of the commission's political motivation."

Mr. Kean said even if he wanted to avoid the news media, it would be next to impossible in the age of the major 24-hour news networks. "People are going to be talking about us anyway," he said. "We would rather have the commission talking about us rather than talking heads."

I guess it is only fair that the Times is reporting this- as it is increasingly becoming a must-push story in GOP News--note that the damning front page opinion piece comes from...shock...the NY Post.
As to the Commission's partisanship- I will withhold ultimate judgement. The Panel is made up of folks from both political camps, with histories and undeniable pre-made assumptions.
However, I also think it would be wise for those asserting that the Commission is now blinded by partisanship to withold judgement. We have merely seen public hearings- which is to say, a fraction of what the Commission has done. There are many possibilities. They may be trying to aggressively question everyone before them in order to get at the Truth behind all the spin. They may be partisan and mean.
One thing to remember- these folks are looking day in and day out at a huge pile of material entirely dealing with the intel and structure of government before 9/11. It is quite possible that, in this world of information, they are increasingly dismayed that these various pieces were never connected (by either administration). Perhaps their aggressive questioning is a result of this.
In any event, I am concerned that a backlash is being made prematurely- and that, for some, the backlash against the commission is a defense against possible negative conclusions coming from the commission. And as we all know- the Clinton Admin has nothing to lose- But Bush..who is making 9/11 and terrorism-fghting the center of his campaign, has everything to lose. It is no doubt Bush Supporters will be ready to knock down a Commission giving their man bad news...even if the bad news is shared between him and Clinton.

Kevin Drum has more.

I agree with criticisms of Kerry's remark that a stable Iraq is more important than assuring that it becomes a democracy...sorta. Kerry said:

"I have always said from day one that the goal here … is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told reporters after conducting a town hall meeting at the City College of New York in Harlem. "I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms."
...
"You leave with stability, [and] you hope that you can continue the process of democratization. Obviously, that's the goal," he said. "With respect to getting our troops out, the measure is the stability of Iraq."

In response, counterspin.blogspot.com said:

For all the bad, stupid and incompetent things George W. Bush has done with respect to [Iraq] (and these are legion), the one saving grace of this whole debacle was at least the IDEA that we were doing this (even if it's a bald-faced lie) to bring democracy and freedom to the [Iraqi] people.

That is what our soldiers and marines are fighting and dying for in [Iraq]. That's what keeps them going when they are being shot at, bombed, eating MRE's in the sweltering heat, and getting eaten alive by sand flees.

Whether it's tru or not, is irrelevent to these men and women. They HAVE to believe it, or they'd have nervous breakdowns at even greater rates than we currently see.

So, for John Kerry to even HINT that this is not a primary goal in [Iraq] is....unconscionable. And, quite frankly, WRONG.

This may be an over-reaction. I get the sense that Kerry is speaking of our troops as opposed to the overall US goal. With respect to getting our troops home, the most important thing is stability. Then we can worry about helping the country along to democracy...or a democratic style republic like our own.
But, rhetorically, Kerry mis-steps when he lets his remarks be contrasted with the "bold," "steady" and "unwaivering" remarks from Bush. It looks like Kerry just wants to get out, soon as the place is secure.
Given the entirety of his remarks, this is not the case...but be careful, Kerry.

Revised opinion on the best response. Go read this post by Juan Cole. The well regarded expert on Islam and the Middle East argues on the substance of comments from the Press Conference. This one's for you, Mike.
I'll be happy to put aside the larger case regarding Bush's political Character in favor of a substantive debate on policy. I look forward to a rebuttal to Cole.

From Howard Kurtz's Media Notes:

But imagine that you're a casual viewer in Kansas City or Orlando or Phoenix. You hear the president talk about Sept. 11, how Saddam was a threat, how battling terrorism is a tough task, how he will do whatever it takes for America to prevail, how he doesn't like seeing dead bodies on television either but his responsibility is to remain resolute. You haven't heard him say this 20 times, like the journalists have. You see a plain-talking president sticking to his guns. You don't think it's reasonable to blame a guy who'd been in office for eight months for 9/11.

