I finished reading Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media?, which I picked up to see whether "Alterman delivers well-documented, well-argued research in compulsively readable form".
One of the most interesting things about the book is that Alterman never once defines the term "liberal". If this were an honest investigation of the question whether there is "liberal" bias in the media, you would think that Alterman (who recently completed his PhD at Stanford and should therefore understand the process of posing and testing hypotheses) would tell us from the outset what he means by "liberal". On page 15 he asks the question "Just what constitutes a 'liberal' bias anyway?". Unfortunately, he never answers his own question. In chapter 2 he cites political philosopher John Rawls' notion of liberalism (without footnote), but never turns this into a workable definition for testing the hypothesis of liberal bias in the media, and never mentions Rawls' concepts after page 19.
What Alterman does do, is label people:
p. 28: "... the Wall Street Journal's far-right editorial page..."
p. 28: "... the extremely conservative George F. Will.."
p. 30: "... the right-wing journalists [Robert] Novak and Tucker Carlson..."
p. 30 "... the brilliant, but not-so-liberal Mike Kinsley..."
p. 33 "... extreme right-wing ideologues [Pat] Buchanan and Novak...'balanced' by the wishy-washy neoconservatism of [Morton] Kondracke..."
p. 76 "... the right's most extreme expressions, including Andrew Sullivan"
It would never have occurred to me that a person who supports gay marriage, the legalization of marijuana for medical use and abortion rights in most cases would be among the "right's most extreme" members. But under Alterman's definition of "extreme right" he apparently is. Unfortunately, Alterman doesn't include his definitions of "left" or "right", "liberal" or "conservative" anywhere in his book.
Alterman rarely labels anybody as a liberal. One exception is Wall Street Journal editor and CNN panelist Al Hunt. And because Alterman never defines "liberal", he can modify Hunt's label whenever it fits his rhetorical purpose.
To make the point that even liberal journalists favored George W. Bush in the Florida election controversy:
Alas, more [examples of "Orwellian doublespeak"] were produced, even by liberals. Al Hunt demanded of Al Gore that he "give the hook to Jesse Jackson, with his phony claims of African-American disenfranchisement" [p. 182]So Hunt is a liberal. Oh wait, in order to rationalize the claim that "Most television pundits are strong conservatives":
Columnists Mark Shields and Al Hunt also play liberals on television [p. 45]Is he a real liberal, or does he only play a liberal on TV?
Apparently he's not any kind of a liberal. In order not to undermine Alterman's claim that the Wall Street Journal has a "far-right editorial page" (if it were "far-right", it wouldn't include any liberals, would it?):
Al Hunt, the token moderate on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page... [p. 210]I guess the easiest way to prove that there is no liberal bias in the media is to call the media whatever the heck you want it to be.
More examples of Alterman's "well-documented, well-argued research" are here and here.
Today on the Hugh Hewitt show, James Lileks told us that: he drinks 97 cups of coffee a day, receives four to six calls for vinyl siding every dinner hour, and sometimes suffers from spontaneous combustion; his local bank teller still uses an abacus, and computers are the worst invention ever invented.
Tune in again next week.
Today's Blog of the Day is Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs.
LGF is an indispensible resource for all things related to the intertwined evils of militant Islamism, Arab fascism, anti-Semitism, and their apologists in the western world. You will find far more timely news and honest information about the dangers emanating from the Middle East over at LGF than you will in the mainstream American media. And not only does Charles defend America and Israel with passion and good sense but he also has a wonderful sense of humor. (See for example, the ongoing series of "What's on Arafat's Desk?")
Keep up the good work, Charles, and if you're ever in Seattle, I'd be honored to buy you a beer or other beverage of your choice.
Oh, and in honor of naming LGF Blog of the Day, I'm going to mail my check today for a Little Green Footballs T-shirt, a mandatory fashion item for all studly men, young and old.
[More information on the Shark Blog's Blog of the Day tradition is here]
A Romanian construction worker was killed Monday in a Palestinian shooting attack in the West Bank, only a day after the three largest Palestinian factions said they would observe a temporary truce.Not so fast:
Bulgaria's Foreign Ministry identified the victim as Krastyu Radkov, aged 46. He was born in the Bulgarian town of Levski. He has been hit in the head while driving a construction lorry near the town of Jenin.
In 1998, the voters of Washington State passed ballot measure I-200, which stated
The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting(this explicitly applies to school districts within the state) I-200 passed with 58% of the vote.
On Thursday, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the Seattle School District may use race as a factor in assigning students to public schools. The majority opinion is a marvel of sophistry and word play that flagrantly mocks the clear intent of I-200, that the state shall not "discriminate against" anybody on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc.
The meaning of 'discriminate against' is less clear.I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is. But I think that the parents of any child who doesn't get into her first-choice school because she is the wrong color will understand exactly what "discriminate against" means, as did the 1.1 million people who voted for I-200.
Justices of the Washington State Supreme Court serve for staggered six-year terms. Justices Barbara Madsen and Faith Ireland, who voted with the majority to cast aside the will of Washington's voters, are up for re-election in 2004, as is Justice Richard Sanders, the lone dissenter in this case.
We had a great dinner last night at Georgia's Greek Deli in Greenwood. Hank Bradley and his wife Cathie Whitesides play Greek folk music at Georgia's most weekends and were in top form last night. Hank is a regular reader and frequent commenter here at the Shark Blog so I was pleased to have a chance to go hear them perform. They had me nearly dancing out of my chair to the the sounds of their fiddles and bouzoukis. Other patrons really did get up and dance. Yanni joined Hank on electric guitar and vocals, and his version of Misirlou is both more Hellenic and more energetic than, say, the one from Pulp Fiction. The other highlight of the evening was watching the owner of the restaurant set the desserts on fire. I wasn't allowed to throw my plate at the ceiling, but I had a good time anyway.
And read this account of how Hank, Cathie and Georgia's helped overturn an outdated ban on music in family restaurants.
The Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer are going to court as their Joint Operating Agreement collapses.
[Times publisher Frank] Blethen, whose company owns The Times and seven other papers in Washington and Maine, calls the P-I a "failing newspaper" and says The Times and Seattle readers would benefit from its closing.Blethen is correct to call the P-I a "failing newspaper". The Times would certainly benefit from the evaporation of its only local competitor, but I'm not sure how Seattle readers would benefit from having a monopoly newspaper. I'd hate to see the P-I close. But it would be nice to see it get rid of the dimwits on the editorial staff and hire enough people of clue so it can turn itself into a credible newspaper.
Today's editorial in the Seattle Times commends the Seattle School District's "use of race as one factor in student assignments" with the specious reasoning that
Seattle operates a system in which nearly 90 percent of students receive their first- or second-choice school. Race is one of five factors used in school assignment and it only comes into play for about 10 percent of students.Unless everybody somehow gets into their first-choice school, it is mathematically impossible for a preference to give an advantage to one person without also discriminating against someone else.In those instances when race is used, it doesn't extend a preference to one person while discriminating against another.
This unsigned editorial promoting "diversity", is attributed to the Seattle Times's editorial board, whose members are:
James F. Vesely
Carolyn S. Kelly
Frank A. Blethen
Robert C. Blethen
William K. Blethen
You can never have too many Blethens.
Ruth Rosen may be best described as the antithesis of a consumer rights advocate. In Thursday's column she wants the state to prevent consumers from shopping at stores that offer selection, convenience and low prices.
WOULD YOU LIKE a Wal-Mart "supercenter" store to move into your community? Think of the low prices and the convenience of one-stop shopping! You just park once and get whatever you need -- groceries, drugs, plants, toys, dog food, even eyeglasses.Most people think that's a great idea, which is why America's consumers have voted with their wallets and made Wal-Mart America's largest retailer. But the anti-consumer Ruth Rosen is siding with Wal-Mart's superannuated competitors who obtain government protection for their inefficient franchises
Contra Costa County has fought back. A year ago, Martinez prevented a traditional Wal-Mart store from expanding into a supercenter that could sell groceries. On June 3, the county Board of Supervisors voted to ban such supercenter stores from unincorporated areas of the county.In future columns, Ruth Rosen will call for the elimination of supermarkets so that we can all go back to shopping at village general stores like the one that Sam Drucker runs in Hooterville. Ruth Rosen will also call for the government to outlaw personal computers, in order to save the high-paying jobs in the typewriter brush industry.
The big red newspaper vending boxes for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer display the slogan "It's in the P-I". But that is only the first half of the correct statement "It's in the P-I, so it's probably wrong". Friday's P-I carried a story with the headline Israelis cleared in activist Corrie's death. This refers to the conclusion of the investigation into the suicidal accident of Hamas supporter Rachel Corrie, which cleared the bulldozer driver of wrongdoing. But the P-I shamelessly focuses on Corrie's father's unfounded refusal to believe that his daughter died in an accident.
