Quiet, huh?

by

Yeah, sorry about that: I was vaguely ill today and von’s busy, busy, busy. Luckily, I’ve finally lined up a guest blogger: Michael N, take a bow. I happen to know Michael from the Outside World (in fact, he’s one of the 125 or so people on this planet who actually knew on sight what … Read more

Mixed feelings.

by

Here is the latest on the Plame game. Courtesy of the Washington Post:

A federal grand jury has questioned one current and one former aide to President Bush, and investigators have interviewed six others in an effort to discover who revealed the name of an undercover CIA officer to a newspaper columnist, sources involved in the case said yesterday.

. . . .
Several sources involved in the leak case said the questioning suggests prosecutors are preparing to seek testimony from Novak and perhaps other journalists. “There’s a very good likelihood they’re going to litigate against journalists,” one source said.

It is a real investigation, and it is continuing. Moreover, the fact that a grand jury has been impaneled indicates that the decision to prosecute will mostly be in the hands of our fellow citizens — not the Justice Department or the prosecutors assigned to the case. (Of course, the Grand Jury will only see and hear the evidence that the prosecutors can muster.)*

I’ll admit to mixed feelings at this point. On one hand, nothing annoys me more than self-identified superpatriots — except for, I suppose, self-identified superpatriots who expose CIA agents for political gain. On the other hand, however, the suggestion that the prosecution may start “litigat[ing] against journalists” sends shivers down my spin. Though I occasionally find Bob Novak a bit creepy (it’s the eyebrows), I hardly want him subpoenaed and possibly thrown in jail for protecting a source.

Indeed, protecting confidential journalistic sources isn’t just yippity-do-dah liberal crap; it’s vital to the newsgathering process. Sure, it gets abused. Everything that happens in secret eventually does. (Lesson applicable to the Guantanamo detainees, I note.) Without confidential sources, however, more than a few important stories would never have seen the light of day.

So: continue the investigation. (And when do we get to the Vice President’s office?) But don’t subpoena Bob. The exposure of a semi-retired CIA agent (who, it turns out, is a bit of a publicity hound once freed from the shackles of secrecy) isn’t worth it. If we went subpoena-happy every time confidential information got leaked (and that’s the rule you’d be endorsing by subpoenaing Novak, if consisistency matters to you), Washington journalists would spend all their time in court.

The ends, I’m told, don’t always justify the means.

Read more

What the Heck, Let’s Live Dangerously.

by

I predict that Kerry is going to win the TN and VA primaries by less than five percentage points tomorrow; in fact, the combined delegates of Clark and Edwards will outnumber him in both primaries. I think that the latest Zogby polls for TN and VA may have messed up Undecided voter allocation. Besides, what’s … Read more

The Circle be Unbroken…

by

The search continues for a – not replacement; more like a supplemental – blogger. Von, when you read this, check your email for my short list of candidates. I will not say who the candidates are, yet – only that they are of the Left and civil sorts, with interesting viewpoints to draw from. We’ll … Read more

Loose Ends

by

This will be my last post or comment for several months. I thought of trying to restrict it to once a week, but since I proved last week that I’ll only yammer on in comments if I do that….I had my immigration law clinic training yesterday. Starting this Wednesday, I will have a lot of … Read more

No, really?

by

Sorry, that was my spoken response to the dKos blogger who wrote of the Russert /Bush interview: “My gut tells me that it was an underwhelming performance, but I fear that I’ve lost the ability to objectively assess how Bush will be regarded by the media filter.” So, of course, he asks the dKos readership … Read more

Movies That Must Not Be.

by

Not movies that should not be, nor movies that we wish never were: movies that simply cannot be actually real, because otherwise the fabric of reality would begin to unravel and then we’d have nowhere to put our stuff.

All entries to this – well, not contest – must thus be of ‘films’ that appear to have some evidence of existing for some inexplicable reason. Please note the title, why it Must Not Be and a plausible reason that explains away the aforementioned evidence for existence. For example:

Batman and Robin. This ‘film’ purports to have starred big names in it, but I ask you: would George Clooney have donned an anatomically correct Batsuit? Would Alicia Silverstone have? Don’t you think that Governor Schwartzenegger would have had more dignity – or have been able to have been elected with this on his resume? No, sorry, it was an Internet hoax gone terribly, horribly wrong – much like this Watchmen poster* – and those involved should apologize for it.