And you wonder whether the press is unfairly trying to trap him.

Check out some of these regional headlines, helpfully compiled by The Note:

Philadelphia Inquirer: "Bush Says Iraq Is Testing America's Will."

Pittsburgh Post Gazette: "Bush: U.S. won't waver on Iraq"

Kansas City Star: "Bush Speech Relieves, Frustrates Iraqis" and "Bush Says Iraq Is Testing America's Will"

Detroit Free Press: "QUESTIONS ON THE WAR: More troops, resources will be sent if requested"

Orlando Sentinel: "Bush must clear up exit strategy"

Miami Herald: "Bush: 'Iraq is testing America's will' "

St. Petersburg Times: "Bush promises to finish job in Iraq"

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "Bush: 'We must not waver' on terror or Iraq"

Arizona Republic: "Bush gives no ground to his critics in speech"

Manchester Union-Leader: Bush: "U.S. will finish job in Iraq"

Not exactly the portrait of a stumbling president.

So, what press is beating up on Bush? Is Kurtz's point that "elite" DC press looks for some things, while the rest of the country's press adores the steadfastness of Bush? Still not getting it...

Empty Speech. Josh Marshall gets at what I mean when I speak of confusion with the various lines/ mantras Bush repeats. Namely, what does Bush mean when he discusses staying the course? et al. Here are some bits from Marshall:

In a column out today, entitled "We Will Win", Steve Forbes writes ...

We must prepare ourselves for a bloody year. Terrorists will make every effort to pull off Madrid-like atrocities in the U.S. as our elections near. The forces of good, however, when combined with consistency and determination have always triumphed. This war will be no exception.

...
The importance of words is a conceit of wordsmiths, certainly. But they are important -- especially when they bleed through into thought and action, which happens more often than you'd think.

As we noted several months ago, orotund, abstract language can obfuscate accountability, truth-telling, and as we're now seeing most clearly, the simple facing of reality. And, boy, are we there today -- with the repeated incantations of vague phrases which can mean anything and thus also nothing.

Why are things spinning out of control in Iraq? Why are we losing the struggle for hearts and minds in the country? Because we stand for freedom. And the terrorists hate freedom. And they're attacking us because we're bringing freedom to Iraq. And terrorists hate freedom. Therefore they hate us. And since they hate us so much of course they fight us.

That was the substance of the president's message last night. And the blurb from Forbes is more of the same -- words that can mean anything or nothing and which are being strung together before our eyes to avert our gaze from the fact that the decisions of our policy-makers have not had the effect that they said they would.
...
We may be for freedom. But if the people we're trying to 'free' don't think that's true, then it scarcely matters. If we could step down from words like 'free' and 'freedom' which have use in speeches and as broad concepts, but only a limited value for analyzing what's actually going on here, then maybe we'd be a little more effective.

Are we fighting some people who 'hate freedom'? Well, yes, if, as I assume we do, we mean by this people who want to build a closed, theocratic society and hate the secularism and liberalism of the West. But maybe we're also now fighting people who are just nationalists, or people who've been affected in some fashion adversely by the occupation. And maybe we've maneuvered ourselves so badly that now we've got the nationalists and the people who 'hate freedom' fighting together. And, even worse, maybe that's helping the people who 'hate freedom' convince the nationalists and the aggreived that they should 'hate freedom' too. And maybe there are folks there who sorta 'hate freedom' but don't necessarily hate us -- maybe Sistani, for instance, or the folks behind SCIRI, who probably more fairly fit that description than Sistani. And maybe we can drive a wedge between those two groups. Who knows if these points of analysis hold true? But we'd better start digging into the particulars of what's really happening over there or we'll become the primary victims of our whirl of empty, bamboozling phrases. And the infantile belief that everyone who doesn't follow our dictation 'hates freedom' will end up leaving a lot of people really hating us.

Substance and not slogans, please.

