Dean's World

Senator McCain finally admits his hierarchy of values: The Constitution is nice, but a mainstream media monopoly on opinion is nicer. (Via Instapundit.) No wonder they like him so much!

Presumably Senator McCain meant something along these lines. The problem is that he did not, and in my view cannot, make the argument that the U.S. is in the category of countries where government simply cannot function fairly because of corruption. It merely operates in a way that he and others find frustrating, even noxious. Furthermore, his solution is an absurd, cynical joke, because it regulates the political speech — the purest First Amendment interest — of everyone except those in the media business, who already control the most powerful and influential speech of all. (In other words, "in kind contributions" by the New York Times are not regulated, but political advertising in the New York Times are.) There is no policy basis for such a distinction; in fact logic dictates that this is actually a bad policy, and that merely expressing frustration with the way things are is a mighty slender reed for abrogating the First Amendment.

In fact, the McCain-Feingold Anti-Sedition Act actually gives more power to the one political power bloc — the mainstream media — that at once has elected itself to a branch of government ("the fourth estate") and yet which recognizes neither check nor balance on its power.

But perhaps we're wrong about this, in which case hopefully two things will happen. One is that the new Supreme Court will, as we fervently hope, reverse the perverse rulings upholding this law. And the second is that the good Senator will put the issue before the people and put his name on a proposed Constitutional amendment to actually and explicitly curtail the First Amendment in favor of "clean government" and, as we have said, a mainstream media monopoly on expression — and the democratic debate, and process, can work as intended.

John Donovan doesn't think much of the "general" who oversaw the Abu Ghraib scandal, or her recent attempts to justify herself.

The Cranky Insomniac speaks:

I will never understand how 300,000 bodies in mass graves along with the existence of rape rooms and torture chambers were not enough for most liberals to fervently support military action in Iraq. If that's not enough, if you think the figures from Darfur aren't enough to override any negative consequences, then what the hell is your tipping point?

Good question. TCI also supplies us with a handy classifications for some of those who object to intervention in Darfur: disgruntle-cons.

Oh, and BTW - Sudan and Terror.

These demonstrations have become non-news to everyone except the news services (who still put them above the fold). Why are they so unmoving to the rest of us?

• their frequency (isn't there one every weekend?)

• their amplitude (the one linked above featured "tens of thousands" in New York City according to the sympathetic AP - essentially the size of a nice picnic)

• their utter predictability ("Cindy Sheehan, a vociferous critic of the war whose soldier son also died in Iraq, joined in the march, as did actress Susan Sarandon and the Rev.Jesse Jackson") and

• their utter lack of any effect on how policy is made.

This last point may be the most important of all. It was proved powerfully by the last legitimately large rally phenomenon, the nuclear freeze rallies, which in New York City drew almost a million people 25 years ago and which nonetheless had no effect on the policy of the Reagan Administration — thank God.

Which, of course, reminds us of the aggregate of all these bullet points: With some exceptions, mass rallies on political issues in this country are usually staking out the wrong position.

UPDATE: In response to the first comment, I have to clarify: My question for the house is not, What do you think of the war? It's, What do people who are against the war, who go to demonstrations, think they're accomplishing?

From the Washington Post:

I've had the opportunity to travel to Iraq three times, most recently last month, courtesy of the nonpartisan Business Executives for National Security. On every trip I'm struck by the difference between the Iraq I hear and read about back home and the Iraq I see in person. Iraq defies expectations and easy definition.

For me as a business executive, these visits provide a firsthand look at the largest U.S. reconstruction effort since the Marshall Plan. As the father of a Marine who recently returned from a tour in Iraq, I find that these trips also offer a glimpse of our frontline troops that few military families ever see. Among my general impressions:

First, U.S. forces in Iraq remain focused on their mission. Talking with soldiers and Marines over dinner in their mess halls, it's easy to see why reenlistment rates among U.S. troops in Iraq are the highest in the military. These men and women understand their mission and believe they are making a difference. Like my son, Joe III, after he returned from a tough mission in Fallujah, the Marines I met said they would be happy to return to Iraq because they believe what they're doing is important.