Star Trek V: THERE WAS NO FIFTH MOVIE. Paramount and the Roddenberry estate have disavowed any knowledge of a fifth Star Trek film, especially one that purported to claim that Spock had an older brother or that ‘God’ is trapped in an energy bubble somewhere in the galaxy. There was a mistake made with a sloppy graphic artist (who has since been sacked) designing posters for Star Trek VI: he left out the “I” and before it could be caught the posters were all over the world. There was no fifth film: you’re suffering from implanted memories. Of course, at least you aren’t believing that Satan-worshipping aliens abducted you as a child and took you to Faerie…

Highlander: There Can Be Only One, So There Was Only One. Simple and straightforward. Rumors of sequels? Distorted memories of the later television series being shown in two hour blocks on Saturday afternoons. Happens all the time.

Starship Troopers: While the idea of a Gestapo Doogie Howser does admittedly have a special appeal, if Verhoeven had dared make a movie anything remotely like the rumors he would have been messily assassinated by now by an angry mob of Heinlein fans. He’s still alive, right? So therefore he didn’t do it and the ‘script’ that’s circulating around is merely a (well-deserved) smear campaign against the director…

You get the drift.

Read more

A pack, not a herd.

by

Thanks to Amygdala and Kesher Talk I’ve been made aware of a blogger named Dr. Dot’s violent encounter with proxy anti-Semitism, not to mention the aftermath. Those two have already covered most of the details (and I just deleted about three paragraphs that can essentially be boiled down to Don’t Do This If You Don’t Enjoy Being Gleefully Stomped By Everybody Within Line of Sight), but what the heck: we note the story all the same.

Including the fact that political affiliation becomes irrelevant in this country in these sorts of situations. I am confident that no regular reader of this blog would have walked away from the incident described by Dr. Dot*, and given the range of political opinion that shows up around here, well…

Read more

Believe it or not, we’ve got BUTTON Capacity!

by

… because TypePad finally deigned to provide us with a user’s manual. Yes, kids, we’ve been using the suit without the helpful alien book, and so I’ve been making it up as I went along. But now… now we can have buttons, and amusing little hotlinks, and links to charities, and oh, all sorts of wonderful things!

I can’t believe it, myself. I’m so happy about this, I’m walking on air…

Moe

Read more

Fafblog now has comments, God Help Us All…

by

…and an insight into the Patrick Stewart space comment that I wish that I had had first. Of course, that particular sensation is probably why von and I link so often to Fafblog, huh? Moe PS: I still think that what Lileks said about Stewart was funny. So it goes.

Apocalypse Not Called Off For Context…

by

A while back I posted some commentary about a speech Clinton made at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum. Nathan Hamm came across a copy of the speech. Nathan’s commentary is favorable: he called it a good speech (I suspect that he would call it a ‘damn good speech’ if asked), and after reading it, I agree. … Read more

More Primary Guesses

by

… better get these in before the polls close, eh?

Michigan: this seems to be the one everybody’s paying attention to: I’m going to agree with Zogby that Kerry’s probably going to win this one… but that 23% Undecided is sending off warning bells in my head. If those votes go either to Dean or Edwards, watch for stories about Kerry’s stumbling; if they divide, then Kerry’s win in MI will be like most of his wins so far: a true win, but not enough of one to increase his lead.

Washington: Kerry, again – but I suspect that Dean is going to do easily well enough in the caucus to pick up delegates. No three way split.

Maine: Kerry. Dean will probably scrounge a delegate or two. No three way split. This is all purely a guess.

Overall: Kerry should do well for himself, objectively speaking – but if it isn’t enough of a blowout for the media it’ll be reported as a stumble. Dean is going to be the designated conversation piece. Edwards and Clark might as well gear up for TN and VA, because they’re not particularly relevant in these three primaries*.

Moe

*And that’s my really go-out-on-a-limb prediction for today.

UPDATE: Below.