In March, Corrie died while trying to block the demolition of a Palestinian physician's home. The army said it destroyed the homes in the Rafah refugee camp to create a "buffer zone" to prevent smuggling from Egypt.The P-I's report included a copy of this photograph, which is also on the website of the PLO front group "International Solidarity Movement"Shortly afterward, the Israel Defense Forces reported that the driver of the bulldozer had not seen Corrie and had not intentionally run over her. A report conducted by the military police told the same story.
Neither report, [Rachel's father] Craig Corrie said, seemed credible. Other members of her group, the Palestinian-led International Solidarity Movement, and other witnesses said Corrie stood 100 feet in front of the bulldozer and was in the driver's sight as he moved closer.
"The reports don't jibe with anything eyewitnesses said," Craig Corrie said. And they don't match the results of the Israeli government's autopsy, which concluded her "death was caused by pressure on the chest from a mechanical apparatus."
A photograph published by newspapers showed her in front of the bulldozer just before her death.
Here is what the "eyewitnesses" from the ISM had to say about Corrie's death
Rachel was sitting in the path of the bulldozer as it advanced towards her. When the bulldozer refused to stop or turn aside she climbed up onto the mound of dirt and rubble being gathered in front of it wearing a fluorescent jacket to look directly at the driver who kept on advancing. The bulldozer continued to advance so that she was pulled under the pile of dirt and rubble. After she had disappeared from view the driver kept advancing until the bulldozer was completely on top of her. The driver did not lift the bulldozer blade and so she was crushed beneath it. Then the driver backed off and the seven other ISM activists taking part in the action rushed to dig out her body.The P-I makes it sound like the displayed photograph "showed her in front of the bulldozer just before her death ", as if implying that it contained evidence of a crime itself. But the photograph is not consistent with any "just before death" moment in the "eyewitness report". Where is the pile of dirt and rubble? The ISM website also posts this picture, presumably of Rachel immediately after she was struck by the bulldozer.
You'll notice that in the first picture she is facing the bulldozer on the driver's right. But in this picture she is lying in the ditch on the the driver's left side. Also, there is no pile of dirt and rubble. The ISM also includes this photograph, presumably of the wounded Rachel being comforted by her friends
That would have to be a mighty big hole for her friends to have dug her out of. And it doesn't appear to be consistent with the top picture. No signs of the remains of the fence, for example.
I don't believe there is any dispute that Rachel Corrie stood in front of a bulldozer and that she was killed after the bulldozer struck her. But the P-I's photograph doesn't seem to have been taken "just before" Rachel's death, and it doesn't seem to offer any evidence of any kind that her death wasn't an accident. So why would the P-I choose to mention this photograph, adjacent to Craig Corrie's unfounded doubts about the investigation into his daughter's death, as if to imply that it contained some information that the investigation chose to ignore?
UPDATe: Note the comment from "Bird Dog" who links to several articles that help debunk the photograph story. KL duPre's comment mentions a report by ISM member Joseph Smith on the events leading up to Corrie's death. That report may be found here
Oxford scientist Andrew Wilkie sent this e-mail refusing to accept an application from an Israeli student for a position in Wilkie's laboratory, solely because the student was Israeli.
Oxford responded by announcing an "investigation" and released Wilkie's "personal apology":
“I recognise and apologise for any distress caused by my e mail of 23 June and the wholly inappropriate expression of my personal opinions in that document. I was not speaking on behalf of Oxford University or any of its constituent parts. I entirely accept the University of Oxford’s Equal Opportunities and Race Equality policies.”That's not much of an apology. It's clear that the Israeli student, Amit Duvshani, is not welcome in Wilkie's laboratory. Would this type of ethnic discrimination be tolerated if Duvshani were, say, black or Arab? I would hope not, and I doubt that it would be. But it seems to be politically correct in some circles to discriminate against individual Israelis and to try to deprive them of their livelihood.
Wilkie's laboratory does research on certain kinds of birth defects, presumably with the goal of preventing them. I don't know whether Duvshani's track record would rightfully qualify him for a position in Wilkie's laboratory. But if he were a talented researcher, wouldn't it be a shame to deny these afflicted children the chance to benefit from Duvshani's research on their impairment?
Andrew Wilkie will be attending a conference in Los Angeles next January. If I were in L.A. I would stop by the conference to have a one-on-one chat with Andrew Wilkie. I would let him know that he is more welcome in L.A. than Israelis are welcome in his laboratory; I would explain the history of Israel's rebuffed attempts to make peace with its neighbors; I would also thank Wilkie for his important research and remind him that keeping qualified scientists out of his laboratory for stupid reasons won't lead to any new discoveries.
UPDATE I've been contemplating whether the suggestion to have a polite chat with Andrew Wilkie is too tepid a response to his bigotry. Would I expect it to persuade him that he made a mistake? Probably not, although I would like to think that it might. After all, he wasn't born hating Israelis, it's a position that he adopted after absorbing information about Israel. Perhaps he would change his mind after learning more about Israel's history. But the message is aimed not only at him, but at others, to demonstrate that the pro-Israel side is reasonable and constructive, while those who feel righteous in their opposition to Israel are foolish and destructive. If Wilkie held a different kind of job I might just say "fire the bastard". But he does important work that may help reduce someone else's suffering and as a researcher he is not fungible. Of course he should continue with his work. But only as a staff scientist in somebody else's lab. He has already proven himself to be reckless in making hiring decisions and that portion of his responsibilities should be taken away from him.
Roger Simon and Stephen Rittenberg also comment on Wilkie.
Today's Blog of the Day is: cut on the bias.
This fine blog is written by Susanna Cornett, who I consider to be my Blogmother. Hers was one of the first cool blogs I started reading a little more than a year ago and she was one of the first people who ever linked to me, having stumbled across my true-life tale of getting stuck in the snow in Lake Tahoe.
Susanna continues to entertain and provoke us with her fine writing, keen insights and refreshingly honest common sense and human decency.
Keep up the good work, Susanna. If you're ever in Seattle, I'd be honored to buy you a beer or other beverage of your choice.
[More information on the Shark Blog's Blog of the Day tradition is here]
The BBC seems fond of the word "activist". Here are some examples of people whom the BBC chooses to describe as "activists".
People who campaign for the kinder treatment of animals:
Activists welcome zoo closurePeople who campaign for political parties in democratic elections:
The zoo is due to close in September. Campaigners have urged the managers of Glasgow Zoo to abandon plans to create a new animal-based visitor attraction.
BJP ministers have been asked to report to the party office and interact with grassroots party activists.People who exercise their collective bargaining rights:
A rail union activist was unfairly demoted during a recent pay-dispute, an employment tribunal has ruled.People who engaged in peaceful protest to end racial segregation:
As activists gather in Birmingham, Alabama, 40 years after the climatic battle of the civil rights era...People who campaign for democracy in Zimbabwe:
MDC members of parliament and student activists were arrested by the army, Mr Chimedza said.People who campaign to support their favorite foods:
Pie activists confident of victoryPeople who blow themselves up while plotting to murder Jews:
Campaigners have collected more than 8,000 signatures on a petition calling for protection of the Melton Mowbray pork pie.
Gaza blast kills Hamas activists
At least five Palestinians have died in an unexplained blast in southern Gaza City, witnesses and hospital officials say. Representatives of the militant group Hamas said the dead were Hamas activists.
Reuters reports that
The European Commission on Friday brushed off pressure from U.S. President George W. Bush for the European Union to put the Palestinian militant group Hamas on its list of outlawed terrorist organisations.because even though Hamas has killed dozens of Israelis in suicide bombings,
''You can't say that the whole of Hamas is a terrorist organisation and certainly that is not our position,'' said Reijo Kemppinen, chief spokesman of the executive Commission ... Kemppinen cited the organisation's social welfare activities, such as running clinics and schools, for which he suggested funding was legitimate.Yes, but the clinics are used to repair wounded terrorists and the "schools" are little more than factories of Jew-hatred and training camps for aspiring suicide-bombers.
France has voiced the strongest opposition to completely outlawing Hamas, arguing that its political wing was a necessary player in the Middle East peace process.Although the EU, which is the biggest donor to the Palestinian authority, does not fund any Hamas institutions with taxpayers' money, it has not barred private fundraising for Hamas-linked charities.
Writing on the Michigan Law School case, Clarence Page compares racial set-asides in university admissions with handicapped parking spots. Maybe it's just me, but I find it terribly insulting to equate race with handicap.
Meanwhile, John McWhorter says that Blacks should feel insulted by the Supreme Court's recent decision and that "Monday was a dark day for getting past race in this country".
I'm proud to announce that Kesher Talk is the first Blog of the Day.
