Very tragic news for North Carolina. As reported earlier today, a group of contractors in Iraq was attack in Falluja, they were burned, dragged, and hanged. Very awful, and reminiscent of Somalia.
And apparently, the group was from a North Carolina contractor. The Times:

Later, Blackwater Security Consulting, based in Moyock, N.C., said "early evidence" indicated that the victims may have been company employees. Blackwater, which hires former members of the military to provide security training and guard services, has been providing convoy security for food deliveries around Fallujah.

Further:

The steadily deteriorating security situation in the Falluja area, west of Baghdad, has become so dangerous that no American soldiers or Iraqi security staff responded to the attack against the contractors.

There are a number of police stations in Falluja and a base of more than 4,000 marines nearby. But even while the two vehicles burned, sending plumes of inky smoke over the closed shops of the city, there were no ambulances, no fire engines and no security.

Instead, Falluja's streets were thick with men and boys and chaos.

Boys with scarves over their faces hurled bricks into the burning vehicles. A group of men dragged one of the smoldering corpses into the street and ripped it apart. Someone then tied a chunk of flesh to a rock and tossed it over a telephone wire.

"Viva mujahadeen!" shouted Said Khalaf, a taxi driver. "Long live the resistance!"

Nearby, a boy no older than 10 put his foot on the head of a body and said: "Where is Bush? Let him come here and see this!"

Many people in the crowd said they felt as if they had won an important battle. Others said they thought that the contractors, who were driving in four-wheel-drive trucks, were working for the Central Intelligence Agency.

"This is what these spies deserve," said Salam Aldulayme, a 28-year-old Falluja resident.

From this I get two major impressions:
1) we'd better get it together in security. Afghanistan has been a mess in that respect--it will be really really bad if Iraq follows suit.
2) not only is security a mess, the street perceptions recorded in the article are a mess. the contractors were no doubt doing things to help every Iraqi- building infrestructure, and such. but many of these folks have blind rage. we've got to work in every way to get through, and temper the rage. it doesn't solve the problem to just act like only a few groups are anti-US, and everyone else is in love with us. my gut says lots of people in iraq are in a grey area- not sure how they feel. these people could find themselves, carried away by passion, in a riot anf hanging charred bodies. on the other hand, they could, in candid contemplation, find themselves wanting to make a government really happen in Iraq- and they could be convinced that the US and UN are there to help.
We've got to strive for that latter conclusion.

This is one of the coolest sites I've seen.

Judge Posner elaborates on "Privacy" in Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. Ashcroft, and Professor Dorf explains.
The case rules on whether the Attorney General may get medical records of some 45 patients in connection to defending the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Ashcroft wanted the records to defend the Congressional findings that "partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed, and is outside of the standard of medical care."
Ashcroft contended that because he sought the records without patient identification, privacy concerns were not implicated. That was the question in front of Posner.
Here's Dorf:

It grounded its judgment in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(A)(iv), which authorizes judges to quash any subpoena that "subjects a person to undue burden."
...
To determine whether the subpoena imposed an undue burden, the court weighed the burden of compliance against the utility of the information sought.
[explains one alternative for finding a burden]
Nonetheless, Judge Posner pointed to another sort of burden that is not so readily dismissed. He explained that the 45 patients will have their privacy violated--even if their identities would not be revealed.
He provided the following analogy: "Imagine if nude pictures of a woman, uploaded to the Internet without her consent though without identifying her by name, were downloaded in a foreign country by people who will never meet her. She would still feel that her privacy had been invaded." Patients whose redacted late-term abortion records were produced in discovery, Posner suggested, would feel violated in the same way.

I'm always interested in finding out what, exactly, the privacy interest is. While it certainly isn't an enumerated right, I'm inclined to believe it exists, in some capacity- if nothing else, via the 9th amendment. I read a neat chapter in Professor Orth's Due Process of Law primer- and might throw in a post on his explanation of substantive due process.
In any event, the use of Posner's opinion might be interesting to watch.

Congratulations to Air American Radio, launching its broadcasts today.

The Progressive voice takes airs on talk radio, currently on 6 AM stations. You can listen here. Currently on, from 11a.m. to 2p.m., the O'Franken Factor.

Update for locals: Sadly, streaming will be my only access to Air America...but I was oh so close. My local AM station here in Chapel Hill, WCHL, almost took up some of Air America's program. But Air America is affiliate only, as opposed to letting stations take up a show or two. WCHL wanted the O'Franken Factor and Majority Report, but didn't want to go all day Air America.
As for now, no deal. Maybe they'll figure something out down the road. Seems to make sense that Air America would syndicate some of these shows- if they want as much exposure as possible.

A fairly interesting post from Jonah Goldberg over at National Review's "Corner" yesterday questions whether liberal thinkers know their roots. I don't think he's spot on, but interesting anyway. In any event, my hunch is to agree with him that conservative thinkers ally themselves and discuss more often conservative forebears. At least, so they perceive.

But one thing that really does fascinate me -- and which doesn't divulge too much about my book -- is the generalized ignorance or silence of mainstream liberals about their own intellectual history. Obviously this is a sweeping -- and therefore unfair -- generalization. But I read a lot of liberal stuff and have attended more than a few college confabs with liberal speakers speaking on the subject of liberalism itself. And it seems to me that liberals are intellectually deracinated. Read conservative publications or attend conservative conferences and there will almost always be at least some mention of our intellectual forefathers and often a spirited debate about them. The same goes for Libertarians, at least that branch which can be called a part or partner of the conservative movement.

One response I offer, Goldberg kind of answers. That is, one might define conservatism, at least in part, as a mindset geared to revere past conservative thinkers, and to not stray afar from said thinking. Liberalism, on the other hand, is often regarded to more easily stray from traditional solutions in favor of new ideas.
I think, more importantly though, that Goldberg's emphasis that this is a sweeping generalization should be taken to heart. He may be on to something, even if it broaches on truism, when saying conservatives are more beholden to dead thinkers. But, without even googling for details, I can think of two fairly recent uses of history from the liberal side. Dean, in Wisconsin, urged voters to connect him to the progressive LaFollette. And in the spring last year, an edition of The New Republic is entirely dedicated with the roots of liberal thinking as regarding the use of American force.
Dean's use of an great Progressive was rhetoric- he wanted the crowd to associate him with the vision and drive of the late Senator. The New Republic articles were more of a discussion of past thinkers- as opposed to the rhetorical use and a presumed understanding from the crowd. However, TNR's discussion of history had much the same motivation as Dean's--TNR wanted to argue that liberal thinkers have a tradition of using force to spread liberal democracy. The use of the past, then, was to affect the present mindset.
My question, then, is this: do subjective political thinkers (meaning those allied with conservative or liberal motivations) use history in the same way--evoking past thinkers to stir current theory? (and thus, Conservatives do this more often.)
And all this, finally, begs the question; what are liberals and conservatives? Shall we make a judgement on whether it is good or bad to evoke often past thinkers? Goldberg's post does not seem to make such a judgement- it is rather, and I agree, simply interesting to ponder.

Local government, non-judicial constitutional interpretation, and gay marriage. it's all in Vikram Amar's latest in FindLaw.

Read Professor Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture. It's online. It's free...subject to the Creative Commons copyright. Like some (Wendell Berry), Lessig practices what he preaches.

Red/Blue Generalizations revisited. Kevin Drum responds to the PhiliMag article mentioned about three posts below. From this, you'll remember, I worried about this red/blue generalization--and the stereotypes that it feeds: somehow, red-state genuine, like a rock, brush clearers are real Americans; and latte drinkers are not.
(of course, that's a generalization of my own of others views....and on and on. BUT, is there not a strategy for politicians to present themselves in that former group. Proof: how many politicians have visited a coffee shop to sit down with an english professor for a photo op? Conversely, how many have stepped into the two dollar plate cafeteria with brown working coat draped over shoulders to converse with employees from Walmart? What's my point? I wonder why this latter group is the one politically neccessary to connect with? If it is because politicians almost always have to convince voters that they can connect with middle America, because most all politicians are elite in fact [went to grad school and have high paying jobs]- then I can buy it. BUT, if the photo ops are an attempt to glean from this 'look' the notion that the politician is genuine, like, supposedly, Betty from Walmart...I don't approve.)