Read more

The Commissar hates these sorts of posts…

by

… you know, the Sorry For the Light Blogging posts. However, in this case I’m semi-indifferent, what with the several beers, half a bottle of wine and – most importantly – the sheer sense of blinding relief that’s been present ever since we found out that my girlfriend’s biopsy came back negative for liver cancer. … Read more

Well Played.

by

More on Gay Marriage: President Bush unequivocally supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said Thursday. The White House has hedged on the president’s position on a constitutional ban on gay marriage. But Cornyn said that after a weekend discussion with Bush, he … Read more

Bush Names Intelligence Panel

by

Bush has named the members of the commission to investigate the intelligence failings in Iraq: Mr. [Charles] Robb, 64, . . . a Democrat; Judge Silberman, 68, was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. . .; Senator John S. McCain, Republican … Read more

Kerry Survey

by

Now that Kerry is the frontrunner, I thought that I’d open up the floor and get a few reactions to a few questions that I’ve been curious about: 1). Kerry seems to have managed to avoid major negative attacks to this point in the real campaign season. Do people think that this is due to … Read more

This is one of those Quantum things.

by

Either Josh Marshall’s tip is either correct, which would suggest that indictments will probably be announced tomorrow… or it’s not and there won’t be. If the former, that Russert interview von noted takes on an interesting significance; if the latter, people are going to point and laugh at Marshall for taking Richard Sale seriously (probably … Read more

Children of the Corn

by

Mickey Kaus passes along the rumor that, if nominated, Kerry may pick Evan Bayh as his running mate. Why? Because Bayh may win Indiana for Kerry:

kf hears semi-reliably that Kerry’s polling shows that Edwards on the ticket doesn’t win any states for Kerry, even in the South–while Evan Bayh does win Indiana (which is hard to believe, Indiana being a pretty Republican state). … Might as well go after him, John!

Actually, Indiana is probably more in play this election cycle than it ever has been. Once a reliably Republican state (outside of the college towns of Lafayette/West Lafayette and Bloomington, and the Chicago suburbs of Gary and Hammond), it has been trending steadily Democratic of late.* It’s current Democratic governor, Joe Kernan, is popular — and a solid favorite over his high-profile GOP opponent, former Bush Budget Director Mitch Daniels.** Indianapolis, once a Republican stronghold, easily re-elected its Democratic mayor and has elected a majority-Democratic City Council for the first time in living memory. (A slight exaggeration, but not by much.) Democrats even expect to pick up a seat or two in the Indiana legislature.

Losing Indiana won’t cost Bush the election in and of itself. But, if once-solid Indiana’s looks to be in play, what does it say about perennially-on-the-fence Ohio? Or Illinois, for that matter?

p.s. Is it too late to call off my bet with Harley? I took Bush for a fifth of Beefeater Gin, him ABB for a fifth of Vodka (brand escapes me).

Read more

It’s all about impressin’ the Russ

by

Pretty darn big news for political junkies: “President Bush has decided to appear Sunday on ‘Meet the Press’” for an hour-long interview with Tim Russert. And I’m supposed to go skiing this weekend. Rats! My insta-reaction shall be tape delayed.

Made beds, and the need to sleep in same.

by

Andrew Sullivan employs some sloppy reasoning in his latest defense of gay marriage. Understand, please, that I believe that gay marriage is the right thing to do. (And keep movin’ on down the street with your limp-wristed “civil union” compromise — half way is half right, and why stop at half right?) Here’s Andrew’s basic argument:

If the Constitution guarantees equal rights for all, and marriage is one of the most basic civil rights there is, and gay couples can and do fulfill every requirement that straight couples can, what leeway does any Court have? I’m constantly amazed by these claims of judicial “tyranny.” Was Brown v Board of Education tyranny? It’s exactly the same principle as operates here: separate but equal won’t do.

Here’s the problem with Andrew’s argument: Unless you believe the Constitution to be a “living document” (and Andrew, it appears, does not), the Constitution does not guarantee “equal civil rights for all.” Rather, the Constitution only guarantees certain civil rights. These are the civil rights that are specifically ennumerated in the Constitution. “Gay marriage” was not among them. (Racial equality was among them, however — in the 13-15th Amendments — which is why Andrew’s reference to Brown v. The Board of Education is a red herring.)

Even if you believe that the Constitution’s meaning was not fixed at the time of its drafting, however, Andrew’s argument still isn’t as self evident as he tires to portrary it. There are dozens of “basic civil rights” that even proponents of a living Constitution do not endorse.* Some are arguably more basic than the right of gays or straights to marry. Such as: The right to a job. The right to have adequate shelter. The right to an education. The right not to be discriminated against — in the workplace, in your personal life, in government, etc. — based on your looks, or your intelligence, or your athletic prowess, or the color of your hair, or the color of your eyes, or the shape of your earlobes, or the noises you make when you walk**, etc., etc.