Kesher Talk is an excellent group blog, dedicated to Jewish themes -- American Jewish life, the Middle East, Jewish communities around the world, anti-Semitism, Jewish traditions and rituals, even lots of Jewish humor. Kesher, by the way, is Hebrew for "connection". The editor-in-chief is the diligent and insightful Judith Weiss. Kesher Talk was started by Howard Fienberg, who departed the blogosphere for gainful employment (so I'm told), but whose spirit continues to inspire us all.
I consider Howard to be my "blogfather" and it's fitting for Kesher Talk to be my first Blog of The Day as it was the first blog to link to me last year, before I even had a real blog.
Keep up the good work, Kesher people, and if any of you find yourselves in Seattle, I'd be honored to buy you a beer or other beverage of your choice.
[More information on the Shark Blog's Blog of the Day tradition is here]
The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex, ruling that the Texas anti-sodomy law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.
Texas defended its sodomy law as in keeping with the state's interest in protecting marriage and child-rearing.As a husband and a father I have absolutely no idea how other people's private behavior in the privacy of their homes could have any impact of any kind on my marriage or the raising of my children. That simply doesn't make any sense.
Oh wait, do you hear that great rushing noise? Don't you see all those dozens of married men, stampeding down the street, holding hands in pairs, running away from their wives and children, shouting "it's finally legal! we can start having sodomy now!"
I'll let you know if our civilization collapses. In the meantime, chalk one up for civil rights and decency.
The latest update is that the long anticipated Hamas truce is "not expected until weekend". The suspense is killing me. On the other hand, the Associated Press reported yesterday that
Islamic militants agreed to halt attacks on Israelis for three months, Palestinian negotiators said Wednesday. But the tenuous deal was immediately undercut by an Israeli airstrike and Hamas threats of revenge.[emphasis mine] I don't know where the Associated Press finds its reporters, but think about it for a moment. The only reason a military force would accept a ceasefire is if it were under pressure. If you want an army to agree to a ceasefire and it is hesitating and stringing you along, that is precisely the time to increase the pressure, not to ease off.
Never mind the fact that a "ceasefire" with Hamas makes no sense to begin with. You only enter into a ceasefire with an adversary as a step toward co-existence. But co-existence with Hamas is impossible. Hamas is committed to removing the Jews from Israel. Entering into a "three-month ceasefire" with Hamas would be like the Allied forces who liberated Auschwitz accepting a "three-month ceasefire" from the Nazis.
Today on the Shark Blog, we are launching a new feature called "Blog of the Day", where each day we acknowledge one of the many fine blogs that share our blogosphere.
DISCLAIMERS: Although the Blog of the Day designation does not come with a trophy, new car, cash prize, or anything of the like, it is a tremendous pat on the back for writing a fine blog. Because of the enormous prestige value, Blog of the Day designees may go on to win lucrative book deals or breakfast cereal endorsement contracts. On the other hand, the sudden fame might go to someone's head and they end up hurling themselves into a downard spiral of self-destruction. In either case, I accept my fair share of the credit but none of the liability. Undoubtedly, competition for this honor will be fierce, so here are some more disclaimers. (1) the decisions are made in my sole discretion, therefore my friends and relatives and people I want to suck up to are all eligible (2) all decisions are final, but hey, there's always tomorrow (3) becoming Blog of the Day is not unlike getting elected Pope. You may campaign for the office, but only by appearing to be humble and indifferent to it. The only sure way to take yourself out of the running is to ask me to consider you for Blog of the Day.
With further ado, the first Blog of the Day winner will be announced tomorrow. I know who it will be, but you don't, so please, no wagering.
George Will says that a public policy based on racial preferences is unsustainable:
demographic facts say race is rapidly becoming more and more irrational--indeed, unintelligible--as a basis for government actions...The increasing arbitrariness and unreality of official racial and ethnic categories will become apparentWill doesn't say this, but it occured to me while reading his column -- at some point the very definitions of racial categories will have to be challenged in court. At the risk of making a prediction, I predict that the next battleground in the "diversity wars" will be over the question "who qualifies for preferential 'diversity' treatment?"
Although racial preferences have been around for a while, Monday's Supreme Court ruling will no doubt be perceived as cementing limited forms of racial preferences as a kind of entitlement. And with entitlements come eligibility guidelines, and with guidelines come challenges to stretch the guidelines. And given that the federal definitions of ethnic minority groups [scroll down to Categories and Definitions] are so imprecise, it can't be that hard to claim membership in a minority category. For example, "Black or African American" is defined as
A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.There is, of course, the trivial claim that the origin of humankind is in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, making us all African Americans. But even if we ignore that, I'm sure we all know people who look 100% white, yet have some black ancestry. Are they legitimately black for purposes of racial preferences? Who is to decide?
"Hispanic" is defined as
A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.That would have to include anybody of Spanish ancestry, including Basques (Spanish Basques, but not French Basques, I guess) and Sephardic Jews. How far down the family tree does the nearest Spanish relative have to sit in order to be considered legitimate, and who decides? According to family legend, one group of my ancestors left Spain during the Inquisition and eventually settled in Poland. All of my other ancestors are eastern European Jews. Am I Hispanic? Most people would probably say no, but I stick to my claim of "other Spanish origin", and I'm no less proud of my Spanish roots than my Lithuanian shtetl roots. So why should my Spanish heritage be any less relevant to law school admissions than that of someone whose ancestors immigrated from Spain to the new world in the 1500s?
Here's another good one. I have a friend whose biological parents are northern European, but whose adopted father is an immigrant from South America. Is she Hispanic? If you believe that nurture is more important than nature, then of course she's Hispanic and I believe that's how she considers herself. (On the other hand, a black person who is adopted by a white family will almost certainly be universally recognized as black).
Now that there is every advantage in declaring oneself to be a member of an underrepresented minority, and absolutely no disadvantage in doing so, what's to stop people from discovering that they have black, Spanish, Algonquin or Hawaiian ancestors? Only a few people will lie outright, but family legends about mysterious great-grandfathers will grow in importance until every other Norwegian Lutheran in Minnesota starts thinking of himself as part Spanish and Native American. And who is going to dispute any of these claims? At a certain point, this is all going to wind up in the Supreme Court and Sandra Day O'Connor's less fossilized successors are going to have to conclude that racial classifications are too vague to be of any use in public policy. Either that, or when the University of Michigan Law School notices that 75% of their applicant pool claims minority heritage, they are going to realize that "racial diversity" doesn't make sense. The only solutions would be to abandon racial preferences and limit any preferences to those who can document economic disadvantage. Or better yet, just maintain high standards for everybody and even those with real or perceived disadvantages will rise to meet them.
UPDATE The Wall Street Journal also asks How Far Does Diversity Go?
Robert Scheer's weekly canard-filled column is up at the (self-proclaimed) liberal-bias-free Los Angeles Times
The Fact That Hussein's Gone Doesn't Make Lying RightRobert Scheer once edited the diaries of Che Guevara. Now it seems, the sickness of the political far left can best be defined by its refusal to admit that the world is better off without Saddam.
There was a time when the sickness of the political far left could best be defined by the rationale that the ends justified the means. Happily, support for revolutionary regimes claiming to advance the interests of their people through atrocious acts is now seen as an evil dead end by most on the left.
we don't know what the future holds for Iraq. Our track record of military interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere would lead any competent historian or Vegas bookie to conclude that a stable secular dictatorship is about the best outcome we can predict.As an exercise to the reader, please compare and contrast the following:
* post-war Japan vs. Imperial Japan
* Federal Republic of Germany vs. Nazi Germany
* post-war Italy vs. Fascist Italy
* South Korea vs. North Korea
* Kuwait today vs. Kuwait under Saddam
* Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia today vs. Yugoslavia under Milosevic
Of course there is nothing that Scheer can say in Saddam's defense, so he is reduced to spreading the lie that the good guys are lying.
It was OK to lie about the nonexistent evidence of ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda.Evidence of these ties was found in Baghdad by independent journalists. The only lie about Iraq and Al Qaeda was when Scheer lied by distorting what Donald Rumsfeld said about them.
It was OK to lie about the U.N. weapons inspectors, claiming they were suckered by Hussein.Hans Blix Nov. 15, 2002: "[The Iraqis] certainly did not give accurate answers to the questions they should answer. It could happen again," says the Swedish dipomat on the eve of his departure for Iraq.
It was OK to lie, not only to Americans but to our allies in this war, about "intelligence" alleging that Iraq's military had chemical and biological weapons deployed in the field.Madeleine Albright Nov. 12, 1998: "The thing to remember, Margaret, is at the end of the Gulf War, as part of the cease-fire agreement, [Saddam] agreed to dismantle all his weapons of mass destruction. That was the deal he made; and like everything else, he violates his deals."