A pox on both their houses. Here are two graphs from Martin Peretz'slatest latest in the New Republic:

Transnational terrorism is by now on everybody's tongue and maybe even everybody's mind. But it wasn't so long ago that the threat of terrorism was a preoccupation of the very few, Richard Clarke chief among them. The American foreign and security policy mainstream--the soft-power advocates, the Eurocentric multilateralists, the globalization enthusiasts, and Kofi Annan's dinner partners, the U.N.-firsters--considered him a dangerous crank, an obsessive deserving only ridicule. America's ever-alert, and often hysterical, civil libertarians were alarmed by his ideas for safeguarding the homeland. To make matters worse, he was a consistent ally of Israel in the governments of Bush père and Bill Clinton, both of which shared an identical formula for how to shepherd the peace process: Squeeze the Jewish state to assume additional risk and make yet more unreciprocated concessions. Clarke's job was, in fact, always in peril during the Clinton administration, and its structural sloppiness may be one reason he survived.
...
This year's partisanship has obscured the obvious truth behind the current 9/11 Commission hearings: Before September 11, 2001, both the Clinton and Bush administrations were unable or unwilling to mobilize the country against the growing terrorism threat. Neither the first World Trade Center bombing (which the Justice Department treated as a simple case of law enforcement), the enormities at two of our African embassies in 1998, nor the 2000 attack on the USS Cole disturbed our stupor. There is a rabbinic commentary about the tale of the walls of Jericho collapsing after Joshua's soldiers marched around them seven times. The first time, the city's inhabitants were frightened. The second, they were mildly disturbed. By the seventh, they couldn't care less and didn't defend the walls at all.

The Press-i-dent
OK, I'm coming close to my theory, albeit simple and obvious, on reactions to Bush's press conference. Those who generally like Bush thought he did great, and those that generally don't, he confirmed why. But I'm coming to one aspect that keeps arising over and over: the value or meaningless-ness we place on the notion that Bush has resolve.
Let's look at a handful of reactions:
NY Times:

Mr. Bush was grave and impressive while reading his opening remarks, which focused on the horrors of terrorism and the great good that could come from establishing a free and democratic Iraq. No one in the country could disagree with either thought. But his responses to questions were distressingly rambling and unfocused. He promised that Iraq would move from the violence and disarray of today to full democracy by the end of 2005, but the description of how to get there was mainly a list of dates when good things are supposed to happen.

The Weekly Standard:

Not only that, he began the session with reporters by gobbling up 17 minutes of time they consider theirs. He devoted it to an opening statement--it was actually a speech--in which he said basically one thing: We're not flinching in Iraq. He was heroically on message, relentlessly repetitive, but effective in his own way.
...
If one was expecting a Kissingerian strategic case for America's intervention in Iraq, one wasn't going to get it from Bush. His argument was simple. Freedom in Iraq is good for Iraqis, good for America, and good for the world. And though we've had some tough weeks recently, we're sticking in Iraq and with our plan to turn over sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30.

And Glenn Reynolds provides us more responses:

Rene: "Bush doesn't have the polish and command of facts that Clinton had nor does he have the stage presence and comforting voice of Reagan. However, as I see it, he exudes resolve."

Here's an online transcript of the press conference, which makes my liveblogging pointless except for a few interspersed comments.

Andrew Sullivan: "I found the president clear, forceful, impassioned, determined, real. This was not an average performance."

Virginia Postrel: "George W. Bush is not the most articulate of men, but he is really good at one kind of speech: laying out in simple language the way he's thought through a policy decision."

I heard Bill Kristol, editor of Weekly Standard, did not like the conference--saying something to the effect that Bush made no solid policy statements regarding just how we'll proceed and succeed in Iraq. But I just heard that on the radio- so no verifying.

So, my point:
in these comments, and in comments on this weblog, we find those, like me, that think the President shovels out BS when answering the press. Alternatively, you find those that think the President speaks with resolve, firmness, real-ness, and on and on. I think the Weekly Standard essay speaks the praise-line well: Bush is not dragged down by these elitist press corps into complex folds of policy ("elite" is, of course, used in his article). Rather, Bush has a clear message- he is pro-freedom, he will stick it out in Iraq, and we will turn over sovereignty on June 30.
In his refusal to ramble on beyond his simple talking points, Bush is showing resolve--he will not slide away from the war plans merely in response to political pressure. Thus, we have a tough leader that does what he says he'll do.