It doesn’t matter that people are probably born gay. People are also born with blue eyes, rotten earlobes, and (to an extent) good looks — and yet the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on those grounds in marriage, school, or work. Instead, the issue is whether the discrimination is based on an innate characteristic is worthy of protection. The Constitution clearly protects against discrimination based on your being born Black (again, see the 13th-15th Amendments). Whether the Constitution protects against discrimination based on your being born gay, is, well, much less clear . . . .***

The task of those who support allowing gay marriage through judicial (rather than legislative) means is to demonstrate that gays fall into a category deserving of specific protection under the Constitution. I think that’s a case that can be made. But Andrew Sullivan doesn’t make it with a platitude and a quick cite to the Brown decision.

Read more

I admit to being a bit conflicted.

by

…you see, The Department of Louise has a post up about a possible further delay in the 9/11 report until after the election. While I’m pretty sure that Opus herself isn’t grinding an axe on this one – she just wants the facts on what the Hell happened – it’s one of those situations where … Read more

And Now, an Important Issue

by

Much as I loathe to contradict the worthy and refined Fafnir, I feel that I cannot let this statement of his (found in comments below):

Our last ninja president was Grover Cleveland I believe.

be unchallenged.

While all know that Ninja are not precisely over-represented among our Presidents, it is certainly untrue that there has not been one for over a hundred years. As Reader Michael N. has noted*, rumors of FDR’s ninjahood are legion; what is less well known was that the period between 1920 and 1945 were the Two Decades of the Ninja, starting with Warren Harding’s and Herbert Hoover’s epic battle for the White House** and ending with FDR’s reluctant break*** with the traditions of the First Ninja**** to save Western Civilization itself.

But I speak too much, too soon. I will simply say: contemplate Mount Rushmore, the curiously unsatisfying public reason why Alexander Hamilton remains on the ten dollar bill, and why the Whigs are never discussed in any political science textbook printed in a state whose name ends in a vowel, and soon, perhaps, you will understand.

Perhaps.

Moe

Read more

A Third Blog on Von’s Blogroll!

by

You’re a casual reader of the site. You take a look at the blogroll. The mutual roll seems solid, noncontroversial. You got your standard ‘pundits (Insta and Cal), your even-steven Tac, a little Sully and TPM, the Kos and the Volohks, and a few other worthies. Moe’s and Katherine’s rolls are also solid — solid … Read more

Interesting.

by

As some of you may know, I do a fair bit of work on actual-, near- and quasi- white collar criminal matters. (Hmm, that didn’t come out right. Perhaps I’d better say that I do a fair bit of work as an attorney representing persons and companies facing potential actual-, near- and quasi- white collar … Read more

Fare thee well, Ninja-man

by

. . . . . Echoing the eminently echo-able Moe Lane, I’m sorry to see the Ninja depart from the race. Joey from the CT, you handled yourself with class, integrity, and honor. You were my man in the race.

Bad Primary Analyses

by

Been holding this one back until the numbers were clearer. BTW, I did manage to get the winners of SC and OK right, guessed very badly wrong on DE, sorta badly about Dean in general (he came pretty close in AZ to picking up delegates, but not quite, and didn’t do nearly well enough in NM) and more or less called it about Edwards and second place. IOW, ehh.

Now, according to my I-don’t-think-I-screwed-anything-up numbers, and assuming that the statewide pledged delegates go the way of the rest, the delegate breakdown went like this (as 12:14 AM, February 4, 2004):

Read more

Hey, Joe, Whaddya Know…

by

The Ninja has withdrawn from the race. You gave it a good shot, Joe. I would also like to take this opportunity to formally endorse George W Bush for re-election as President of the United States of America. While I do not endorse much of Bush’s domestic policy, the sole candidate on the Democratic slate … Read more

Interesting Pair of articles that touch on the First Lady

by

This one, from OpinionJournal, talks about her largely-unnoticed work with the NEA … and this one from the Boston.com (via Andrew Sullivan) brings up a certain work by Tony Kushner that reminds me why just so many of my fellow conservatives loathe modern artists* in the first place. For what it’s worth, $20M in increased … Read more

While waiting for results…

by

… of the primaries, here’s a Scrappleface article with a certain bite to it: Bush Backs Probe of Probes of WMD Probe. “Accountability is everything in a democratic republic,” said an unnamed senior White House official. “The CIA got much of its WMD intel from U.N. inspection teams that they couldn’t trust. The House, the … Read more