Anyway, here's Drum's response to the article. Very much along the lines of what Mike says in his comments. Some grafs:

Look, I don't know if Brooks played fast and loose with the facts in Franklin County, PA, or not. But surely it's noncontroversial that, say, the average resident of the midwest really does have different values and different interests than urban coastal dwellers? And that popular magazine writers frequently overplay those differences in an effort to write engaging copy? This strikes me as something less than shocking.

So while it may be true that Brooks sometimes strains too hard to make his points, I suspect Issenberg is straining just as hard. After all, even in strongly Red counties you'll find plenty of liberals and and in strongly Blue counties you'll find plenty of conservatives. (Go to a party here in heavily Republican Orange County, for example, and four out of ten people you meet will nonetheless be Democrats. And every one of us will make the same lame joke about how happy we are to finally meet another one.)

If Brooks' generalizations are wrong, that's fine. Skewer away. But finding exceptions to Brooks' generalizations is both trivial and pedantic, especially when Issenberg admits multiple times that Brooks really does have a point. I've been pretty unimpressed with Brooks' New York Times columns so far, but this time I have a feeling I'm on his side: Issenberg just didn't get the joke. Lighten up.

Still, even after Dr. Rice was given a softball toss to do so on 60 Minutes, the only official to take personal responsibility:

To the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you," he said. "Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness.

-Richard Clarke, in opening statements before the 9/11 commission

Unborn Victims, II
Here's the Act. It makes the "killing" or injuring of an unborn fetus a separate offense to the attack on a pregnant woman. The law is an alternative to what many states have here--which is an increased punishment when the carried fetus is injured or "killed." Here's relevant portions:

Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
...
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
...
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

A woman carrying a fetus might well regard that fetus as a human life. A couple might also regard the fetus as a potential child, and that potentiality is destroyed by the attack on the woman. In these respects, I have great sympathy for laws increasing the punishment for assaults on women when pregnant. Further, where the harm to fetus is involuntary, I do not see clearly see why Congress can't take a stand as they've done here. The two pieces of this legislation that flash warning signs to pro-choice folks are these: 1) that the crime is a separate offense and 2) the legislation defines the embryo as a human being. I don't think the concerns will amount to anything damaging to a couple's right to abort a fetus.
1) that this is a separate offense is more rhetoric than substantial change in law. sure, the rhetoric might find use in pro-life arguments; but it is undeniable that harm to fetus is, in fact, a separate offense. Again, even where the carrying woman does not regard the fetus as a life yet, it is surely a potential life--beyond the far less potential of pre-fertilization. Thus, if the woman is shot in the arm, then in the gut, she is harmed and the fetus is harmed. Whether we think of that fetus as a part of her or a separate being does not really effect whether the harms are separate.
2) rather, the more legitimate danger symbol to pro-choicers is the defining of embryo, or "child, who is in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." (emphasis mine).
Here, Congress is defining life, I think. They are making a powerful decision for me- and one that is central to my being pro-choice; to wit, that the fetus is not a human that can be killed. In this regard, the danger to choice is more potent...but still limited to rhetoric. That definition of a child in utero is limited to this Act. In other words, it merely explains why this is a separate offense as opposed to increasing the penalty for assaults against pregnant women.
Again, I think I am fine with this. As many members in Congress and many Americans indeed believe the fetus is a human, I can't well prevent legislation so saying. But, of course, we will have to see whether and how this comes into play in shaping the privacy/abortion rights set out in Roe and Casey.
But that last point is key. Abortion is a right- in that the Court has said the government cannot intrude upon the private decision involved in abortion. In my mind, though it may be different to Blackmun, Douglas et al, this privacy involves the tremendous decision regarding what is life. The Court is there to protect that private decision making. This Act does not intrude upon that decision, though it may put a public/government endorsement on the fetus=human choice. Pro-choicers, though, can't argue the Establishment Clause goes so far.

Tangential:
Anti-abortion folks make an impressive argument: why does the Court allow people to define life in the abortion context? What if it allowed murder to excape conviction because the murderer did not regard the victim as a person? If I think abortion is murder, how can I not be appalled that my government stands by and allows it?

The last point is perfectly sound, but not the first two. If you are pro-life, you must be appalled at our Court decisions allowing abortion- just as others have been appalled at government decisions contrary to their views...from Miranda rights to greater leniency to police procedure.

As to the notion that abortion is this strange area where the Court allows people to decide life and death: in a sense, this is so- and rightfully so. While person A may be certain the fetus is a living human, person B thinks it is not. But instead of arguing the same old bit about choice in this matter belonging to the couple, let me make this point: the Court does allow, in a typical murder context, someone that does not think the victim is human to escape the same punishment of someone that does so regard the victim as human. along with other routes, this is called the insanity defense.
To be guilty of a crime, you must have both 1) done the act and 2) had the mental culpability to acheive the act. If X shoots Y, knowing that he shoots Y, and knowing Y is a person...X might be convicted of 1st degree. But if the defense can show X did not have any idea Y was a person (X has a mental disability that sends him into strange sleep-walking spells; or, as in Chapel Hill a decade ago...X is schizophenic), then X does not have the mens rea, or moral culpability element of the crime. But largely, society has deemed every sane human with the knowledge that other people are fellow humans. We thus assume a moral culpability when you kill another human.
In the abortion context, society does not deem it insanity to not regard the fetus as a human. But the mens rea (culpability) is similarly not there where the couple does not regard the fetus as human.
Of course, this argument is problematic on numerous fronts. What if the couple does think the fetus is a human? Can they be prosecuted? But this it not supposed to be a way to argue for abortion if the right is taken away. Whether, it is to point out that society, and the courts, do allow some space, albeit very small, for this notion of defining personhood.

Kevin Drum reports, having finished Clarke's Against All Enemies. Some lines:

...but let's try to sort out what Clarke actually says and why he says it anyway, because I don't think it's entirely obvious just from the snippets we've seen on TV over the past week. The story is a little more complicated than it appears.

To begin with, the bulk of the book is a fairly straightforward description of terrorism during the 90s: what happened, how we responded, how we eventually put the al-Qaeda pieces together, and what kinds of institutional problems prevented a more effective response. It is largely concerned with Clarke's efforts to get official Washington to take terrorism seriously — he is scathing toward the FBI and the military, and only slightly less so toward the CIA — and there's not much question that during this period Clarke was fundamentally nonpartisan, mostly just a bulldog who was obsessed with terrorism and frequently upset that the rest of the world didn't share his obsession.

So what was it that seemingly turned him into a Democratic partisan? ...
Although Clarke says he was "beyond mad" at Clinton for failing to keep his zipper shut, he became flatly infuriated with the recklessness of his conservative opposition:

I was angrier, almost incredulous, that the bitterness of Clinton's enemies knew no bounds, that they intended to hurt not just Clinton but the country by turning the President's personal problem into a global, public circus for their own political ends. Now I feared that the timing of the President's interrogation about the scandal, August 17, would get in the way of our hitting the al Qaeda meeting.

....Our response to two deadly terroist attacks was an attempt to wipe out al Qaeda leadership, yet it quickly became grist for the right-wing talk radio mill and part of the Get Clinton campaign. That reaction made it more difficult to get approval for follow-up attacks on al Qaeda, such as my later attempts to persuade the Principals to forget about finding bin Laden and just bomb the training camps.

For a true believer like Clarke, the partisan posturing in response to what he thought was the most important problem facing our country must have convinced him that many Republicans simply didn't take national security seriously. And what he saw when Bush took office must have convinced him even further:

- Although neither administration ended up hitting back as hard as Clarke wanted, he makes it clear that at least the Clinton team considered it a high priority. The Bush team was more interested in missile defense and relations with China.

- Even though the Clinton and Bush policies ended up being largely the same prior to 9/11 — Condi Rice's denials notwithstanding — Clarke believes the Clinton team was better at execution. Several terrorist plots were foiled in December 1999 due to a heightened alert status approved by Clinton, and he thinks 9/11 could have been foiled too if the Bush team had adopted the same approach in the summer of 2001.

- Finally, there was Bush's post-9/11 response. Clarke believes that the Bush team failed to understand that al-Qaeda was something fundamentally new. "You give bin Laden too much credit," Paul Wolfowitz said in an April 2000 meeting. "He could not do all these things...without a state sponsor." As a result of this belief, after 9/11 the Bush team wanted to go after Iraq while Clarke wanted to go directly after al-Qaeda."