The other side sees in all this talking points, scripted by Rove, that do nothing to teach those of us interested what exactly is going on. The skeptics also wonder who Bush is arguing against? Who's saying freedom's a bad thing? And if Bush is saying we will now wage war in all unfree nations, what nation is next on the long list? Most importantly, though, the skeptics wonder why this grand plan of democracy in Iraq changing the middle east was not delivered as the need for the war in Iraq. As far as I can figure, the notion is this: Democracy in Iraq will work to reshape the Middle East in such a way as to change and modernize that part of the world, thus decreasing the supply of those that would become terrorists.
That's a big-time proposal, and one we know has been in Wolfowitz's dreams. But I beg you to find the speeches delivered before the war that make this out as a reason to wage war in Iraq. Please.

The problem is- I can't figure out what commentators mean by Bush's resolve. If it is his repetitions of "staying the course," what does that mean? Even Kucinich would not have the troops just up and go without some other finger to stop up the pike. Of course we plan to keep Iraq secure. More reasonably, the notion is that Bush isn't changing his war plans at every political crossroad.
But he is.
What is the plan from which Bush is not waivering? (other than his plan, all along, to invade Iraq...regardless of what inspectors revealed).
See the Meyerson article linked to below. U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has now been granted greater control; We, and not the Iraqi oil fields, are paying for all this; 130k instead of 30k troops are still needed in Iraq- with more to go; and this war is less and less about warding off chem-filled missiles aimed at us and more and more about changing the geo-political structure of the world.

Of Bush, Kerry, and the Plan in Iraq. Meyerson in WaPo.

Tenet:

"We all understood bin Laden's intent to strike the homeland but were unable to translate this knowledge into an effective defense of the country," Tenet said.
"This is not a clinical excuse," he said. "No matter how hard we worked or how desperately we tried, it was not enough."

This is the type of straight talk and obvious statement I speak of when I wonder why the President (any president) refuses such a statement. Why won't they say: we tried, but in the end, we failed in some way to protect Americans from terror. We hope the 9/11 Commission will assist in solving the problem.
Tenet and Clarke have said just that. This is not so much to bash the current administration --and honestly I have no idea what Clinton has or has not said to this effect. It is rather a confusion with the politics. More than anything, I'm simply mystified at why such remarks are supposedly damaging politically.

And here is the best response to the Press Conference I've read so far.

The Infallible President
From the transcript.

Q Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, as I mentioned, it's -- the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war. And that's just a reality, Dave. I mean, that's -- that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a -- nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.

The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anybody can -- maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein -- would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.
...
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I can understand why people in my administration anguished over the fact that people lost their life. I feel the same way. I mean, I'm sick when I think about the death that took place on that day. And as I mentioned, I've met with a lot of family members and I do the best I do to console them about the loss of their loved one. As I mentioned, I oftentimes think about what I could have done differently. I can assure the American people that had we had any inkling that this was going to happen, we would have done everything in our power to stop the attack.

Here's what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans. And that's why we will stay on the offense until we bring people to justice
...
Q Mr. President, why are you and the Vice President insisting on appearing together before the 9/11 Commission? And, Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

THE PRESIDENT: We will find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing; he's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over. And, secondly, because the 9/11 Commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

Q I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

THE PRESIDENT: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them.

Let's see --

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a minute. Oh, Jim.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: I've got some "must calls," I'm sorry.

Q You have been accused of letting the 9/11 threat mature too far, but not letting the Iraq threat mature far enough. First, could you respond to that general criticism?

Ah yes, this was my favorite part. Why are you appearing with Cheney? Because the 9/11 Commission wants to ask questions. But why won't you appear alone as they asked? Because....uh...next question. And Jim, who he obviously sought out, is from FOX News and the Washington Times. And Jim asked the most partisan right0hack question of the evening. What a joke.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.

I would have gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. See, I happen to believe that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we've sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth, exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.

One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised at the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons, and their fear of talking about them because they don't want to be killed. There's a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq; they're worried about getting killed, and, therefore, they're not going to talk.

But it will all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time.