State Dept. testimony to the Senate, Jun 23, 1999 "We have come to the conclusion, after more than eight years of effort at seeking Saddam's compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, that his regime will never be able to be rehabilitated or reintegrated into the community of nations. This conclusion is based on what Saddam's record makes manifest -- that he will never relinquish what remains of his WMD (weapons of mass destruction) arsenal, and that he will never cease being a threat to the region, U.S. interests, and his own people."
State Dept. Briefing Aug. 2, 2000 "Iraq has not given up its weapons of mass destruction"
Jacques Chirac Feb. 16, 2003: "Are there other weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq]? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them."
In the world of Robert Scheer, the only government that doesn't lie is the government of Saddam Hussein.
An insightful, yet seldom heard observation about the consequences of the Michigan Law School racial preferences program from Erik Jaffe at the Volokh Conspiracy:
At mid-tier law schools, however, it is likely that an affirmative action policy would almost have to accept any minimally qualified candidate given the practical limits of the applicant pool, the cream-skimming by elite schools, and the need to admit a "critical mass." At some point along the scale of law schools, it will be utterly impossible to admit a critical mass of minority candidates because there will be no more candidates left to admit, their having all been pulled up to higher-tier law schools.Read the whole thing. And read the rest of the Volokh blog for the sharpest commentary on yesterday's Supreme Court decisions you're likely to find anywhere.
The Seattle Times reports that "Testing fails to diversify accelerated Seattle classes"
A test given this year to all first-graders in the Seattle School District failed to identify more racial and ethnic minorities for the district's advanced-learning programs, contrary to what officials had hoped.By way of comparison, the Seattle school district [pdf] is 40% white, 23% Asian, 23% African American 11% Latino and 3% Native American.Most top scorers on the Cognitive Abilities Test were either whites or Asians, already the two predominant groups in the district's advanced-learning programs.
The results mean the district will now consider other criteria to try to boost enrollment of underrepresented groups in those programs [emphasis added]
Results from two rounds of tests, given earlier this year, showed that of 315 first-graders who scored high enough to qualify for the Accelerated Progress Program (APP) or the second-tier Spectrum program, 91 percent, or 287, were whites or Asians. The rest were 10 African Americans [3.2%], 15 Latinos [4.8%], two Native Americans [0.6%] and one student whose ethnicity was not identified on the test form.
I see two possible reactions to the disparity between the ethnic composition of the student body and the outcome of the exam. The first is for the parents whose children did not pass the exam to try to learn from the parents whose children did pass and to find out what activities they might do with their children to bolster their academic skills. The second reaction would be to declare the test biased; to demand lower standards for the accelerated program; and to teach the children that academic excellence is not something to be earned through performance, but is instead a patronage-based entitlement for which one need only protest loudly enough.
I would like to think that more parents would choose option number one. But sadly, today's Supreme Court decision in the Michigan Law School case, and the intent of the Seattle school district to "consider other criteria" suggest that option number two is the status quo.
The Seattle Times reports today that "Medicaid bill would force some couples to reduce assets to qualify" meaning
If Gov. Gary Locke signs the bill, the amount a healthy spouse could keep and still have Medicaid pay for the ailing spouse's care would drop from $90,660 to $40,000.The Times interprets this to mean that
Critics say the measure could force some couples who can't afford long-term care to make a painful choice: deplete their life savings so one spouse qualifies for aid, or divorce to protect the assets for the healthier spouse.the implicit assumption is that people should never be responsible for their own health care, which is just another "free" public good, like air or sidewalks.
The controversy provokes hard questions: Is it right for citizens — through asset transfers, divorce and the like — to use government programs for the needy to pay for costly long-term care? Should they be forced to impoverish themselves first? How much of their personal assets should be protected? Should they be expected to pay long-term-care insurance premiums for years on the gamble they might one day need it?Actually, these questions are not hard. No, people should not spend or gift away their assets in order to qualify for safety-net programs. And we always end up paying for long-term-care one way or another. The question is whether we (a) can choose to either buy our own insurance or self-insure through ordinary savings, or (b) are forced to pay for somebody else's vision of long-term health care through higher taxes.
If the Seattle Times is trying to build support for a middle-class long-term care entitlement, they should have chosen a more sympathetic poster child. The article focuses on Nancy Doty, a 75-year-old retiree whose husband lives in a boarding home with late-stage dementia.
[Doty] used to work at the state Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) helping determine eligibility for entitlement programs. She already has "spent down" a lot of money — dropping her assets from $135,000 to just under the current limit of $90,660 — to try to qualify her husband for Medicaid. ... Last fall, she spent about $35,000 in six weeks to make the Medicaid asset-qualification cutoff. She anticipated her husband, Jack, 78, might need Medicaid. She got new windows, kitchen countertops and sink, fixtures for the bathrooms, a washer and dryer and painted the house. Still $10,000 over the asset limit, she traded her 1996 Honda for a newer car this year.I hope Nancy Doty and her heirs enjoy the new car and the new kitchen. Why shouldn't they, when the government pays for Jack's nursing home care, for free!
Today's hopeful news: Palestinian officials say Hamas is on the verge of accepting truce
Oh, wait...
June 18, 2003: Palestinians and Hamas near truce
June 16, 2003: Palestinian FM -Hamas ceasefire possible on Tuesday
June 15, 2003: Egyptian mediators work to reach ceasefire deal with Palestinian militants
June 8, 2003: Hamas Expected to Rejoin Truce Talks
June 3, 2003: Hamas Official Says Truce Possible with Guarantees
June 1, 2003: Palestinians confident on ceasefire deal
May 31, 2003: PNA to meet with Hamas as soon as truce is ready
May 29, 2003: Abu Mazen confident of Hamas ceasefire
May 22, 2003: Following Abu Mazen meeting, Hamas hints at limited truce
August 13, 2002: Hamas may agree to ceasefire
April 28, 2002: Hamas would accept Saudi peace plan, spokesman says; Group would stop attacks on Israelis if occupation ends
December 21, 2001: Hamas declares ceasefire in Israel
October 1999: Hamas offers truce
A list of terror attacks, many of which were organized by Hamas, is here.
David Horsey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer asks his readers to send in their answers to his weekly Burning Question "Should every American have medical care?"
If the man were a Canadian or a citizen of any country in the European Union, his health crisis would not be accompanied by a financial disaster. He would be taken care of by a national health plan. But the man is an American, one of millions in this country who -- for a variety of reasons -- do not have health coverage.Given that our economy is driven more and more by the interests of investors while providing less and less security for workers, is it time for Americans to get a little more security from each other? I won't claim to know the best design for universal health care. Still, I want to ask this Burning Question:
Should every American have the right to medical care?
The Constitution doesn't say anything about a right to medical care, although maybe it's one of those unenumerated Ninth Amendment rights. But a right to medical care wouldn't imply an entitlement to free spleenectomies any more than the right to keep and bear arms requires the government to hand out free bullets.
Nevertheless, Horsey is asking his readers to send heartstring-tugging pleas demanding an inalienable right to unlimited free healthcare. I rather wish Horsey would have rephrased his leading question, perhaps like this:
Given that our government is driven more and more by the interests of entrenched government employees while providing less and less value for citizens and given the well-documented incompetence of all levels of government, such as the failure of the FBI to act on its own warnings to prevent the 9/11 attacks; and California's $35 billion surprise budget deficit, do you really want to give the unaccountable bureaucrats even more power, especially over something as important as your own medical care?or
Given that Canada and the European Union have significantly higher unemployment rates than the United States, caused by bloated out-of-control social welfare programs such as universal healthcare, and given that government run healthcare systems don't work very well (in Canada or Britain, for example), would you really be willing to give up the right to choose your own healthcare, even if it means paying higher taxes for worse healthcare and the possibility of losing your job?
You've probably never heard of the Tri-City Herald, but it recently posted a story with the headline:
"Arafat says imprisoned lawmaker Barghouti will be released".
Yes, Barghouti might be a "lawmaker" on the basis of his membership in the "Palestinian Legislative Council". But he was not imprisoned for being a "lawmaker", he is on trial for murder.
Barghouti is a "lawmaker" in the same sense that Saddam Hussein was a jurist, Abimael Guzman is a college professor and Josef Megele was a physician
Tonight's top story from Gaza, originally reported as "Palestinians say Israeli shelling killed 3 militants"
Four Palestinian militants died late Sunday, apparently when a bomb they were planting went off in northern Gaza. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Israel could still build Jewish settlements in defiance of a U.S.-backed peace plan.**Non-sequiturs seem to be permitted only when they are used to divert attention from the fact that Yassir Arafat's "mainstream Fatah" is planting bombs "in defiance of a U.S. backed peace plan". And no, the deaths were not "accidental", they were merely premature.At first, Palestinian security officials said Israeli tanks fired at a group of militants from the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, affiliated with the Yasser Arafat's mainstream Fatah, killing three men and wounding four others, in the northeast Gaza town of Beit Hanoun. Another died later in a hospital, doctors said.