During the Clinton years the problem was one of turning a battleship, but he felt that at least everyone took it seriously and helped to push. Then in January 2001 he suddenly found himself working for an administration that didn't take terrorism seriously, didn't execute well even when they did acknowledge the problem, and then after 9/11 remained so stubbornly ignorant of al-Qaeda's aims that they played directly into its hands.

I won't have time to give a read myself, so please forward any thorough reviews you come across. I wouldn't mind seeing a few from Repubs that actually address what's in the book. This partisan mess like Frist's shameless display last week is old. Funy for Frist to throw out the perjury claim, and then admit he hasn't read transcripts from the Congressional hearings. Let's have arguments, not schoolyard name calling.

David Brooks and cultural generalizations. Sasha Issenberg, writing in the Philadelphia Magazine, does a nice dissection of Brooks' fallacies in describing the cultural differences between red and blue states. First an example, then a word on the larger problem.

A few years ago, journalist David Brooks wrote a celebrated article for the Atlantic Monthly, "One Nation, Slightly Divisible," in which he examined the country's cultural split in the aftermath of the 2000 election, contrasting the red states that went for Bush and the blue ones for Gore. To see the vast nation whose condition he diagnosed, Brooks compared two counties: Maryland's Montgomery (Blue), where he himself lives, and Pennsylvania's Franklin (a Red county in a Blue state). "I went to Franklin County because I wanted to get a sense of how deep the divide really is," Brooks wrote ...
Franklin County was a place where "no blue New York Times delivery bags dot driveways on Sunday mornings ; [where] people don't complain that Woody Allen isn't as funny as he used to be, because they never thought he was funny," he wrote. "In Red America churches are everywhere. In Blue America Thai restaurants are everywhere. In Red America they have QVC, the Pro Bowlers Tour, and hunting. In Blue America we have NPR, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and socially conscious investing."


Brooks, an agile and engaging writer, was doing what he does best, bringing sweeping social movements to life by zeroing in on what Tom Wolfe called "status detail," those telling symbols -- the Weber Grill, the open-toed sandals with advanced polymer soles -- that immediately fix a person in place, time and class. Through his articles, a best-selling book, and now a twice-a-week column in what is arguably journalism's most prized locale, the New York Times op-ed page, Brooks has become a must-read, charming us into seeing events in the news through his worldview.

There's just one problem: Many of his generalizations are false. According to Amazon.com sales data, one of Goodwin's strongest markets has been deep-Red McAllen, Texas. That's probably not, however, QVC country. "I would guess our audience would skew toward Blue areas of the country," says Doug Rose, the network's vice president of merchandising and brand development. "Generally our audience is female suburban baby boomers, and our business skews towards affluent areas." Rose's standard presentation of the QVC brand includes a map of one zip code -- Beverly Hills, 90210 -- covered in little red dots that each represent one QVC customer address, to debunk "the myth that they're all little old ladies in trailer parks eating bon bons all day."

So you get the theme- the article spends much ink debunking the cultural generalizations Brooks asserts as differences between red and blue voting areas. The larger problem is this:inaccuratee stereotypes.
And I don't mean to submit an entry into the tried and true, Oprah audienceclappingg, we-shouldn't stereotype argument. Rather, I want to pinpoint this particular generalization, because it's particularly problematic.
it is made to promote the liberals are elitists not worried about real America. The generalization would have you believe all military members and family are republicans orindependentss that always vote republican.
For some reason, if you mow a lawn, don't drink latte, and don't read the Times, you are more genuine and more likely to vote republican.
Somehow, the latte drinkers are responsible for our moral decay. They are the reason business can't rely on a sturdy handshake. Thanks to them, lawyers are killing small business and mature lawyers (judges) are making up laws.
This red state blue state, idealized small town church vs big city tea house crap is stupid and tiresome. Stupid, because its simplistic and wrong. My favorite Republican loves a cappuccino. Tiresome because its stereotyping for political purposes. Its good for your party if you can manipulate the popular generalization that republicans (red states) are genuine, down to earth folk.

Judicials
The Washinton Monthly guide to blue slips. Sorting out the retributions.

Why is it always referred to as Janet Jackson's half-time performance? Wasn't there someone else there? And wasn't it him that ripped off her clothes?
Sexism? Naw....not in the 21st century.

Talk about hate-based politcs. You have to be pretty deep in it to say this:

In his appearance before the 9-11 Commission, Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege. In my view it was not an act of humility, but an act of supreme arrogance and manipulation. Mr Clarke can and will answer for his own conduct but that is all.

I have not heard one relative of a victim express this view. The broader point, though, is this: Clarke did something that is profoundly obviously needed- a simple apology on behalf of the government. It does not matter if the government could have prevented the terrorists. An apology helps. It helps.
Further, Frist is off the wall in suggesting Clarke isn't in the place to offer such an apology. The guy was the anti-terror czar! Who the heck is supposed to apologize?

Unborn Victims

Professor Balkin gives a quick overview of the Act as regards to abortion.

Funny how things are provided. Reading letters to the editor in the Times today, I cam upon this:

To the Editor:

David Brooks makes several good points about the value of the world's holy books as guidelines for thought and behavior (column, March 23). Where he misses the point is this: Bringing one's religious values into politics is vastly different than bringing one's particular religious beliefs, dogma and practices into the realm of law and policy making.

Many religious values are arguably universal, while sectarian beliefs and practices are not. Values can help shape good law and policy; dogma does not.

GARY PEPE
Holland, Mich., March 23, 2004

Here, the words "values" and "beliefs" qualify "religious." What does "religious" mean in the sentence?
I'm thinking the common reaction is 'dealing with religion,' or 'derived from religion.' Well and good- but I wonder: can one have religious values without religious belief. Sheez. all this dang haughty totty, i know, i know.

ps- here's the article the letter refers to.

I agree with David. Despite my bent to find humor...some things aren't funny.

Newdow

Michael Newdow is an atheist with a daughter in the Elk Grove school district. The state has a law, and the school district a rule, that require teachers to lead students each morning in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge was first codified in law in 1942. It read "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In 1954, the words "under God" were added after "Nation." The codified pledge is at 4 U.S.C. sec.4.
Newdow claims he's injured when his daughter is compelled to either say the pledge as it is, or watch and listen as her teacher leads her classmates in the pledge--proclaiming that there is a God residing over our nation. His action is a First Amendment claim--namely resting on the Establishment Clause.
Over time, the court has developed three different tests to analyze whether a government act violates the Establishment Clause, interpreting the Constitutional words that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." While some Justices have argued "establishment" means nothing more than Congress actually creating a state church (eg, the Church of England), others (myself included) regard the term more broadly. It is noted that proposed drafts of the clause prohibited, specifically, a National church. In the end, the broader term, 'religion,' found its place in the Constitution. And religion is, see the post below, a bit vague of a term.
The three models of analyzing are 1) the Lemon test; 2) the endorsement test and 3) the coercion test. I won't explain Lemon because it's basically out.
Endorsement
O'Connor gave us the endorsement test--which focuses on whether the government action endorses religion. The pledge's statement that we are a nation under God is a profession of religious belief. It is not, as some argue, merely an acknowledgment that many Americans believe in God, or of the historical significance of religion in the country. Rather, as the Court of Appeals wrote, the statement "is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and - since 1954- monotheism." In making this text official, the government takes a stand on the question of the existence of God. It is, thus, an endorsement; and it sends a message to non-believers that they are outsiders.

Coercion
Justice Kennedy gave us the coercion test in Lee v. Weisman. In that analysis, the Court asks whether the government action places the person in the position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting. As in Lee, the coercive effect is pronounced because of the setting: the impressionability of schoolkids, the pressure to adhere to norms. Also, under Lee, not being required to participate does not make the action un-coercive.
Also, the court said in Lee: "What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy."
The pledge, then, is plainly coercive, as was in fact its attempt to be. Upon the passing of the 1954 amendment, Eisenhower proclaimed: "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

The Lemon test, quickly, is the oldest and most disregarded. It asks three questions: 1) does the law have a secular purpose (no); 2) is it reasonably likely to appear as an endorsement?; and 3) will the law cause excessive government entanglement with religion?