So...I'm sure I will have mistakes attributed to me by historians...but I can't think of a one. And by the way, we still don't know if I was wrong about the WMDs.

Q Following on both Judy's and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have -- quite significantly over the past couple of months -- I guess I'd like to know if you feel in any way that you've failed as a communicator on this topic? Because --

THE PRESIDENT: Gosh, I don't know. I mean --

Q Well, you deliver a lot of speeches and a lot of them contain similar phrases, and they vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going -- with the exception of tonight's pretty somber assessment, this evening.

THE PRESIDENT: It's a pretty somber assessment today, Don, yes.

Q I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way? You don't have many of these press conferences, where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

THE PRESIDENT: I guess if you put it into a political context, that's the kind of thing the voters will decide next November. That's what elections are about. They'll take a look at me and my opponent and say, let's see, which one of them can better win the war on terror? Who best can see to it that Iraq emerges as a free society?

Don, if I tried to fine-tune my messages based upon polls, I think I'd be pretty ineffective. I know I would be disappointed in myself. I hope today you've got a sense of my conviction about what we're doing. If you don't, maybe I need to learn to communicate better.

I feel strongly about what we're doing. I feel strongly that the course this administration has taken will make America more secure and the world more free, and, therefore, the world more peaceful. It's a conviction that's deep in my soul. And I will say it as best as I possibly can to the American people.

I look forward to the debate and the campaign. I look forward to helping -- for the American people to hear, what is a proper use of American power; do we have an obligation to lead, or should we shirk responsibility. That's how I view this debate. And I look forward to making it, Don. I'll do it the best I possibly can. I'll give it the best shot. I'll speak as plainly as I can.

One thing is for certain, though, about me -- and the world has learned this -- when I say something, I mean it. And the credibility of the United States is incredibly important for keeping world peace and freedom.

Back from a fun Easter Weekend with sweets in NY.
Read Fareed Zakaria's The New York Times > Books > Sunday Book Review > review of 'Disarming Iraq' by Hans Blix.

What?
This is the administration's explanation of why there will be no apology coming from Dr. Rice tomorrow:
"An apology 'promotes the notion that we were at fault, we fixed it and it will never happen again,' the colleague said. 'You can't make those kind of guarantees.'"

We're not apologizing because we can't 100% assure terrorists won't strike again? So next time I'm late, remind to refrain from the apology...I might be late again sometime.
Really, this is utter bullcrap. Clarke's apology was spot on- and he said exactly what any government official connected to anti-terror should say: We tried, we thought we were doing well...but ultimately, we failed.
Or does the administration contend that, because there is no guarantee as to fault, apologies are out of order? Have they heard of various and severable liability?

Give this (Baghdad Burning) blog a peek. Here's here description: "Girl Blog from Iraq... let's talk war, politics and occupation."

Do anti-abortion laws increase the numbers of pro-choicers? Nicholas Kristof poses that question in his comment today in the Times. He discusses two "mass abortion trials" in Portugal, and the subsequent increase in those favoring abortion rights.

Portugal, like the U.S., is an industrialized democracy with a conservative religious streak, but the trials have repulsed the Portuguese. A recent opinion poll shows that people here now favor abortion rights, 79 percent to 14 percent. In a sign of the changing mood, Portugal's president recently commuted the remainder of the nurse's sentence. There's a growing sense that while abortion may be wrong, criminalization is worse.
...
Portugal offers a couple of sobering lessons for Americans who, like Mr. Bush, aim to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The first is that abortion laws are very difficult to enforce in a world as mobile as ours. Some 20,000 Portuguese women still get abortions each year, mostly by crossing the border into Spain. In the U.S., where an overturn of Roe v. Wade would probably mean bans on abortion only in a patchwork of Bible Belt states, pregnant women would travel to places like New York, California and Illinois for their abortions.

The second is that if states did criminalize abortion, they would face a backlash as the public focus shifted from the fetus to the woman. "The fundamentalists have lost the debate" in Portugal, said Helena Pinto, president of UMAR, a Portuguese abortion rights group. "Now the debate has shifted to the rights of women. Do we want to live in a country where women can be in jail for abortion?"