Later, however, loudspeaker trucks drove through the area saying that the four died while "fulfilling their national duty," a phrase used in the past to announce accidental deaths.
The New York Times' David Rosenbaum asks "Bush May Have Exaggerated, but Did He Lie?" Rosenbaum's spin is that Bush didn't lie (about Iraqi weapons or the tax cut), he just seemed "typical of somebody trying to sell somebody something". The following was given as an example of Presidential exaggeration:
The October speech was devoted largely to the threat of banned weapons. Iraq, Mr. Bush said, had "a massive stockpile of biological weapons" and "thousands of tons of chemical agents" and was "reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." The president asked, "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"[emphasis mine] The President said in his October 7 speech that the Iraqi regime "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons", and he presented the basis for that claim. The Times left out some important context for the chosen quotes. Here are Bush's exact words:
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11th. And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons.That's a little different from what the New York Times implies, isn't it? The Times' quote fragment makes it sound like the President said that Iraq had these specific quantities of chemical and biological weapons at the time of the speech. But he was merely saying that Iraq had produced those weapons at a previous time and had failed to account for their disposal.
Did Rosenbaum lie about what the President said? No, he simply quoted selectively, "typical of somebody trying to sell somebody something".
Ha'aretz' Danny Rubinstein explains why Abu Mazen and Dahlan won't use force against Hamas
Israeli spokesmen point out that the Palestinian defense establishment in Gaza alone is paying the wages of close to 50,000 people.The problem is thatOn the other hand, how many armed men does Hamas have in Gaza? 400? 800? Those who exaggerate say 1,000. So what is the problem?
The extensive public support in Hamas is no secret. In the last elections to the UN's welfare and employment agency staff committee in Gaza, Hamas won close to 80 percent of the votes. In other words, if Abu Mazen and Dahlan were to launch a violent struggle against Hamas at this stage, they might find themselves up against real civilian insurgence and lose everything.An example is given
a few weeks ago [there was a] demonstration of Beit Hanun residents in the north of the Gaza Strip against the Qassam missiles launched at Sderot. After the Israel Defense Forces uprooted citrus groves and fruit orchids there (the Israeli sources described it: "The IDF removed shrubbery that served as hiding places for missile launching terrorists"), the residents protested against the missile firings.In other words, the Palestinian Authority has little authority or political legitimacy. Abu Mazen is an empty suit, a fictional creation of the "international community". Whether or not he is more moderate than Hamas is irrelevant. He is both incapable and unwilling to impose his authority on Hamas. The only agreement he will be able to enforce is an agreement that carries the Hamas seal of approval, that is to say an agreement that increases Hamas's power and ability to threaten Israel.The Palestinian media almost ignored the incident. Palestinian journalists explained that they were afraid of publishing the story because the missile firings were massively supported by the Palestinian public.
Rubinstein's analysis contains hints at a solution to the deadlock. Israel should destroy Hamas, exterminate its leaders, demolish its facilities and dismantle its institutions. and in the process impose a high enough cost on ordinary Palestinians to undermine support for the perpetrators of terrorism. Only after the Palestinian public reaches the depths of despair and there is no rival to the peacemakers, is there likely to be any Palestinian movement towards a solution.
Former NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark softened his denials of presidential aspirations to a "maybe" yesterday, amid his increasing criticism of the Bush administration.
Clark accused the president of squandering a $5 trillion budget surplus in two years, largely by borrowing to give large tax cuts to the rich.
"If it weren't for the law, you'd call that theft," he saidFirst of all, the IRS collected less than $2 trillion last year, so it's hard to see how "tax cuts to the rich" during Bush's two years could approach anywhere near $5 trillion. But more to the point, from 1789-2002 the federal government has collected nearly $32 trillion and spent over $35 trillion [.xls]. If it weren't for the law, you'd call all of it theft.
In yesterday's season premiere of the entertaining detective show Monk: Monk suspects a married prep-school teacher, played by Andrew McCarthy, of murdering his pregnant lover. The clue that cements the suspicion? Both McCarthy and the victim had souvenirs from a hotel called the "Modesto Inn".
This struck me a little odd at first, mainly because very few people vacation in Modesto. Mendocino? Monterey? Mt Shasta? perhaps, but not Modesto. Later it dawned on me. Modesto is the home of Scott Peterson, accused of murdering his pregnant wife Laci. Modesto was also the home of Chandra Levy, the murdered (rumored to have been pregnant) lover of Gary Condit. I think the Monk screenwriters were having a little fun at Modesto's expense.
I'm slowly working my way through Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media?, so I can decide for myself whether
Alterman delivers well-documented, well-argued research in compulsively readable formChapter 5 opens with the claim that
Conservative domination of the talk-radio airwaves is so extensive as to be undisputedTo support this claim we learn that
Edward Monks, a Eugene, Oregon, attorney, calculates that in his city, conservatives enjoy a 4,000-to-zero hour advantage over liberals on the radio. He wrote in The Register-General: "Political opinons express on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normallly be achieved only in a totalitarian society ... There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it>"For some reason, neither Monks nor Alterman mention that Eugene has at least two National Public Radio stations, KLCC and KRVM, which between them carry at least six different listener call-in shows, including: Diane Rehm, Critical Mass, The Jefferson Exchange, Talk of the Nation, Tavis Smiley and The Connection. Maybe these shows are all hosted by conservatives. I guess it depends how you define "liberal" and "conservative", which, by the way, Alterman never does.
Only 196 more pages of "well-documented, well-argued research" to go.
A previous entry on Alterman's book is here
NPR's All Things Considered asked a number of people around the country "whether it matter if weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq". Reporter Tom Goldman in Portland, OR interviewed fantasy novelist Ursula LeGuin and a group of her friends, whom Goldman described as "against the war in Iraq, well-read and politically aware".
Leguin: If it was a lie, if it was a lie of exaggeration, if it was wishful thinking, all that, that's very bad news for our democracy.(an aside: Ursula Leguin recently spoke out against the Patriotic Act
What do attacks on freedom of speech and writing mean to a writer? It means that somebody's there with a big plug they're trying to fit in your mouth and big plugs they're trying to fit in the ears of the people. Bad news again.Was that a lie of exaggeration about the Patriotic Act? You be the judge).
Back to the NPR interview with LeGuin and her guests. There are no "if"s for book publisher Ruth Gundle. She says the administration already has lied about the weapons.
Gundle: We were not just told that they believed they were there. We were told that they knew for a fact that they were there.It's interesting that this was the only example NPR came up with to support Gundle's claim. Rumsfeld's statement was not before the war while the administration was trying to build public and congressional support. It was made while the war was already underway. It's also an uncharacteristic mistake for Rumsfeld, who was normally more guarded about possible weapons discoveries. And there is absolutely no evidence that this or any other administration statement was a "lie" and not due to, say, faulty intelligence, or even correct but dated intelligence.
Several others interrupting: That's right
Gundle: In fact Rumsfeld actually said where they were.
Goldman: On March 30 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said [on ABC's This Week] there were weapons of mass destruction in the areas around Tikrit and Baghdad.
UPDATE Another example of Ursula LeGuin's own exaggerations in the service of, uh, democracy: In a statement opposing Oregon's Measure 87 (Nov. 2000) which would have permitted local governments to zone (but not censor) sexually oriented businesses, LeGuin wrote:
If Measure 87 is approved, instead of deciding for ourselves what we want to read, see and hear, the politicians will make those decisions for us.Now that's what I call fantasy.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell called the militant group Hamas an enemy of peace during a troubleshooting mission to the Middle East on Friday.
Hamas Pediatrician of Death Abdel Aziz Rantisi promptly validated Powell's statement, calling Powell a "big fat liar"
"This is a statement that reflects and proves that he is a little slave to the Zionists and to his master Sharon, that he is the real enemy of peace and justice in the world,"Hamas also claimed credit for a shooting attack today that killed one American citizen and injured his elderly parents.
Meanwhile, credulous optimists in the western media are hailing Rantisi's "peace offensive". Some free business advice to western reporters: Read the Hamas Charter.
Clothing retailer Abercrombie and Fitch has been sued
The federal lawsuit, filed Monday by nine Hispanic and Asian plaintiffs, alleges that Abercrombie discriminates against blacks, Hispanics and Asians by enforcing a nationwide corporate policy of preferring white employees for sales positions, desirable job assignments and favorable work schedules.[note that there are no black plaintiffs in the suit alleging discrimination against blacks]. A & F claims that it has a "zero-tolerance" policy for discrimination, but declined to comment on the specifics of the suit.