For a discussion on the case, I commend you to Professor Hamilton. A couple segments:

If anyone thinks that this case is not about the power of the entrenched religious versus the powerlessness of nonbelievers in this society, today's oral argument proves them wrong. Chief Justice Rehnquist floated several proposals to defend "under God." First, he stated that the two words were not really a "prayer," a distinction without a difference.

But his second point led to the most enlightening moment of the day. The Chief noted that Congress unanimously added the two words "under God" in 1954, implying that no one found it offensive then so how could it be offensive now, or perhaps worrying that the Court was in no position to quibble with Congress when it acted with such unity.

But Newdow responded with the undoubtedly true statement, "That's only because no atheists can be elected to office." And when he did, individuals in the audience began to clap.

They immediately proved his point. As an atheist, he is disenfranchised precisely because of his beliefs. He cannot be secure in knowing the school district will not try to inculcate his daughter in the majority religion, he cannot be elected to office, but more importantly, he cannot even argue a case at the Supreme Court--that most hallowed of courtrooms--without being heckled. The preference for "under God" cannot be separated from the desire to suppress conflicting beliefs.

On matters of conscience, it is the Supreme Court's most solemn duty to protect vilified minorities from the majority's demands. From the perspective of the freedom conscience, it is obvious that Newdow should win.

Exhibit I:
Kevin Drum on the administration's "policy" of releasing classied info.

If you have pdf, here's the page to read all briefs and, importantly, the amended 9th circuit opinion in Newdow.

Reverend Barry Lynn, (I think he's religious) from Americans United:

"This case is a test of America's commitment to true religious freedom," continued Lynn, who attended the argument. "When Congress added 'under God' to the Pledge, a patriotic ritual was turned into a religious oath that many children cannot in good conscience recite.

"The government should never try to impose religion on school children," Lynn added. "Parents should decide what religious training - if any - that their children receive."

Exhibit Item H
A Dispute: Was an Official "in the Loop"? It All Depends

What does "religious" mean?
I don't like it one bit when folks recite the dictionary definition when addressing a question like this.
What's this like? Where "mean" is a larger question than in what way can we use the subject of our inquiry in a sentence. In that slim regard, the 1967 Merriam W. suggests that 'religious' "relates to the divine or that held to be of ultimate importance." He regards his atheism in a religious way.
And the commonly thought antonym, "secular," refers to a subject that relates "to worldly or temporal concerns"...(and confusingly), not "overtly or specifically religious." He secularly complained of an empty stomach.

But sentences other than my examples are more familiar: I know him, he's very religious. Religious protesters stood outside the courthouse today. The poll shows that most Americans consider themselves religious. We need to put religion back in the classroom. Classrooms are becoming almost exclusively secular. Secular humanism pervades the academy. I know him, he's a secularist.

What do those sentences mean?

The meaning of 'religious' will depend on the context in which it is used, and the shared assumptions of hearers. But what are our societal, generalized assumptions. More specifically, must there be a correlation between belief and action to be 'religious?'
For instance, if I believe in a truth in regards to ultimate reality (say, in a particularized notion that afterlife is achieved only if I have abstained from wine); but I drink wine with every meal, am I religious?

The questions can go on; but here's my conclusion:
Society uses 'religious' fairly openly. This contrasts with what I'll call conclusive words. If I say, "John is caucasion," there is little doubt what I mean. Of course, context is required- but the term white is fairly self explanatory. If I say "John is religious," even within context, the answer is up for grabs. Even if the question is "Is John Baptist?" the answer is open ended. "Religious" requires further inquiry. Maybe it should be called an open-ended word.
Society sometimes accepts that; but it seems we often use the word conclusively. For instance, if I make the claim, "I am religious," I might know perfectly well what I mean (of course, I also might not). A reader may happen upon this page and, while not knowing my particular dogma, assume there is one to which I subscribe, that I attend regular services, and generally gear my life to that religion. Another visitor may figure "religious" means something akin to "spiritual," whatever that means (here- I mean the 'i believe something's out there, and i don't think it matters what it is as long as we're all cool to each other kind of spiritual). Another, more frequent reader may wonder how I can call myself "religious" and also call myself "agnostic." ( ah yes, another word with assumed and unknown meanings).

As it turns out, I use religious as loosely as the next guy. But if I turn the word to describe myself, I mean to say this: I am religious. I concern myself with the search for truths, and I figure that such truths exist. I don't, however, know those truths. In that regard I'm agnostic--without knowledge. I am also pretty sure that, even if I decide I know a truth, I cannot verify in any sure way with any other person that we 1) share the same idea of truth, or 2) that my conclusion is more or less verifiable. For this reason, I dig the postmoderns.

For the agnostic bit, please see my post from September 4.

P.S.
ah yes, this may be important- though I don't know the extent to which it fits in the meaning of 'religious.' I also think that the religion one is born into, to the extent they are, is the appropriate one to follow. that's a big ole discussion on its own, but it's what i'm thinking. in that regard- Christianity is the religion i take seriously.

Before bed-
didn't have time to read briefs for Newdow, nor read much on how oral arguments went, so the thesis is reserved til tomorrow i reckon. you have Balkins piece to tide you over.
incidently, i did hear Dr. Newdow did rather well in the orals, though.

so...thoughts to prepare:
if the court doesn't bunt with the standing issue- from what i hear, it will find that 'under god' is de minimus in its religious connotations, or "ceremonial deism" at most. my question: aren't both these concepts quite offensive to religion? that, folks, is the precise reason a baptist (or is it methodist) preacher heads up the leading group on separation for church and state (that i'm not linking until tomorrow cause i'm tired right now).

1) de minimus? God is de minimus? the idea that our country is under God is de minimus? do we take anything we say seriously? if so, how is this not establishment, so long as establishment means anything apart from 'the US church?'

2) ceremonial deism: much the same confusion. what is ceremonial deism, really? religion without the meaning? religion watered down enough to be cross-religious?

More serious thoughts tomorrow...but these are the basic confusions on my part.

Think Fox reports?
read this, and
you decide.

Professor Balkin, on Newdow, has perhaps the gold for heading choice, with "What's Law got to do with it?

Going back in time...1998:

On Friday, August 7 1998, President Clinton is called before sunrise by National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Explosions at the Kenya and Tanzania American Embassies. They immediatly suspect Osama bin Laden. Denouncing the violence, Clinton said "these acts of terrorist violence are abhorrent; they are inhuman."
The following Monday, Clinton is briefed on additional CIA evidence against bin Laden and orders the Pentagon to weigh military options.
On Thursday, Aug. 13, Clinton speaks at Andrews Air Force base: "America's memory is long, our reach is far, our resolve unwavering and our commitment to justice unshatterable."
On Friday, Aug. 14, the CIA and Pentagon present a case that bin Laden is not only responsible for the Africa bombings but is planning additional terrorist attacks against Americans.
The president orders the Navy to deploy warships with cruise missiles.
On Monday, Aug. 17, Clinton gives testimony in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Later that night, Clinton addresses the nation and admits to an inappropriate relationship with the former White House intern.
On Wednesday, the Pentagon says they're ready to strike- and await the President's go ahead. Meanwhile, bin Laden's folks vow further strikes against the U.S.
After staying up through the night making calls, at 6 am, Thursday, Aug. 20, Clinton orders the bombings in retaliation agsint bin Laden- bombing six sites in Sudan and Afghanistan.

Here is some contemporaneous reaction:
from Salon:

It took only a few minutes for one of the reporters in the Pentagon pressroom to ask Secretary of Defense William Cohen the question on many minds: "Have you seen the movie?" He was referring to "Wag the Dog" and the unsettling coincidence between Thursday's military strikes and a movie in which political fixers concoct a war to distract public attention from a presidential sex scandal.
...
But cynicism could not be avoided. I was eating lunch with a prominent Republican official when his office called to inform him of the Clinton-ordered attacks on terrorist installations in Afghanistan and a supposed chemical-weapons factory in Sudan. The official immediately asked the caller, "Is CNN airing video footage of a young girl running with a kitten?" -- a direct reference to a scene in the film. He got up to leave, noting, "Clinton will do anything to get away from Hillary."
...
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., also rushed before television cameras to suggest that Clinton may have had more than national security on his mind in deciding to bomb. Oddly, two days ago, the president's critics were arguing that his scandalous behavior rendered it difficult for him to act decisively. Then when he did move forcefully, that aggravated his antagonists.

and to be fair, the article also mentions:

But there were different takes among Republicans. House Speaker Newt Gingrich stated plainly the assault "was the right thing to do." And Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, remarked, "We should all back the president of the United States."