And the comment ends with:

Portugal's experience suggests that while many people are offended by abortion on demand, they might be even more troubled by criminalization of abortion.

"Forbidding abortion doesn't save anyone or anything," said Sonia Fertuzinhos, a member of the Portuguese Parliament. "It just gets women arrested and humiliated in the public arena."

The upshot is that many Portuguese seem to be both anti-abortion and pro-choice. They are morally uncomfortable with abortion, especially late in pregnancies, but they don't think the solution is to arrest young women for making agonizing personal choices to end their pregnancies.

As one sensible woman put it in her autobiography: "For me, abortion is a personal issue -- between the mother, father and doctor." She added, "Abortion is not a presidential matter."

President Bush, listen to your mother.

Without relying too heavily on Kristof's thin empirical data, I can see the common sense in what he's saying. When abortion is a legal right, pro-life folks are mobilized. They might seek to oulaw abortion, or to attempt to convince the masses that abortion is murder. But if abortion is outlawed, pro-choice folks are mobilized- and will push the rights side of the issue. Kristof suggests, I think, that U.S. law puts the pro-life view in a better position in the public forum.
Forget laws for a second, and think only of the public debate. The terms of the debate, sadly, have been set- pro-life, and pro-choice. (This is unfortunate, as many of those favoring abortion rights are not anti-life-in that we do not think abortion is murder.) In any event- the rhetoric of "pro-life" is quite strong- especially when squared against the label "pro-choice." Do we favor human life or human choice? It's not even a debate- but rather people arguing past each other. And I cannot imagine a pro-choicer that could argue he is anti-life, or that choice trumps life--while I can imagine a pro-lifer arguing that life trumps choice.
I reckon all this is to say that, despite our laws, I think pro-life advocates have the upper hand in the public debate. Thus, you have a population that universally admits great discomfort with abortion. Even politicians that staunchly favor upholding Roe will feel it necessary to reveal their discomfort--or that they would rather avoid the pregnancy in the first place.
If Roe was reversed, though, this would change. The rhetorical value of choice would trump life for this reason: the fact that we are in large disagreement over what the fetus is would come to fore. And choice would come to mean more than the choice to have an abortion: it would come to represent a larger choice about life, the body, and what we these thing mean.

Bush and the environment. I just got the chance to read this excellent piece from this weeks Times Magazine. It is Bruce Barcott's first feature for the magazine, and explores the changes that the current administration is effecting in administrative law affecting our air. Namely, the article examines the EPA rules that have changed during the last three years, and the effect of those changes. It is also a nice look into the relationship between business and agency.

Of the many environmental changes brought about by the Bush White House, none illustrate the administration's modus operandi better than the overhaul of new-source review. The president has had little success in the past three years at getting his environmental agenda through Congress. His energy bill remains unpassed. His Clear Skies package of clean-air laws is collecting dust on a committee shelf. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge remains closed to oil and gas exploration.

But while its legislative initiatives have languished on Capitol Hill, the administration has managed to effect a radical transformation of the nation's environmental laws, quietly and subtly, by means of regulatory changes and bureaucratic directives. Overturning new-source review -- the phrase itself embodies the kind of dull, eye-glazing bureaucrat-speak that distracts attention -- represents the most sweeping change, and among the least noticed.

The changes to new-source review have been portrayed by the president and his advisers as a compromise between the twin goals of preserving the environment and enabling business, based on a desire to make environmental regulations more streamlined and effective. But a careful examination of the process that led to the new policy reveals a very different story, and a different motivation. I conducted months of extensive interviews with those involved in the process, including current and former government officials, industry representatives, public health researchers and environmental advocates. (Top environmental officials in the Bush administration declined to comment for this article.) Through those interviews and the review of hundreds of pages of documents and transcripts, one thing has become clear: the administration's real problem with the new-source review program wasn't that it didn't work. The problem was that it was about to work all too well -- in the way, finally, that it was designed to when it was passed by Congress more than 25 years ago.

and thus begins the story. In sum, this is another long story of businesses not wanting to abide by agency rules that would drive up costs. And, under Bush's administration, we have the long held faith that businesses are best able to figure out how to lower pollution in the manner most efficient.
The problem is this: if we are to get tp the Truth regarding what pollutes and what can be done to reduce the harms, then we need the input of both industry experts and outside experts. This administration closes the ear pointing to outside experts. Shame.