Anthony Ocampo, a Filipino-American who recently graduated from Stanford University, said he applied for a job at a store in Glendale, Calif., where he'd previously worked. After speaking with a manager, a salesperson told him, "We're sorry, but we can't rehire you because there's already too many Filipinos working here," said Ocampo, 21.My first reaction is that a Stanford graduate should have options for any number of jobs that pay better than a sales clerk at Abercrombie and Fitch. So it's hard to believe Ocampo suffered any real damages. My second reaction, assuming that there's any truth in the claim that he wasn't rehired because the store already met some quota of Filipinos is, well, that's diversity in action, isn't it? Aren't we told that "workforce diversity is good business" because companies have to "reflect the characteristics of our customers"? And if a company makes a commitment to "serve its X customers better" by hiring more X people, it inevitably means that they have to put a cap on the number of Y people they hire. There is absolutely no other way around this.
But the article as reported by the Associated Press and published by the Seattle Times doesn't tell us, for example, how many Filipino employees the Canoga Park store already employed, or who (if anybody) was hired for the position that Ocampo didn't get. Nor does the article look behind any of the other claims in the lawsuit, such as the entirely unremarkable observation that
Posters and a television program in stores display models who are mostly white, as does the company's catalog75% of the people in the United States are white. It is not newsworthy for a store's advertising models to be "mostly white". But the article leaves us with the dangling insinuation that Abercrombie and Fitch is a racist company anyway.
As the concept of an entitlement to "workforce diversity" continues to worm its way into the collective consciousness, people will eventually begin to realize that you can't justify workforce "diversity" programs on the basis of customer preferences on the one hand, and on the other hand to express shock when a company doesn't have any slots for your own demographic group. The rational solution is for companies to be free, without fear of frivolous lawsuits, to hire whomever they feel will best serve their customers. The market would reward and sustain those companies who cater to their customers' preferences, and the market would punish those companies who let prejudice get in the way of hiring good people. There is inevitable tension between those constraints, but it should be up to each company to figure out the right balance of workforce diversity (in its broadest sense), not for the courts or the newspapers.
But don't hold your breath. Expect more lawsuits and sensational news stories second-guessing the hiring and marketing decisions of every company, no matter how inconsequential, as the "diversity" movement endeavors to turn our free-market meritocracy into a race-based patronage system. And that's not good business for anybody. Except for the race-based advocacy groups and the lawyers who feed off of them.
The public opinion poll cited in the previous entry about the Seattle Post-Intelligencer deserves to win an award for partisan bias in social science research. The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland summarizes its latest public opinion poll on Iraq as follows:
Strong Majority Continues to Approve of War With IraqNow who is being misleading? Here is the more detailed summary of responses to the question "Is it your impression that when the US government presented the evidence to justify going to war with Iraq, it was being misleading or not being misleading?"But Only About Half Support Policy, Not Just President;
Only Half Confident Administration Was Not Being Misleading
Very certain not being misleading ................21%
Somewhat certain not being misleading .......29
Not very certain not being misleading ............6
Not very certain being misleading ..................9
Somewhat certain being misleading .............19
Very certain being misleading ......................11
(No answer).................................................... 5
So while 56% said "not being misleading" and only 30% said "somewhat or very certain being misleading", the headline is "only half confident Administration not being misleading". If that's not misleading enough, don't large numbers of people usually believe that politicians are being misleading?
The PIPA conducts frequent public opinion surveys about foreign policy questions -- international trade, global warming, etc. We read here, for example, that
A very strong majority of the US public embraces the idea that global warming is a real and serious problem and a majority (though a declining one) rejects the argument that taking action is too economically onerouswe also learn that 59% said that [free trade] hurts [American workers]. But are those widely held beliefs a result of being misled by, say, environmentalists or labor unions? We don't know, because PIPA didn't ask whether any participants to the debates on global warming or free trade were being misleading. In fact, if you search PIPA's web site for a survey question that includes the word "misleading" (go ahead, I dare you!) you will only find it ... in connection with the current Bush administration and the war in Iraq.
So the question about "being misleading" is a leading question, selectively applied. And isn't that more than a little misleading?
Today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer calls "Ignorance a threat to nation's security". (this is from a newspaper that defiantly fabricates that "The constitutional standard for warfare is for the United States to face a 'clear and present danger.'"). Today's editorial tries to dismiss public support for the Iraq war as being grounded on ignorance
Another poll, however, raises the question of just how informed that favorable opinion is... [this] poll, conducted in the middle of May, showed 34 percent of those surveyed believed that -- contrary to fact -- the United States has already found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy may be at work in this startling bit of public delusion. This belief runs highest among those who approved of the decision to go to war. Overall, 60 percent remembered "the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" as the U.S. government's main reason for attacking Iraq.Ah yes, those dumb yahoos who don't drink from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's fountain of knowledge every morning.
It is disappointing that so many people are not as well-informed as the P-I's editors pretend that they themselves are. But how well is the P-I doing in the war between knowledge and ignorance? Does the P-I lead or does it mislead? Take a closer look at the cited poll, whose main page is here. The full results are here [pdf]. While the facts that the P-I chooses to include in its editorial are correct, the editorial is misleading. The P-I cherry-picked an unrepresentative handful of data points to argue its case that the support for the war is largely based on ignorance. A more comprehensive review of the poll shows a very different picture.
The first question of the survey asks the respondent to indicate on a scale of 0 - 10 their opinion on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction just prior to the war. "0" means absolutely certain that there were no weapons, "10" means absolutely certain that there were weapons. The breakdown was as follows:
0 (certain there were no weapons): 5%
1-4 (probably no weapons): 13%
5 or "no answer" (meaning unsure): 25%
6-9 (there probably were weapons, but not absolutely certain): 29%
10 (absolutely certain there were weapons): 28%
In other words, the largest group thought that "there probably were weapons, but we're not 100% certain of this".
The poll also reveals that 68% of the respondents thought that going to war against Iraq was the right decision, more than 3 times the number who thought it was the wrong decision. What this means is that the decisive number of people thought that going to war was the right thing to do, even with the understanding that the existence of weapons was merely likely, but not absolutely certain. And that's exactly how Bush built support for the war all along. Go back and re-read the most recent State of the Union address. Read it carefully. Nowhere does Bush say that he knows beyond any doubt that Saddam has banned weapons, only that the evidence (such as Saddam's failure to comply with UN requirements to properly account for the destruction of his acknowledged weapons) created a strong suspicion that he possessed or was pursuing banned weapons. And the public as a whole accepted and continues to accept this argument. We agreed to take action on the basis of a strong suspicion of a potential threat and we didn't require 100% certainty of an immediate threat. No wonder then, that a majority of respondents rejected the suggestion that the government was misleading them.
I wonder what percentage of Seattle area residents would express as much confidence in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
When a Palestinian sympathizer calls for an "End to the Occupation", what they really mean is an end to seven-year-old girls occupying the back seats of their parents cars.
Haaretz interviews Hamas vampire Abdel Aziz Rantisi
GAZA CITY - There will be no Palestinian civil war, even if Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas fails to persuade Hamas to agree to a cease-fire, senior Hamas official Abdel Aziz Rantisi said in an interview with Haaretz Tuesday...Senior officials in Abbas's Fatah party confirmed Rantisi's assessment, telling Haaretz that the Palestinian Authority's security services had no intention of making – as well as no ability to make - mass arrests of Hamas members as they did in 1996.We learn that Hamas really is debating whether to accept a ceasefire. But the internal debate is about whether accepting the ceasefire, or not, gives Hamas the greater tactical advantage in its long-term plan to eliminate the Jewish state.
he did not repudiate the statement he made last week, immediately after being wounded in an Israeli assassination attempt, that "the struggle will continue until the last Jew has left the country."and
From a religious perspective, he explained, the Jews view this land as theirs, while Muslims view it as Muslim land that must be liberated.The difference is that the overwhelming majority of Jews are satisfied with a portion of the land, while Hamas insists on having the whole thing to itself. The interview closes
This led him to a view that has hitherto been associated with those defined as the movement's "moderates": If Israel would withdraw from all the land it captured in 1967, dismantle all the settlements and enable an independent Palestinian state, "there will be an end to the struggle, in the form of a long-term truce."Observation: when somebody tells you that their fundamental goal is to obliterate your existence, it's not necessarily a good idea to enter into a "truce" with them that will enable them to destroy you in stages.
Skeptical of the claim that the mainstream media is not liberal, I bought a copy of Eric Alterman's book What Liberal Media? so I could judge for myself whether or not
Alterman delivers well-documented, well-argued research in compulsively readable formI'm not ready to pass judgment yet, as I'm only on page 33, but here's what I found on page 22 [emphasis mine]:
Examine, for a moment, the corporate structure of the industry for which the average top-level journalist labors. Ben Bagdikian, former dean of the journalism school at the University of California at Berkeley, has been chronicling the concentration of media ownership in five separate editions of his book, The Media Monopoly, which was first published in 1983 when the number of companies that controlled the information flow to the rest of us -- the potential employment pool for jounalists -- was fifty. Today we are down to six.Did you get that? we are down to six companies that control the information flow. And how can you get more authoritative than a dean of the journalism school at Berkeley? With a book that has been revised five times, no less? In fact, this is such an authoritative source it has its own footnote. A footnote! And the footnote says nothing more than "Author's interview, April 22, 2002".