Senator Dan Coates said:

The New York Times has a different quote from Dan Coats. According to the Times, what Senator Dan Coats said was:

"The danger here is that once a president loses credibility with the Congress, as this president has through months of lies and deceit and manipulations and deceptions, stonewalling, it raises into doubt everything he does and everything he says, and maybe even everything he doesn't do and doesn't say," said Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., who less than 72 hours earlier had called for Clinton's resignation over the Monica Lewinsky issue.

Coats added, "I just hope and pray the decision that was made was made on the basis of sound judgment and made for the right reasons, and not made because it was necessary to save the president's job."

This, from CNN, commenting on the movie, Wag the Dog:

But the movie is serving as a reference point in the debate over Clinton's motivations.

"Look at the movie 'Wag the Dog.' I think this has all the elements of that movie," Rep. Jim Gibbons said. "Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems."

Massachusetts acting Gov. Paul Cellucci, a Republican and a movie buff, said: "It popped into my mind, but I do hope that that's not the situation and I trust that it isn't."

All of this, of course, sounding familiar to criticisms that Clinton "Wagged the Dog" when he bombed Iraq. From CNN in December, 1998:

The last time President Clinton launched air strikes on Iraq, Monica Lewinsky's name was just beginning to become a household word. The comparisons to that attack last winter with the movie "Wag the Dog," in which a president wages a fake war to divert attention from a sex scandal, were inevitable, but ultimately speculative, and only came from unofficial sources, not Congress.

Now, Lewinsky is probably more famous than Michael Jackson, and Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour bombing of Baghdad, just before a probable impeachment by the House, has some Members of Congress questioning the President's motives in violation of an unwritten code that says you don't criticize the Commander-in-Chief during wartime.

"Never underestimate a desperate president," said Rep. Harold Solomon, (R-NY)

Solomon, who is retiring at the end of the year, said Clinton's only way of postponing his impeachment and getting it "off the front page" was the air strike on Iraq.

Even Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) publicly questioned the President's motives. "Both the timing and the motive are subject to question," he said.

House Speaker-elect Bob Livingston (R-LA) was a bit more diplomatic in saying that he supported "the troops" while pointedly failing to say that he supported the President.

And lastly, for this trip to 1998, we'll have the experts' opinion of the effecacy of Clinton's bombing al qaeda. From a Salon article:

The bombing of six supposed terrorist sites in Afghanistan and the Sudan Thursday by U.S. forces may have given some Americans a sense of revenge -- and temporarily diverted some public attention from President Clinton's deepening sex scandal -- but a number of foreign policy experts believe it will serve only to embolden Middle East radicals bent on further terrorist acts against the United States.
...
Thursday's attacks were directed against targets associated with Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi Arabian who's been financing terrorist attacks since the early 1980s. U.S. investigators have concluded that bin Laden was behind the recent bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa. The air strikes carried out yesterday were direct retaliation, but they may have been futile.

"It doesn't affect bin Laden unless he was killed," says Scott Armstrong, a former Washington Post reporter who's been in contact with bin Laden's associates in researching a book about American policy in the Persian Gulf. "The U.S. military wanted to show great strength. It did. But the only real impact on bin Laden is that he might hamper him a bit in getting money from his family."
...
Professor Reich says bin Laden represents a brand of terrorism that's a departure from the state-sponsored terrorism prevalent during the 1980s, when Libya and Iran encouraged and financed terrorist operations. Bin Laden springs more from an ideological, romantic strain of terrorists, who are much more difficult to identify, target and control.

"Bin Laden may be of the romantic variety, but he is the functional equivalent of a state," Reich says. "He's worth a half a billion dollars in a part of the world where people will do things for very little money. He can provide cover, passports, transportation. He can do what Syria can do, what Libya did with Pan Am 103."

Taliban leaders in Afghanistan reported that bin Laden was not killed in Thursday's bombing raids. Reich says it's just as well. "He would have become a martyr," says the professor. "It could very well have had the opposite effect."
Armstrong agrees that the bombings could backfire. "It could recruit huge numbers of people to his cause," Armstrong says. "He has about 4,000 active members right now, and he could call on many thousands more. These raids will multiply that by a factor of 10."

"You have to remember that bin Laden is revered by thousands of his followers," a weary intelligence specialist said before heading back to another 13-hour shift at the counter-terrorism center in the Pentagon Thursday afternoon. "He's revered as Daddy to them -- Daddy Bucks.

"He's got thousands of freedom-fighting veterans who went back to their countries, mostly in the Middle East and North Africa, but also stretching into Asia. They're certainly capable of doing all sorts of nasty things."
...
Says Professor Reich: "We have no conclusive evidence that raids of this sort will have any effect on terrorism. Yes, we can reach anywhere. We have an incredibly impressive arsenal. The question is do you stop groups who are doing terrorist acts?

"We have no solution to terrorism," he says. "We can slow it down, we can divert it, but a determined terrorist can pull off a terrorist act with relative ease."

In light of all this, were Thursday's attacks more politically motivated than militarily? "This event does look like a wonderful confluence of international opportunity and domestic advantage for Mr. Clinton," says James Morrow, a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

"People say that the Lewinsky scandal is weakening the United States internationally, that it is encouraging states like Iraq and North Korea to challenge the United States," adds Morrow. "I think that argument is absolutely wrong and it's backwards. I think the temptation for the wounded leader to act is stronger in crisis, and therefore, if you're a prospective opponent, you have to be aware of that. I think opponents are less likely to challenge a leader who is down, precisely because they know they are more likely to get a strong response."

And now, we zoom back to today. hope the trip was fun.

Bet you ten dollars someone, somewhere says this political cartoon from Tom Toles contains a threat to the President.
(the bit about cold water in his tag line)
Now...how to label that social problem: 1) too touchy/defensive or, more likely, 2) a regretful lack of any sense of humor?

Update:
Well dangit. I don't know whether the above comment got railed or not...but the very day i do the predicting on humor-less righties, one of my lefty blogs had to go and rail against this cartoon.
Now given, the toon is pretty tasteless...at least I think the paradigm on taste still has linking any politician to being buddies with osama is low.
anyway, i'm not givin away the griper.

History lessons (from religioustolerance.org)

The Pledge was originally written in 1892-AUG by Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931). He was an American, a Baptist minister, and an active Socialist. He included some of the concepts of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, who wrote a number of socialist utopian novels, such as Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). In its original form, it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It was first published in a children's magazine Youth's Companion, in 1892 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival in the Americas. 4 The word "to" was added before "the Republic" in 1892-OCT. He considered including the word "equality" in the pledge, but decided against it because he knew that many Americans at the time were opposed to equality for women and Afro-Americans. Opposition to equality continues today; a sizeable minority of American adults remain opposed to equal rights for women, gays and lesbians.

By 1924, the "National Flag Conference, under the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Francis Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored." 3

Most Jehovah's Witness children refuse to acknowledge the flag. In 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school boards could compel them to recite the Pledge. The court reversed itself three years later. 4

In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." 4 With the addition of "under God" to the Pledge, it became both "a patriotic oath and a public prayer...Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change." 3

The change was partly motivated by a desire to differentiate between communism, which promotes Atheism, and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. The phrase "Atheistic Communists" has been repeated so many times that the public has linked Atheism with communism; the two are often considered synonymous. Many consider Atheism as unpatriotic and "un-American" as is communism.

Most communists, worldwide, are Atheists. But, in North America, the reverse is not true; most Atheists are non-communists. Although there are many Atheistic and Humanistic legislators at the federal and state levels, few if any are willing to reveal their beliefs, because of the intense prejudice against these belief systems.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this change to the Pledge. The Court has commented in passing on the motto saying that: "[o]ur previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge [of allegiance], characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief." [Allegheny, 492 U.S.]

Pledge Day
William Safire is a Cato Institute-ish libertarian, I think. I assume so because, every now and again, he writes opinions that I utterly agree with- and I can only see him coming to these conclusions that break from his usual GOP stances because of his deeper commitment to libertarian principles. Here's a piece of his piece today:

So what's the big deal about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? President Bush has written that the current pledge is a way of "humbly seeking the wisdom and guidance of divine providence."