There's more, all of it good, but I have to point out this most crucial part:

My flight out of Baghdad was a somber one. Our C-130 cargo plane bore the flag-draped coffin of an American soldier killed helping the Iraqi people defend themselves against a vicious insurgency. Back home, as the election-year debate over Iraq rages on, I think about that soldier's sacrifice and recall a final impassioned plea from an Iraqi general named Aziz: "Iraqi troops will finish this job; we will kill this insurgency. But please tell the American people and President Bush that America cannot withdraw before the Iraqi troops are ready. We can't stand alone yet. We need more time."

Read the whole thing right here.

(Via Bill.)

Michael Yon has a rather depressing report from Afghanistan.

It's long been believed that humans are unique for their language abilities, but recent science has shown that some language-type skills are found in other animals. For example, this recent study on European starlings. I personally found that story less interesting, however, than the fascinating fact that prairie dogs have their own language.

James Joyner notes that the Mexican government is doing something smart: decriminalizing most drugs.

Although I had to do a double-take on the reportage. "Even ecstacy?" [shakes head]

Cranky Insomniac notes a really dumb review of United 93.

So what are you up to?

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee was arrested yesterday outside the Sudanese embassy in Houston.

Five Congress members were willingly arrested and led away from the Sudanese Embassy in plastic handcuffs Friday in protest of the Sudanese government’s role in atrocities in the Darfur region.

“The slaughter of the people of Darfur must end,” Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., a Holocaust survivor who founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, said from the embassy steps before his arrest.

Four other Democratic Congress members — James McGovern and John Olver of Massachusetts, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Jim Moran of Virginia — were among 11 protesters arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly, a misdemeanor subject to a fine.

“We must hold the Sudanese government accountable for the attacks they have supported on their own citizens in Darfur,” Olver said.

Dozens of demonstrators carried signs, some reading “Stop the slaughter” and “Women of Darfur suffer multiple gang rapes,” in front of the embassy Friday morning.

The protesters cheered as the Congress members and others were cuffed, hands behind their backs, with plastic ties and quietly led to a white police van by U.S. Secret Service uniformed officers.

The arrests were expected. Lantos’ office issued a news release about them in advance.

It's not just Democrats who are pro-action in Darfur. Here is praise for Jackson-Lee from BlogHouston.net.

And we have yet to even begin discussing the Sudanese ties to terrorism. I will be posting more on this soon.

If I had it to do over again, I would have made Dean's World anonymous. If I had, I would have called it "Dispatches from Midnight Rider."

It didn't happen, but I still often think of this as the Dean's World theme song:

Yeah.

"Chick."

I've occasionally had someone tell me that this is a derogatory term toward women, and sexist.

I just don't see it. Am I missing something? Yeah sure you'll occasionally hear some guy use it disparagingly, but you can use any word disparagingly. "Woman, oh this frickin' woman wants to play with the men does she? (snear snear)" You can be like that with any word.

I love the word "chick." I use it all the time. Maybe it's my blue-collar background, but, I just do.

I'm also going to be 40 soon, and I came up in the '80s when it wasn't okay to do anything that gave off even a whiff of, even vaguely looked like, sexism. To be honest, I've been trying to decondition myself from that. Partly it's a matter of getting older and no longer feeling like I have to prove myself to anyone, and part of it's a bit of rebellion. But, I've been increasingly doing something that would have been gasp-inducing in polite society when I was in my 20s:

When I'm out in public, I often address women as "darlin'" or "sweetie" or "sweet thing." Casually, relaxed, and with a smile so they know I mean it.

And you know, without exception I have yet to have any woman take offense. I mean, not even a hint of a straightened spine, or a look of hurt, or subservience. Indeed, if I get any reaction at all, it's usually a bit of a preen, and a response where the woman calls me "sugar" or "honey" or occasionally "dude."

You know, it should be like that more often. I like women. I genuinely do. And I like it when women just genuinely like men. We have more in common than not, but we recognize and enjoy the differences. More of life should be like that, you know?

Can anyone explain to me why the heck we haven't just gone in bombed the crap out of the janjaweed militias in Darfur yet?

It's a simple question. Why are we discussing potential airstrikes on Iran but none on the murdering children-mutilating rapist thug scum?