Adding to this story, give a look to Krugman's op-ed today. It covers the business-friendly solution of "cap-and-trade" systems to cut down mercury emissions.

During the 1990's, government regulation greatly reduced mercury emissions from medical and municipal waste incineration, leaving power plants as the main problem. In 2000, the E.P.A. determined that mercury is a hazardous substance as defined by the Clean Air Act, which requires that such substances be strictly controlled. E.P.A. staff estimated that enforcing this requirement would lead to a 90 percent reduction in power-plant mercury emissions by 2008.

A few months ago, however, the Bush administration reversed this determination and proposed a "cap and trade" system for mercury that it claimed would lead to a 70 percent reduction by 2018. Other estimates suggest that the reduction would be smaller, and take longer.

For some pollutants, setting a cap on total emissions, while letting polluters buy and sell emission rights, is a cost-efficient way to reduce pollution. The cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, has been a big success. But the science clearly shows that cap-and-trade is inappropriate for mercury.

Sulfur dioxide is light, and travels long distances: power plants in the Midwest can cause acid rain in Maine. So a cap on total national emissions makes sense. Mercury is heavy: much of it precipitates to the ground near the source. As a result, coal-fired power plants in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan create "hot spots" — chemical Chernobyls — where the risks of mercury poisoning are severe. Under a cap-and-trade system, these plants are likely to purchase pollution rights rather than cut emissions. In other words, the administration proposal would perpetuate mercury pollution where it does the most harm. That probably means thousands of children born with preventable neurological problems.

by the way, I would note that Krugman is quite fair with his accessment--and is in agreement with everything I've heard about this from friends that study this stuff more seriously than I. So...the moral of the story:

So how did the original plan get replaced with a plan so obviously wrong on the science?

The answer is that the foxes have been put in charge of the henhouse. The head of the E.P.A.'s Office of Air and Radiation, like most key environmental appointees in the Bush administration, previously made his living representing polluting industries (which, in case you haven't guessed, are huge Republican donors). On mercury, the administration didn't just take industry views into account, it literally let the polluters write the regulations: much of the language of the administration's proposal came directly from lobbyists' memos.

Gregg Easterbrook on politics and science. In light of the Union of Concerned Scientists accusation that the Bush administration plays fast and loose with science, Easterbrook comments that the UCS is playing politics with science as well.
But beyond the truism that scientists take political views as much as the next guy, I don't really know his point. Certainly, Easterbrook--not a scientist--doesn't refute the UCS's claims. I think, rather, that he simply doesn't want partisans to cite the UCS as a neutral, purely science minded group. Well and good. Here's a graph:

The Union of Concerned Scientists report is a mix of serious charges and trivia. The serious charges include: the White House ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to remove from a document language that gave credence to global warming theory; trying to hinder research on the severity of mercury exposure; and appointing to some advisory boards only people who were likely to take an industry-oriented view on issues such as toxicology.

These are important criticisms of the White House. But do they represent "misuse" of science, or only policy disputes? The Clinton administration, after all, sometimes issued global warming warnings that were stronger than science could support and appointed to advisory boards people who were likely to take an anti-industry view.
...
Twenty Nobel Prize winners for science signed the UCS report. Signatories (not necessarily Nobel laureates) include such universally admired science figures as biologist David Baltimore, president of Caltech, public health researcher Eric Chivian and biologist E.O. Wilson of Harvard University, physicist Steven Weinberg, and former National Institutes of Health head Harold Varmus. Signatories also include two of the most political figures on the American scientific left, Jane Lubchenco of Oregon State University and Stuart Pimm of Duke University. Both are renowned for shouting down anyone who doesn't take a purely politically correct view on every environmental issue.

But, of course, nor should the fact that these scientist take on political views be used to discredit their position.
So- I reckon Easterbrook is reminding us that people take sides. I'll buy that.