John Kerry said on Boston television in 2002 that the Ninth Circuit ruling holding "under God" in the pledge unconstitutional was "half-assed justice . . . the most absurd thing. . . . That's not the establishment of religion." Michael Dukakis vetoed a Massachusetts bill requiring teachers to lead classes in the pledge and paid dearly for it in his presidential campaign. That bill is now law, as are similar statutes in 42 other states. These laws do not conflict with the High Court's 1943 decision that no student can be penalized for declining to take the pledge.

Agreeing with both Bush and Kerry in support of "under God" are majorities in both houses of Congress and attorneys general of all 50 states. From the liberal National Education Association and American Jewish Congress to the conservative American Legion and the Knights of Columbus (which sponsored this addition 50 years ago), under-God-ers have weighed in with briefs. Opposing are the Atheist Law Center, the A.C.L.U., A.D.L. and assorted iconoclasts.

The only thing this time-wasting pest Newdow has going for him is that he's right. Those of us who believe in God don't need to inject our faith into a patriotic affirmation and coerce all schoolchildren into going along. The key word in the pledge is the last one.

The insertion was a mistake then; the trouble is that knocking the words out long afterward, offending the religious majority, would be a slippery-slope mistake now.

Well, I don't utterly agree with his ultimate conclusion, in the next paragraph: "The solution is for the court to require teachers to inform students they have the added right to remain silent for a couple of seconds while others choose to say 'under God.'" I'd say a spade's a spade, the insertion was wrong, and it should go.
But there's more to come on all that. Sticking with ole Bill-- one thing I find interesting is that I agree with his libertarian-fed conclusions, but I am no libertarian.
For instance, Safire came out against the gay-marriage amendment, and this past summer, he very much favored Kennedy's Texas sodomy decision; namely because of the to each his own notions. While I also agree with Kennedy's conclusion in Lawrence, and am against gay-marriage bans- it is not because of libertarian interests. 1) in Lawrence, I would have written a concurrance applying strict scrutiny to the sodomy law, because of its patent discrimination against gays- and I would have found no compelling state interest; 2) marriage is a local issue, not federal.
My main point in this post was to quote that great line in Safire..."The only thing going for [him]...is that he's right." But it is interesting how I can agree with the end but not the means.

Karen Ryan, the "reporter" in the medicare video news releases, speaks to the Campaign Desk.

She's not some sort of fraud, she told us, she's a public relations professional who runs a p.r. company called Karen Ryan Group Communications -- and these days she feels as if her world has collapsed around her. "I do feel I was singled out in this whole political mess, and I was used," she said. "All the good things I did in my life, and now I've become this horrible person. I made sure that I played by all the rules.

"If you have a problem with the Bush administration, if you want to have a debate over the use of video news releases, that's one thing," she said. "But what seemed to be picked up was 'Karen Ryan.'"

Was it fair to call her an actress? "No. To me, an actress would have a SAG [Screen Actors Guild] card. An actress is someone that's playing someone they're not."

Does she have any qualms about the fact that her video press releases frequently run as "news"? No. The news stations, she said, bear the responsibility for how they use the footage she provides.
...
Ryan is clearly good at her job. Over the last few years, literally hundreds of stations have run -- as news -- items "reported" by Ryan, pushing everything from Excedrin to "a new ear infection treatment called Ciprodex." Here's an excerpt from her work, which ran as news in July of last year on WBRZ Baton Rouge:

Ryan: Now, low dose hormone therapy is available with 28 percent less estrogen and 40 percent less progestin. And with low dose hormone therapy now available by prescription, health experts recommend consulting your doctor to find out what's right for you. Women who want symptom relief with less hormones now have new options. In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting.

And here are excerpts from a "report" that ran in September of last year, also on WBRZ:

Ryan: Experts say many children don't like to get vaccinated, but this year there's a new needle-free option called Flumist.

Robert Belshe: Influenza enters the body through the nose. FluMist is a new type of influenza vaccine that is given as a nasal spray or nasal mist.

That's one reason why Sharon Moore is having her daughter vaccinated this year.

Sharon Moore: I was real interested when I found out that the vaccine was given in the form of a nose spray. To me it sounded like a less painful way of delivering the vaccine.

Ryan: Studies show Flumist is 85 percent effective, and it's not just for healthy children aged 5 and older. It's approved for healthy adults to age 49.

Tammy Grant: This flu season I'm really looking forward to getting the vaccine through FluMist rather than through an injection. And I'm going to encourage my staff and my co-workers and my family to all get protected.

Ryan: Flumist is now available in doctor's offices and pharmacies. In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting.

Another cheery Ryan "report" began: "Video game units are very popular this year on Christmas wish lists."

It continued:

Interview -- Matt Schelhouse, Best Buy Manager, we can't keep them on the shelves. They're gone within two hours. The newest consoles are Nintendo's Game Cube and Microsoft X-Box.

Ryan is as happy to shill for public interest groups as for corporations and government agencies. She appeared in segments commissioned by the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists that ran on numerous local stations in September of last year, urging consumers to avoid SUVs. And in May of last year, in a segment picked up by KTBC Austin among others, she "reported" on the dangers of smoking while pregnant, on behalf of the National Partnership of Pregnant Smokers.

So now we know a little more about the faux reporter. More crucially, what in all heck is the deal with these fake news stories? How much of what we see in the news comes from the news station, and how much is a paid for PR commercial from corporations, government, and interest groups?
Anyone else feel those goosebumps? I just finished "Amusing Ourselves to Death," wherein Neil Postman postulates that our doom is predicted better by Huxley than by Orwell. (review of said book forthcoming). But this stuff reeks of Orwell, donnit?

Who is Rand Beers?
The question is important, in this context of Clarke push-back: Beers and Clarke are old friends, and Beers is John Kerry's chief foreign policy advisor. Hance, pushback evidence # 2: Clarke is further shown to be publishing this book as a campaign favor to Kerry.
Not likely. Here's TPM:

[Beers is] a career government national security expert specializing in intelligence and counter-terrorism. He's a registered Democrat. But his profile is that of an apolitical civil servant -- enough so that he was asked to work for Reagan, Bush, Clinton and the current President Bush in various capacities.

In August 2002 Condi Rice hired him to be the special assistant to the president for combating terrorism at the NSC. In a sense that was the job that Clarke had before 9/11, although by that point the chairs had been shuffled around so much that no direct comparison is really possible.

In any case, he came in in August 2002 and he resigned about seven months later, a few days before the beginning of the war. Eight weeks after that he signed up to work for John Kerry.

Marshall also cites this Post write up on Beers, from last summer.

No single issue has defined the Bush presidency more than fighting terrorism. And no issue has both animated and intimidated Democrats. Into this tricky intersection of terrorism, policy and politics steps Beers, a lifelong bureaucrat, unassuming and tight-lipped until now. He is an unlikely insurgent. He served on the NSC under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and the current Bush. The oath of office hangs on the wall by his bed; he tears up when he watches "The West Wing." Yet Beers decided that he wanted out, and he is offering a rare glimpse in.

Does killing the spiritual leader of a terrorist group make the targets of terror safer?
In 1987, Sheik Ahmed Yassin created Hamas- calling it the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood--the group now claiming responsibility to many of the suicide bombings and other terrorist acts against Israeli civilians. Yassin has been in Israeli prison, and released in exchange for Israeli agents held by Jordan. Often, during the peace process during the Clinton years, Yassin was under house arrest by the Palestinian authority...to, of course, little avail- he was released fairly easily.
Israel tried to assasinate him last year, with a quater-ton bomb. This failed, and Yassin stepped up the rhetoric favoring Hamas' terrorism. Yesterday, Israel sent two missiles into his lap as he left morning prayers.
I reckon the question is two-fold: 1) does the Israeli "assassination strategy" work; 2) will this particular assassination work?
The Times doesn't think so--at least in this particular circumstance, and I'll agree--particularly with this paragraph from today's editorial:

Ultimately, any argument that the assassination was "worth it" is undermined by the fact that both sides will sink deeper into their separate passions. The hard, tragic truth is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is locked in a cycle of violence in which assassinations, suicide bombings and mutual demonization seem destined only to grow, feeding the sense of victimhood that is consuming both the Jewish state and any future Palestinian state.