Related: What the United States can do to end the crisis in Sudan (audio from NPR.org)

UPDATE: Several in comments ask not what we can do for Darfur but rather what doing something would do for us. Well, apart from giving substance to the President's own rhetoric about freedom, it would also give strength to the often-speculated "real purpose" of the Iraq War as being about creating islands of liberty in th emodst of the Islamic world, the better to foster the internal societal changes needed to fight the terrorist ideologies on their home soil.

Note - Sudan has extensive ties to terror. This has been extensively documented.

You should read Michael Totten's report from Israel.

Pay particular attention to the tale of the Bedouin. If you truly believe that Arabs and Muslims are forever fated to be hateful and evil toward Jews, just read it.

"The Best Discovery Since Fire—Pax Democratica"

Mike "Veeshir" Fisher said on Dean's World:

I wonder if we don't really have a long enough time-line to consider the Democratic Peace proven. After all, there aren't many democracies much over 100 years old and most of them are significantly younger.

Look at Japan and South Korea. They are two of our more stable democracies and they're having quite the tiff.

I do feel that democracies war on each other less. But..... People go to war. It's what we do. What happens when the majority of the Earth is democracies? Who do they war on? Or will it end war? And if it does end war, will it be because the US or somebody else is the most powerful and won't let the others war? Sort of like what happened in the USSR when they reserved the right to kill people to themselves.

RJR. The democratic peace has been tested on every democracy that has existed in history, most notably by Spencer Weart. See the summary chapter of his book Never At War. Anther way of looking at this is that there are 121 democracies today, and not a chance of even military action between any of them. Not even among the European nations, which throughout history have been at each other's throats. What changed this is that they all became democracies.

(Continued here)

Neo has an essay.

Whooom!

You have to wonder if part of Hartmann's success didn't have something to do with the quality of Soviet pilots and equipment. But the achievement is still dizzying.

(Via Bill.)

Quote: After lingering, mild flu season fades away.

This was the flu season that the establishment told us might kill between 5 million and 150 million people, and that one well-funded, deep-pocketed virus researcher said might kill as much as half the human population.

We keep throwing bucketfulls of money at these "researchers," and every year we let them scare the crap out of us regarding their Flavor Of The Month Bug: Ebola, SARS, West Nile, Avian Flu, Swine Flu, Mad Cow, and on and on.

Indeed, here's my prediction: by fall of 2006, or fall of 2007 at the latest, there will be yet another new bug that "might wipe out hundreds of millions of people," with a catchy new acronym or nickname. And there will be screaming headlines, and people looking very seriously at each other, reminding themselves of the 1918 flu epidemic--never once asking themselves if sanitary conditions, nutrition, and lack of antibiotics to treat secondary infections had anything to do with the death toll of that particular plague in 1918.

One of these days there's going to be Hell to pay for the Virus Hunters. Can't be soon enough for me. The whole thing has morphed into an incredible boondoggle of Big Government Incompetence meeting Big Business Greed. They should be laughingstocks by now.

The attacks on pro-Global War On Terror blogs has been steadily expanding, with many blogs under attack. Let's hope Federal law enforcement, not to mention Interpol, is getting involved. Details right here.

You don't even have to like the bloggers involved. Free speech is what's under attack here, and that's a problem for all of us.

Well, this certainly looks promising.

The big problem with solar power for electricity--aside from all the chemical waste it involves--has long been that it's just not efficient enough to be practical for most things. But the more efficient they get, the more viable solar power gets.

This is a few years old but it's still a classic.

Moderately unsafe for work, if you work with prudes.

So what are you up to this evening?

Got any cool links?

We often hear that there's a crisis in U.S. elections. Voters are "turned off" or "apathetic" because "these days" things are so bad. I've never really believed it's much different today than in the past, and any time I've researched it I've found that the differences in voter turnout never seem all that great. But have a look at this chart for a really strong look at it--what voter turnout looked like from the ratification of the Constitution to the present:

(Click the image for more details.)

Yeah it's a little lower these days than 150 years ago. But it's hardly horrific or dramatic, is it?

One thing I've learned about looking at data: if you want to see the most illuminating trends, look at the data going as far back as you can, and as up to date as you can. Because then, so often what looks alarming or amazing is simply neither one.

Image courtesy of Larry J. Sabato, who has lots more interesting things to say as they probably apply to this year's election.