Now there is probably a way to frame a question about media concentration in such a way that the answer to the question is "six". But I'm no dean of a journalism school, least of all the one at Berkeley (Berkeley!). I'm just some ignorant schmuck and it's beyond me to measure newsholes and count cubic-minutes of viewer span. So I'll just try to think of the first blob of news media companies that come to the top of my head. Please, no wagering. First, there is television: GE (NBC), Disney (ABC), Viacom (CBS), AOL/Time Warner(CNN), Newscorp (Fox), and PBS. There's our six! on television alone! And I haven't even gotten to radio or newspapers yet. Let's see: The New York Times Company, Tribune Company, Knight Ridder, Washington Post Company, Reuters, (mine goes up to 11!). Then there's Associated Press, Okay, you've made your point, UPI, NPR, Hearst, PRI, Clear Channel. Move on already. McGraw-Hill, Forbes, STOP it! . Hollinger International Cut it out. The McClatchy Company, Dow Jones. Uncle! Oh, never mind....
.. oops, then there are the independent newspapers... Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! ... like the Seattle Times , enough already, Newsday NEENER! NEENER! NEENER! NEENER!The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel I'm warning you. Oh, wait, I can't believe I forgot about Cox. shut up. Gannett shut up!
How many is that?
Fuck you too, buddy
And don't forget all the independent news and commentary journals - The Nation, the New Republic, Mother Jones, National Review, and weblogs and The Progressive and The Atlantic and Harper's and hello? hello? what are you doing with that lighter fluid? hello?
In any event, only 233 more pages of "well-documented well-argued research" to go. Plus footnotes.
Did I mention Scripps Howard?
And while we're on the subject of mendacity in the newsroom [see the immediate previous post], Robert "Mr. Canard-o-matic" Scheer is up with this week's 3-alarm column. In today's column we have the following classic canards:
The "Bush is a Criminal Canard:
The Case of the Phantom Uranium raises questions about the president that could lead to legitimate calls for impeachment.The Imminent Threat Canard:
The president persistently claimed that the war was necessitated by the imminent threat of deployed weaponsThe Big Lie Canard
We now know that the threat of deployed WMD was a blatant falsehood. What has not been established is whether the president was in on the lie.Now we have a new canard about the forged Niger uranium document
Thus in his 2003 State of the Union address, the president intoned that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa." Scary stuff. Problem was, the document was signed by an official who had given up his post a decade earlier, and the CIA had told the White House the story did not check out.The other problem for your fabricated "scandal", Bob, is that Colin Powell himself acknowledged that the document was a forgery only days after the IAEA dismissed its validity. Three months ago. Before the war started. Some cover-up. Hit 'em with your best shot, Bob.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer continues to stonewall my requests to either validate or retract their astonishing claim that
The constitutional standard for warfare is for the United States to face a "clear and present danger."I have sent two follow-up e-mails to reader representative Glenn Drosendahl asking for documentation of the P-I's explanation that
[the standard of] when to declare war, has developed over time, through court rulings and political discussionsTwice I have asked for either a list of the specific court rulings or a retraction, twice I have received no response. I even sent Drosendahl a list of other blogs that criticize the editorial, which include:
Xrlq, SoCal Law Blog, Sleaze Report, Jim Miller, Reductio ad Absurdum and Kathy Kinsley. At least two others have since picked up on the P-I's editorial fabrication, including The Omudsgod and WSJ's Best of the Web. Still, no indication that the P-I is interested in retracting its fabrication. The P-I's credibility hangs in the balance.
Meanwhile, Xrlq points to the paper's Sunday editorial: "The case for war, case for credibility" Let's see what it can teach us about "credibility":
It may even be likely that illegal weapons will be discovered in Iraq. But the detection of such weapons might not be enough to bridge the credibility gap explaining the very reason we went to war.The P-I is still inconsolable that Saddam Hussein was removed from power and it is so out of touch with the majority of Americans that it has to grasp at straws in its desperate attempt to discredit the Bush administration. As we've seen, the P-I is willing to compromise its integrity by fabricating "constitutional standards". Sunday's editorial demonstrates a few more feats of disreputable journalism. For exampe, the P-I distorts people's quotes with ellipses, Dowd-style, and it rewrites its own prior interpretation of events. This Sunday:
Last October, the Bush administration made the case that Iraq posed a clear and present danger. "Some citizens wonder," the president said, "after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of Sept. 11. ... Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."The President's full quote is here:
Some citizens wonder: After eleven years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical weapon, or, when they have one, a nuclear weapon.That puts things in a different context, doesn't it? Anybody who reads this should be able to see that Bush did not portray Iraq as a "clear and present danger", but as a serious potential threat that even in the absence of certainty still had to be dealt with. In fact, that is exactly how the P-I interpreted his speech at that time.Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."
Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.
The case for forcing Iraqi disarmament, of course, does not rest solely on potential threats of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction or supplying them to terrorists. At the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, having suffered devastating military defeats, Iraq sued for peace and agreed to certain terms and conditions. Foremost among Iraq's obligations were disarming itself of all weapons of mass destruction and allowing inspections to verify compliance. Iraq repeatedly has failed to live up to those obligations. The United States is right to be leading the new -- and overdue -- push for complianceThe P-I can't find anything new to say, so it stoops to digging up discarded old news, and respins it as shamelessly as it can. This Sunday:
In Bush's State of the Union speech, he said Iraq sought uranium from Niger -- the materials needed to build a nuclear weapon. That intelligence report has since been discredited as fancifulWell yes, Colin Powell himself acknowledged that the report was a forgery back in March.
And that's the credibility gap between the Bush administration and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The administration admits its mistakes and retracts disproven allegations. The P-I, on the other hand, continues to publish fabrications, lies and distortions and refuses to retract its obvious mistakes.
On today's Hugh Hewitt show, Lileks says: It's apparently 120 degrees in the shade at Jasperwood; people in Minnesota are afraid that Gov. Gray Davis will run a railroad from L.A. to Minneapolis; He also (a) asks not to be trusted with power tools, but loves fireworks; (b) hopes to see Howard Dean capture the nomination in order to self-destruct; and (c) believes that Richard Gephardt comes from Venus; Tune in again next week.
Georgia Finds Dirty Bomb Material in Taxi
TBILISI (Reuters) - Georgian authorities have found highly radioactive material that could be used in a "dirty" bomb and a container of lethal Mustard Gas in a taxi in the capital Tbilisi, police said on Monday.I blame society.
Police searched the taxi on May 31 and found two metal boxes stuffed with radioactive by-products of nuclear fission, Cesium-137 and Strontium-90. One container, inscribed in Russian and English, weighed at least 170 pounds.
The Associated Press filed this report today, under the headline "Israel Pledges to Keep Attacking Hamas"
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pledged to keep up attacks on Hamas, and Egyptian mediators failed Monday to persuade the violent Islamic group and other militants to call a cease-fire.[emphasis mine]. Maybe the "and" should be replaced by "because". Oh, heck. Maybe the headline and lead paragraphs should be re-written as follows:
Hamas Pledges to Destroy Israel
The violent terrorist group Hamas continues to reject all appeals to stop killing civilians, insisting that it will not lay down its weapons until the Jewish state is exterminated. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pledged to continue defending his nation from Hamas terror attacks which have killed and maimed hundreds of innocent Israelis and show no signs of abating.
In last week's Father's Day column, Ruth Rosen channels the spirit of her departed father
Now, 10 years after his death, I can still imagine what he'd be thinking and saying today. He'd sharply criticize the U.S. Supreme Court for selecting a president; he'd excoriate President Bush for rejecting the International Criminal Court.On the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, Ruth Rosen channeled the spirit of the slain Dr. KingHe would be especially outraged that prisoners are languishing in a lawless netherworld at a naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. "No right to a lawyer? No right to hear charges? And now they're going to hold secret military tribunals? This is not the country I loved."
If he were alive today, King probably would be reviled by many as an unpatriotic traitor. Why? Because he would oppose a pre-emptive war on Iraq. Because he would organize nonviolent civil disobedience against American military aggression. Because he would lead a march of the poor against tax cuts for the rich.If Ruth Rosen's ideas had any validity, she wouldn't have to keep putting words in the mouths of dead people who can't refute her. Here are my predictions for some of Ruth Rosen's future holiday columns:
On July 4th, Ruth Rosen will tell us that Benjamin Franklin would have opposed school vouchers. On Purim, Ruth Rosen will tell us that Queen Esther would have favored abortion rights. On Thanksgiving, Ruth Rosen will argue that Miles Standish would have supported universal health insurance. And on President's Day, Ruth Rosen will say that if George Washington were alive today he would convert to Islam and become a suicide bomber.