Now, that graph seems more geared to the overall strategy- and I, again, agree. My growing hunch is that terrorist organizations are not like states. (that part ought to be obvious) But I would argue that terrorist groups are much on the opposite end of a spectrum in the relationship of leader to group.
Taking out the leader of a totalitarian regime has significant effect--the third reich just loses itself without Hitler. In a representative democracy, the effect is comparitively small--the US didn't crumble with Kennedy's assasination. It seems that a terrorist group would suffer even less from the assassination of its leader; especially when the leader is spiritual more than organizational.

PS
I think Bush agrees, to some extent, that this wasn't the wisest tactic (depending on the meaning of "restraint"). From yesterday's press briefing:

Q With Israel's killing of Sheik Yassin, do you see that as -- do you agree with Israel that this was an act of self-defense? And do you support Israel's policy of targeted assassinations?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, our policy on the last part of your question there remains the same. It is unchanged. In terms of the first part of your question, we always have said Israel has the right to defend herself. We also always have said that all parties need to keep in mind the consequences of their actions. I would point out that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Shiek Yassin was personally involved in terrorism. It is important, as we have emphasized time and time again, for the Palestinian Authority to take action to dismantle terrorist organizations. It is also important during this time period that all parties should exercise restraint and do everything possible to avoid any further actions that make it more difficult to restore calm in the region. We want all parties to get back, focused on the President's two-state vision, so that all people in the region, Palestinians and Israelis alike, can realize a better tomorrow.

(emphasis mine)

This is what happens when you lose at your home stadium to the Pats in the NFC Championship.

Goodbye, Vet...

Exhibit G:
Think you can trust the push-back efforts from the administration re Clarke? This, from TPM today:

This is Bush NSC spokesman Jim Wilkinson again on Wolf Blitzer last night ...

The terrorists weren't overseas, the terrorists were here in America. By June, the FBI says 16 of 19 terrorists in the 9/11 attacks were already here. I just don't see what this focus on process and titles and meetings. Let me also point something. If you look in this book you find interesting things such as reported in the "Washington Post" this morning. He's talking about how he sits back and visualizes chanting by bin Laden and bin Laden has a mystical mind control over U.S. officials. This is sort of "X-Files" stuff, and this is a man in charge of terrorism, Wolf, who is supposed to be focused on it and he was focused on meetings.
So now it seems the White House line is that Clarke is some sort of borderline personality or half-crazed crackpot. Here's the reference from the Washington Post ...

"Any leader whom one can imagine as president on September 11 would have declared a 'war on terrorism' and would have ended the Afghan sanctuary [for al Qaeda] by invading," Clarke writes. "What was unique about George Bush's reaction" was the additional choice to invade "not a country that had been engaging in anti-U.S. terrorism but one that had not been, Iraq." In so doing, he estranged allies, enraged potential friends in the Arab and Islamic worlds, and produced "more terrorists than we jail or shoot."
"It was as if Osama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq,' " Clarke writes.

X-Files stuff ...

When you have a good case, you make it. When you don't, you just talk trash.

There's plenty on the feeble push-back efforts from TPM in various posts. For more on Clarke's book, see Road to Surfdom. He's got a rolling review as he reads the book- quite a bit of detailed analysis.

Just back from an Azure Ray show
and with all senses of love and duty to jumbo shrimp....DAMN huey, those gals are sirens.

The Holywood Presidency; or, exhibit F

The strongarming of Mr. Foster, mentioned in other posts, is sad enough. But what if an administration creates fake news stories, with actors playing legit (neutral) reporters, sends them to tv stations, and lets 30-some of those local news chanels play those fake news stories? Wanna see one, click here (daily show) and click the link to "headlines: medicalert")

If anything raises the concern that politics is becoming enterainment, and the adminstration is playing Machiavelli, it is this. Here's the Guardian:

TV news reports in America that showed President George Bush getting a standing ovation from potential voters have been exposed as fake, it has emerged.
The US government admitted it paid actors to pose as journalists in video news releases sent to TV stations intending to convey support for new laws about health benefits.

Investigators are examining the film segments, in which actors pretending to be journalists praise the benefits of the new law passed last year by President Bush, to see if they could be construed as propaganda.

Two of the films are signed off by "Karen Ryan", who was an actor hired to read a script prepared by the government, according to production company Home Front Communications.

Another video, intended for Hispanic viewers, shows a government official being interviewed in Spanish by a actor posing as a reporter with the name "Alberto Garcia".

One segment shows a pharmacist telling an elderly customer the new law "helps you better afford your medications".

"It sounds like a good idea," the customer says, to which the pharmacist replies, "A very good idea."

And in some scenes President Bush is shown receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering him as he signed the Medicare law, which is designed to help elderly people with prescriptions.

The government also prepared scripts to be used by news anchors. "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare," the script reads.

"Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details." The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law.

See also, Currie, and the Times.

Now, the Guardian, Times, et al go on to provide the White House response. Here's CBS News' article:

The Bush administration says that the videos are perfectly legal. A DHHS spokesman, Kevin Keane told the Times, "The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector." But Democrats disagree and the General Accounting Office has begun an investigation. At issue is the law that prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. Writes the Times, "In the past, the General Accounting Office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they disseminated editorials and newspaper articles written by the government or its contractors without identifying the source."

Not so helpful. These fake news stories, as reported, seem patently bad. Indeed, for that reason, this bit about be these video news releases being used often is rather disalarming--no matter what party produces them. In other words, if the White House defense of 'we aren't the only ones doing this' is true....uh oh. So other gov agencies, and big business are making up our news for us?
Wish they'd provided examples of other video news releases that agencies have put out. The question here seems to be whether these tapes were properly identified as government news releases.
But I'd have to feel uncomforatble with these "news stories" if there's anything remotely legal about them- regardless of the party or agency. And while the government's to blame, our media puts themselves in position to be manipulated.
Local media, we all know, now sucks. They play easy news, have dumbed down to about first grade now, undertake no serious investigation apart from which Jiffy Lube is screwing who, and play, as often as possible seemingly, news feeds that are provided to them--as to keep from working too hard themselves. Thus, if a piece comes in the mail covering the complex issue of medicare...whew, we can send our reporters out to the burning house on Maple.

Let's have those pro-life Democrats
Ms. Sullivan, over at the new Gadflyer online zine, makes a sound argument for Democrats going a little lighter in commitments to divisive ideological issues.
In my own experience, I have wished the Dems did not seems exclusively pro-choice. I am pro-choice. Nor do I think abortion is Wrong. (The abortion discussion, though, must be reserved for another post.) But I do not out-right reject the views of anti-abortion folks. And, while this discussion remains reserved for later, I can quickly say that, were I to think abortion constituted murder of a human being, I most certainly would be likewise against it.
But I get the strong sense, through discussions, that my party does not appear welcoming to a person that disagrees with me on abortion. And we should. Writes Amy Sullivan:

The American Prospect's Michael Tomasky recently wrote about the Democrats' heavy-handed decision to deny then-Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey a speaking slot at the 1992 convention because of his pro-life views. Tomasky rightly criticized the party, noting: "Letting Casey speak would not have entailed changing the party's platform, which is solidly pro-choice and shouldn't change. But it would have signaled an awareness of something that every non-interest-group human being who has given this issue any serious thought or discussed it with friends and relatives knows: that the subject is a morally complicated one; that reasonable people who are otherwise fairly progressive can have serious and honest qualms about abortion; that not everyone who has such qualms is a right-wing nut."

Democrats are not going to -- nor should they -- adopt a pro-life platform. But they would do well to adopt rhetoric that is less stridently pro-abortion. And choice groups would do well to remember that while it is their job to stake out idealistic positions, they need to be patient and tolerant with politicians who recognize the gray areas of this difficult issue, sometimes voting for sensible measures such as parental notification laws.

For the most part, I whole heartedly agree with her entire article...at least the principles she asserts. But, a couple last points need to be raised.

1) I don't think certain ideological issues should rest at the center of the party...or more accurately, should act as fences to the parties. Other ideological positions, however, should. For now, I'm thinking issues relatively untouched by government, issues breaking down to deep personal/morality choices (abortion, gay marriage), and issues that require deliberation and bi-partisanship (vouchers) ought to belong in the former category. But issues that are central to government policy and those that are fairly settled (tax positions, certain positions on affirmative action) may act as party identifiers.