The Media Bloggers Association is getting involved on behalf of Lance Dutson, a blogger in Maine who's being sued in connection of his serious criticism of certain local government shenanigans.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds, speaking at Harvard, reports:

A relatively unknown gadfly was irritating the agency and its client, the Maine Office of Tourism. Now Dutson is a cause celebre in the blogosphere, and his allegations about the agency and the tourism department are headed for very wide distribution.

Already, the first Google page in a search for "Warren Kremer Paino Advertising " shows entries from the Maine Web Report, but not the agency's own homepage -- and I'd guess that Google front page is going to get uglier for WKP in the weeks ahead.

Well, I didn't get that Google result, but of course he's still right. Not that I'm not biased.

Headline of the week: Bra Makers Need Bigger Sizes For Chinese Women

The things some people manage to get outraged about!

Wicked!

We live in an age when in half of the world people are generally happy, living comfortably, saying what they wish, and voting for those they want to represent or lead them. They have no fear that the security policy will knock on their door at 3am to arrest them, or as they leave their home or workplace to grab and manhandle them into a waiting barred van or black limousine. They don't even think that they might be tortured, raped while under arrest, or spend the rest of their life in some hellhole of a prison or camp. And possible summary execution is beyond thought and even nightmares. Such is life in the democracies.

But then, in the rest of the world, such as Sudan, Burma, Iran, and North Korea, people quake in fear for their lives and that of their loved ones. They have no security; they live at the whims of the thug regimes and their henchmen who enslave them. And they are killed by the millions.

This is going on NOW, in our moment of world history, and the happy and peaceful, life respecting democracies turn their eyes from this minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour, and day-by-day democide.

In the future, when the world is all democratic, students reading their history books on our world that is half-free, and half-enslaved by thug regimes, will ask: "Why, with all their massive power over the thug regimes, did free people allow this mass murder and enslavement of their fellow human beings? How could they? And then they stupidly kept saying, "Never Again," when this carnage happened again, and again, and again. Where was the outrage, the will to stop it?"

Yes, we will have to answer to the future.

(Continued here)

Aaron, who's been under a withering assault from hackers from Saudi Arabia, is back up again.

Holy cow: Quentin Tarantino has signed to direct a Jimi Hendrix biopic.

I'm trying to wrap my head around that. That could really suck. Or it could be a major change of direction for Tarantino--sort of like when Spike Lee directed "X" in such a radical departure from his earlier work.

Tarantino could probably also capture the utter insanity of Hendrix's extraordinary rise to fame. If you don't know what I'm talking about, just read The Legend of Jimi Hendrix.

You know, I would suppose that most people would not be as geeked as I am about stories like this, but... Quoted:

By stripping the E. coli genome of vast tracts of its genetic material - hundreds of apparently inconsequential genes - a team of Wisconsin researchers has created a leaner and meaner version of the bacterium that is a workhorse of modern biology and industry.

The feat, reported this week (April 28, 2006) in the journal Science, demonstrates that scientists can make precise, large-scale genetic alterations to organisms without compromising their basic functions. It represents some of the first hard results in a new field of science known as synthetic biology, where researchers are able to mold the entire genomes of bacteria and viruses in unprecedented ways.

They removed--as in, simply edited out--over fifteen percent of this bacterium's genetic code, stuff they basically decided was junk spread throughout the genome. And they got as a result an organism that looks and act just like normal, natural E. Coli.

So this is the state of the art today:

1) They can literally rewrite a genome for an organism.
2) They can produce viable species out of such edits.
3) They understand genetics well enough that they can decide with fair accuracy what's really needed and what's superfluous.

All three of those facts by themselves are impressive. This is way, way beyond what I'll bet most people thought to be possible with today's technology.

Biotechnology appears to be approaching the "knee" of the exponential growth curve, where people suddenly start to notice how fast things are moving.

Designer babies anyone? It may be way closer than you think. Yeah yeah, I know: "But Dean, it's just bacterium! It only reproduces asexually!" Yeah. Anyone else remember when 56kbps was a screaming fast connection?

Hmmmmm.

I don't know if that excites or worries me.

(Thanks Dwayne.)

Yikes!