Of mainstream media, online remarks, and character assasination. Matt Stoller puts together a great many pieces while addressing the fallout from a retracted comment in the blog "Daily Kos."

The short story is that Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of the Daily Kos said a terrible comment about contractors in Iraq, which he retracted but did not apologize for. The right complained, then attacked, the Daily Kos's advertisers pulled their ads from the site, John Kerry delinked him, several 'reasonable' liberal bloggers piled on him, and the controversy has shown up so far in the Wall Street Journal and on the South Dakotan GOP's web site. It probably won't end there.

But the real juice of his post is a larger pontification into the nature of blogs against the nature of big media. Here's his launching off point:

When I produced the call-in talk radio radio pilot 'The Blogging of the President', I noticed some interesting similarities between talk radio and blogs. Call-in talk radio is organized around authentic conversation, and so are blogs; Howard Stern and Atrios have similar levels of devotion among their audiences, because they each connect and seem trustworthy. There is however one key difference between blogs and talk radio; blogs create memory, whereas talk radio and cable punditry destroys it by turning opinion and analysis into an ethereal product. Both talk radio and blogs provide contextualized, chatty information; only blogs actually write it down (Tim Berners Lee has more).

This is why right-wing talk radio rhetoric is so much more extreme than the Republican Party's moderate image would imply. Take Rush Limbaugh, for example, and his short-lived ESPN career. Pandering to racists and the paranoid didn't matter when he was on niche radio, but once he was in the mainstream media spotlight, Rush self-destructed almost immediately. What's surprising in this episode is not Rush's abortive football commenting career, but that ESPN hired him in the first place. Because no one's writing down right-wing talk radio, ESPN program managers simply didn't know what they were getting. Strip out context and memory, and Limbaugh is just a popular DJ with millions of male listeners, many of whom are also sports fans. So they hired him.

for those interested in the internet's effect on media and culture, a must read. There is much more than I can paste or describe here--so give it a read.

Exhibit J from Krugman.

The New Republic doesn't think Al Franken's new show on Air America will cut it...because it's too moderate and too soft spoken.
This, as I was about to come on here and mention I can't stand the Randi Rhodes (it comes on after Franken) show. Her's is the liberal version of Ingraham, Limbaugh and co. She's loud, obnoxious, and not usually really right. Sure, her gut instincts and mine probably agree. But her tirades do no service to the cause. She sounds like the tenth grader that just got into politics and yells whatever he hears. I would hope my party is above the notion that you win an argument by being loudest. And her points are about as carefully stated as Coulter's.
Franken, on the other hand, has a decent show. Thoughful, funny, and smart. And The New Republic says this will kill it. C'mon. If they're right, it's a sad commentary on the listening public.

Summarizing the pushback. Sean Aday, over at the gadlfy, gives a nice summary of the Administrations charges against Clarke last week. Much pomp and no substance. Is this typical, or is that just me?

What do y'all think of a Kerry/McCain ticket? For some reason, I almost like the idea.

Flawed. An excellent reminder from TalkingPoints, that to the extent voters vote on the national security issue- the question is this: how do we identify and take on threats? From the start of of this administration, the perceived threat was rogue nations bearing WMDs. Hence, the rebooted star wars program. Marshall notes:

Now in a front page piece in Thursday's Washington Post we learn that on September 11th, 2001 Condi Rice was scheduled to deliver a major foreign policy address on missile defense as the centerpiece of a new strategy to combat "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday."

Then reality intruded.

As the Post explains, the speech contained little real discussion of terrorism. The only mentions were swipes at the Clinton administration's supposed over-emphasis on transnational terrorism at the expense of more important priorities like missile defense.

Marshall goes on to note what is obvious now:

the most potent threats to America are asymmetric threats, particularly forms of attack that cannot easily be tied back to particular states which we can punish with our conventional military superiority.

In plainer speech, the biggest threats we face today are ones that don't come with a return address.

But here is what is most important, and why this post from Marshall ought to be highlighted.

In any case, this is just another example that they simply failed to understand where the real threat was coming from.

That in itself is forgivable. The problem is that they tried to shoehorn 9/11 into their existing paradigm rather than rethink that flawed analysis.