2) For some, a position on abortion represents a deeper sociological position on sex in America. Abortion is not a right to be debated in a vacuum, but is the grotesque and capstone example of where our sexual moral decay leads American society; to wit- Americans would be willing to mass murder infants in order to continue having un-loving and casual sex. For those that have this view, abortion is much more than an issue that can be safely kept to individual choices. It is rather a definitive statement representative of a world view. In that regard, it will always serve as a position prohibiting support for candidates, if not the entire party.

Typical
Just watched the 60 Minutes interview with Richard Clarke, who's Against All Enemies will be published tomorrow. The interview's been talked about quite a bunch amongst the blogs- but seeing was, well...startling. Clarke worked in Reagan's, Bush's, Clinton's and W's administrations in counter-intelligence--he's no partisan hack nor ignorant hoot. Indeed, his resume is what makes his rather dismal telling of the W. Bush's work against terrorism damning. I'm sure we'll have responses to Clarke both here, and in blogs throughout.
For now, as to the heading above. At the end of the story, as Lesley Stahl stood in front of the ticking 60-Minutes-clock, she said something along the lines of this:

Over the weekend, we (60 Minutes) got a call from the Pentagon, saying any suggestion that the Bush administration did not respond forcefully and fully to al Qaeda is absurd.

As I watched the administration get the last word in an otherwise damning interview, I saw again what is so incredible about these folks- their utter lack of respect for the American voters' intellect. The necessary second half of that statement is absent. Such an assertion is absurd because...
But, of course, there is no because. It's just absurd. We might throw in, for good measure and consistency, unpatriotic; aiding the terrorists; soft and indecisive...and the plethora of other misnomers that this administration gives to criticism.

Sunday afternoon pasta bowl
If you wanna be like me and eat a three-four serving bowl of pasta with your wine and a book, here's your recipe.

Start with cooking three slices of bacon. don't crumble it.

dump out some of the grease once its fairly cooked, throw in some sliced shallots and two croshed garlic cloves, and a big chunk of butter

get the pasta cooking (i used linguine today)

add heavy cream to the pan...about half a cup to a cup

drain the pasta and dump it in your pan, simmering it all for a minute or two. dump it into a huge bowl and top with romano

enjoy. if you have coffee, drink it afterwards.

Quick analogy-logic
Aznar's administration in Spain put immediate blame to ETA after 3/11. Looks like the Bush administration similarly, and wrongly, wanted to go after Iraq just after 9/11. As Krugman notes in his latest editorial, the people of Spain voted Aznar out in frustration with his misplaced and irreesponsible responses to real terror. Sound familiar?

That crazy liberal media are at it again...
ABC News has decided to serve as the Bush PR front. Josh Marshall points, today, to this story from the ABC News website- covering the supposed flip-flop from Kerry on the $87 billion bill for troop support.

Bush has been throwing ads out citing Kerry's vote against the $87 billion supplement for forces in Iraq. (The ads also make the false/lying/deceptive claim that Kerry was anti-troops in regards to combat pay, etc.) There are lots of stupid things about the ad--and you can take a look at the just-cited post from Marshall--but the real egregious issue here is ABC's treatment (also covered by Marshall.)

Leading to the vote for troop funds, Kerry backed an alternative that would get the $87 billion from the tax cuts as opposed to the debt route favored by Bush. He spoke on Face the Nation around that time. Here's ABC:

Conducting the interview on CBS, Los Angeles Times D.C. bureau chief Doyle McManus asked Kerry, if his amendment "does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?"

Kerry's full response is as follows: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running," he says. "That's irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now."

As Marshall writes, this is a dodge. It avoids the answer (which was no) because voting against the $87 doesn't sound good. Tangent: I agreed with Edwards' and Kerry's decisions to voteagainstt the funds, in contrast with The New Republic's, and the majority of other dems on that issue. Sure we need to fund the troops, and I can't imagine Edwards and Kerry had no intent to not do so. Rather, this was a protest vote in the face of assured passing. And it was a valid protest. It's plain STUPID not to take that money from the tax cuts. If Bush is serious about this war, why isn't he willing to call for a little sacrifice?

In any event, this is ABC's language about the comment on Face the Nation:

In the interview, Kerry never clearly stated whether he would or would not vote for the $87 billion funding bill, a fact that may offer him some sort of exculpation. But one of the few press outlets to cover his remarks on the subject, the Washington Times, wrote the next day that "Mr. Kerry said he would still vote to authorize the $87 billion. Not doing so, he said, would be 'irresponsible.'"

Here's Josh Marshall's observation:

This is great. Kerry didn't say he would vote for it or that voting against would be irresponsible. But the tendentious misconstrual offered by the right-wing Washington Times says he did. So let's go with that. And contradicting what the Times said constitutes a flip-flop.

The Washington damn Times? This is truly unbelievable. Let's wait to see ABC News get the crucial facts of their next story from The Nation. Not until then will I consider ABC News NOT Bush's frontline in PR.

One year. The Repubs are right...Bush didn't sell this war on the threat.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

Watch This

Since when were blacks not real voters? Josh Marshall has a very important, albeit subtle, post on the continued commentary that, without the black vote, Dems would be a perma-minority party. As Marshall notes- this is undoubtedly true; but without any major constituency, a party would falter.

This vaguely reminds me of the line one often hears in TV commentary about Democrats and their 'dependence' on the African-American vote. It's only the African-American vote, the argument goes, that keeps the Democratic party from becoming a permanent minority party.

That's true of course. But what's the point exactly? Presumably if you scratch out all the votes of a major constituency of any political party that would put a bit of a dent in their electoral fortunes, right?

If you wanted to be a little nasty you might, with equal merit, note that the Republican party's goose would be cooked if we disenfranchised everyone who doesn't believe in evolution.

He goes on to quote at length a Bill Schneider commentary- that goes on and on about how elections would have been different if no blacks voted.
At the end, you get this uneasy sense...hmm...of I don't know what. Read Schneider's commentary, and you may see what I mean. Marshall says this: "nestled down deep in this argument is some sort of perhaps unconscious notion that the Dems are just hopelessly sucking wind among real voters and thus have to resort to padding their totals with blacks."

Oh Happy Day
Have your corned beef and cabbage with a stout

I was going to write that this was the stupidest piece I've ever read in The New Republic...but then I saw that Andrew Sullivan authored it. Doesn't count.

By the way, the Robert Foster story, alone, should spark an evacuation of moderates from the Bush camp. This editorial sums the, by now, well-known facts:

Last November, during the heat of the congressional debate on the law, the White House reportedly threatened to fire a top Medicare official if he told the truth about the cost of what President Bush described as a $400 billion Medicare bill.

Medicare's chief actuary, Robert S. Foster, said it was clear from the start that the actual cost would be substantially more -- as high as $534 billion. And, he said, the White House was aware of that in June, five months ahead of the debate.

Although, by law, the actuary is charged with providing nonpartisan counsel to lawmakers, Foster said he was silenced by the White House to prevent Congress from getting the true figures. Threatened with "severe'' personal consequences, he was instead ordered to withhold the information, even if Congress asked for it.

As Josh Marshall points out, the reaction to this bit of wickedness has been fairly dull. Of course...no sex, no sale. Marshall posits that the public is simply used to this strong-arming by the administration.
What seems significant is this: doesn't this suggest that the Bush team might have used pressure in much the same way toward the intelligence analysts--as has been reported by said intel analysts? Is it safe to have a president that controls information in such a way? Is it right?
Clearly, no.

An appreciation of Peat over at Slate Magazine.
I look forward to an upcoming Scotch tasting with friends, and am normally no fan of heavy peat. But, open minds need open tongues...and this article puts me in an island mood.

I don't mean to suggest that island whiskies taste like rotted fish. It's just that the ones that I'm swilling these days owe much of their flavor to decay. To wit, they are permeated by peat, which someone in my favorite New York whisky bar--d.b.a. at 41 1st Avenue in Manhattan's East Village--once explained to me is "the halfway point between dung and coal." (The attribution for that line is strangely indecipherable in my notebook--one of those nights.) Peat, according to Charles MacLean in his definitive 1997 book Malt Whisky, is "the acidic, decayed vegetation made from bog plants such as sphagnum moss, heather, sedges and grasses--the composition varies according to the peat bog's location." The peat bogs close to the sea, he goes on, become "saturated with salt spray, and in some cases contain strands of seaweed, relics of time when they were under water."