From today's Seattle Times [print only]
Plum Creek Timber has 2,050 employees, not 800. It has 25 fewer employees than the previous year, not 1,275 fewer as reported in a chart last Sunday about companies that have lost the most employees during the last year.and
An article last Sunday on the importance of sleep mistakenly pegged the annual number of fatigue-related traffic fatalities at about 100,000. That figure is actually the total number of pertinent police-reported highway car crashes each year. The National Sleep Foundation says those crashes result in 1,500 deaths and 71,000 injuries.I commend the Seattle Times for diligently correcting their mistakes. I would also suggest that they expand their impressive "diversity" program
We benefit from a rich mix of ethnic diversity, cultures and perspectives, and we'll continue to diversify, striving to reflect our entire community.Perhaps they can start by striving to hire someone who is competent at mathematics.
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar says that
[Ariel] Sharon accepted the road map and he, therefore, has to fully implement it. The credibility of his government relies on this."Even though Palestinian "Prime Minister" Abu Mazen has done nothing to hold up his end of the bargain, his own credibility has not diminished in Aznar's eyes
Aznar says: "I recognize the difficulties facing a leader who must provide security to his citizens and who is suddenly required to restrain his actions. However, if Sharon continues to argue that he must act instead of Abu Mazen, it will be very difficult to move forward."Arafat has not lost any credibility in Aznar's eyes either
Aznar believes that isolating Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat is "not the solution," and rejects Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's boycott on any leader who visits Arafat in the Muqata.Abu Mazan and Yasser Arafat have both said they would not be satisfied with a Palestinian state. They also insist on a "right of return" for the descendents of the Arabs who chose to leave Israel in 1948. Coincidentally, many if not most Israelis are descended from the Jews who were kicked out of Spain by the Inquisition. Spain does not offer a right of return to Spanish Jews who were expelled from their homeland. I wonder how many Jewish refugees Spain would be willing to accept if the Palestinians accomplished their goal of expelling all the Jews from Israel.
Ha'aretz reports on a security co-operation meeting that was held on Saturday
Palestinian sources told Israel Radio that the meeting took place at the Herzliya home of U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer, thus giving U.S. patronage to the meeting. Israeli sources however said that the meeting took place in a Jerusalem hotel.Herzliya is about 40 miles northwest of Jerusalem. But presumably there is a diplomatic explanation that permits both sides to be right.
Here is a news story about graduation ceremonies at the nearby Evergreen State Terrorism Training Camp. Headline "Graduation day activities to honor slain activist"
One missing graduate will loom large over today's graduation festivities at The Evergreen State College as peace groups plan events to highlight her death.[emphasis mine]. Do you get that? People who support Palestinian terrorist organizations are described as "peace activists". Women in Black opposes the "occupation" of "Palestine", but not, for example, Syria's occupation of Lebanon, nor suicide bombings that kill Israeli women in, say, grocery stores.
...
Hundreds of volunteers from Women in Black, an international women's group promoting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, will stage a vigil during graduation.
Organizers are aware that some critics have expressed concern about the attention given to Rachel Corrie and see it as criticism of Israel that borders on anti-Semitism.I'm glad that Wendy Smith wants to be proud of Israel. But one gets the feeling that she would be more proud of a pile of five million dead Israeli victims than a thriving country that defends its own existence. The article concludes that giving moral support to Jew-killing terrorists is not anti-Semitic because the reporter didn't bother to solicit the opinions of any Jews other than the lunatic-fringe activists that were already self-identifed friends of Corrie.But Wendy Smith, a Seattle resident and member of Women in Black, said the group's agenda for ending the violent conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is not racist or anti-Semitic.
"I'm Jewish," she said. "I want to be proud of Israel."
Simona Sharoni, executive director of the Peace & Justice Studies Association on the Evergreen campus, is coordinating the effort.The Israeli-born Evergreen Professor Sharoni is author of the book Gender and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Politics of Women's Resistance. I wonder how Simona "Peace, Justice and Feminism" Sharoni feels about the fact that while Israel initiates force only against (mostly male) combatants, most of the people murdered in cold blood by the very un-feminist, un-peaceful and un-just Palestinian terrorists have been innocent civilians, including a large proportion of women.Sharoni, who is Jewish, said she is sensitive to criticism that honoring Rachel Corrie amounts to anti-Semitism.
"We are very sensitive to these accusations," she said.
Evergreen State College received $60 million of the taxpayers' money this year.
(thanks to the formidable Erin O'Connor for suggesting the article)
Reuters reports that
An Israeli air strike killed a Hamas militant and wounded 26 other Palestinians in Gaza City on Friday as the Jewish state, which later launched a second air attack, promised a "war to the bitter end" on the Islamic group.Meanwhile,But the United States urged restraint on its Israeli ally.
U.S. troops killed 27 Iraqis who they said ambushed a tank patrol on Friday, after killing at least 70 at a guerrilla camp the day before, in the bloodiest clashes since major combat was declared over.I have always supported the war in Iraq and accept the loss of 97 enemy soldiers as a legitimate price to pay in the pursuit of U.S. national security. On the other hand, I can't help but notice that no Iraqi, to my knowledge, has ever blown himself up on American public transportation. It seems both tasteless and counter-productive for the administration to call on its ally to exercise more restraint in fighting terrorism than the U.S. exercises. Especially when that ally's citizens suffer proportionately more at the hands of the same Islamofascists that we're all fighting together.
Europeaser Union Watch: EU opens debate on cutting off support for Hamas
BRUSSELS, June 13 — The European Union will consider how to cut off funding for Hamas after this week's suicide attacks against Israelis by the militant Islamic organisation, the bloc's foreign policy chief said on Friday.[emphasis mine]. I wonder which will happen first: (a) Israel exterminates the Hamas, or (b) the EU terminates funding for the Hamas. Please, no wagering.
''The EU will discuss this issue with a view to finding ways to end external support to Hamas,'' Javier Solana said in a statement.
An official said the statement showed the EU -- which has the military wing of Hamas on its list of banned ''terrorist'' groups but not its charitable wing -- finally opened the debate on a wider clampdown long sought by Washington.
That great down-there newspaper The Age calls Hamas "spiritual leader" Sheikh Ahmed Yassin "The Hamas leader Sharon dares not assassinate". I give the crippled former gymnast (read the article) one month, tops. But please, no wagering. The Age also quotes a "commander of Hamas's military wing" as being "ready for dialogue"
Hamas is not inflexible. It is our goal to return all of Palestine to its rightful owners but we recognise that this must come in stages.Some free business advice to The Age: Read the Hamas Charter
And this AP photo shows some young Hamas women who love America so much they are using this photo op in their application to study at Evergreen State College.
Evergreen State College is the perfect segue from the Hamas to Washington State and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Today's P-I has a front page "Analysis" piece on the recently concluded state budget. It opens with the delicious admission that
Liberals were doomed from the start.Add to the "What Liberal Media? Oh That Liberal Media" file, the P-I's wrap-up of the budget's "Winners" and "Losers". The former including: "Republicans", "Boeing and business" and "Gov. Locke", and the latter are: "The poor", "Teachers" and "Democrats". Mysteriously, their Winners column omits "Ordinary Taxpayers".
Today's White House Press Briefing
MR. FLEISCHER: As I just said, the issue is not Israel. The issue is not Palestinian Authority. Israel and the Palestinian Authority want to work together and are finding ways to work together. The issue is Hamas. The terrorists are Hamas. Hamas is no friend to the PalestinianDid everybody get that? Apparently one reporter didn't:
Authority. Hamas is a threat to everything that Prime Minister Abbas and those people in the Palestinian Authority who seek to create a state stand for. It's not as if a phone call will get Hamas to stop being terrorists.What's important is for everybody in the region to work together to defeat Hamas and violent terrorist organizations.
Q: So you don't have any problem with Israel's comments today that they're vowing to wipe out Hamas, and that the road map may be frozen if there's any more terrorist attacks that occur similar to the bus bombing?Somebody in Jerusalem has correctly parsed the President's judgment. A Ha'aretz flash update says:MR. FLEISCHER: What the President thinks has to happen is that all parties must defeat terror. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority want to work together in peace to create a state. Hamas is a threat to both. It's not as if Hamas is part and parcel of the Palestinian Authority. It's important to recognize that groups like Hamas have no interest in peace, no interest in the creation of the Palestinian state. Their goal is to kill. They are the enemies to peace, in the President's judgment.
Sources in Jerusalem: There is no limitation on targeting Hamas leaders, including Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.Meanwhile, the good folks in Ramallah are still searching for the clue button
Palestinian sources: Efforts to mediate be