(Via Goofyblog.)

I see that Air America is still sinking in the ratings. This, to me, is no surprise. Contrary to some conservatives' view, however, I don't think it's for lack of interest in radio that puts forward a "liberal" point of view. I think it's because Al Franken and Co. have put the cart before the horse. They listened to right-wing radio and found it obnoxious, and decided that obnoxious is what sells. Big mistake.

I haven't written anything about the new film, United 93, mostly because I haven't known what to say. But Todd Beamer's father has a review you should read.

Todd, in case you've forgotten, was one of the passengers on that fated flight, the one whose last words, heard by his relatives as he hung up his cell phone, were "let's roll."

It'll tide you over

...even on the internet. Case in point: Facts On Farts.

(Sadly, most of the links are out of date. But the information content on the page itself is still all good so far as I know!)

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's anti-Israel conspiracy theories have inspired praise and support from the usual suspects..

David Duke says:

"It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American university essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started."

I've started a petition drive for college and university teachers to defend John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt from baseless charges of anti-Semitism. I apologize for limiting the petition base this way, but others are welcome to create other petitions that anyone can sign. I feel it is time for teachers in higher education to stand up and be counted on this issue of the chilling of academic inquiry through character assassination. At a time when the use of congressional funding to universities to limit and shape curricula and research is openly advocated, all of us academics are on the line. And if scholars so eminent as Mearsheimer and Walt can be cavalierly smeared, then what would happen to others?

Robert Fisk, like Duke and Cole, basically praises Mearsheimer and Walt for validating every major point he's made since before the Iraq war started.

We've all heard the words before, but according to David T. at Harry's Place, the interesting part is the illustration accompanying Fisk's article:

What makes this one notable, however, is that the Independent has chosen to present Fisk's argument in an even more, erm, forthright manner than Fisk himself. What Fisk merely insinuates, the Independent makes crystal clear.

They've entitled their piece "A United States of Israel?", and illustrated it with a picture of the Stars and Stripes, in which the stars have been replaced by jewish stars of David.

It is reminiscent of the "Kosher Conspiracy?" illustration in the New Statesman - which featured a star of David impaling the Union Jack - a few years ago.

In both cases, the headline used a question mark: as if to imply that nobody should mistake this for racist propaganising, because the publications were only asking the question, you know...-

In the old days, that kind of thing used to be a violation of Godwin's Law. That was before the moronic convergence started Godwinning themselves.

A Galactica spinoff series, called Caprica, is in the works, according to SciFi.com.

To be honest, it doesn't sound interesting to me, but, the creative team they've put together looks pretty strong, including one of the writers from 24....

Quoted:

At least two start-ups have developed technology that monitors a player's brain waves and uses the signals to control the action in games. They hope it will enable game creators to immerse players in imaginary worlds that they can control with their thoughts instead of their hands.

San Jose's NeuroSky has been testing prototypes of its system that uses a sensor-laden headband to monitor brain waves, and then uses the signals to control the interaction in video games. They hope that such games are just the beginning of a mind-machine interface with many different applications.

``Research on brain waves is well known,'' said NeuroSky Chief Executive Stanley Yang. ``But we have worked on a way for detecting them with a low-cost technology and then interpreting what they mean. We think this will have broad applications.''

More right here.

Dave Price In Baghdad

For the past week, Price has gone from Kuwait to Iraq's Sunni Triangle to Baghdad with a show for U.S. troops.

...One GI told Price: "I know that we are helping rebuild a nation that was once under a dictatorship."

Price says soldiers tell him: "'It took the United States hundreds of years to get democracy up and running and operating smoothly, and you really need to expect that it's going to take a significant amount of time for it to happen here.' They've also said they don't work in the pentagon. They're not part of the politics of this whole event. They're here to do a job. And what they're trying to do is actually transition from warrior to peace maker and ambassador.

"They said one of the hardest things to actually communicate to people at home is the ability that these groups have had to build trust among the Iraqis and the Iraqi police, and that's hard to put in a headline, and it's hard to put on video. But they've done a fine job."

Price did a similar tour about a year ago for the troops in Afghanistan and says the conditions in Iraq are significantly better than they were in Afghanistan.

"And, as anyone who's been on their second or third tour will say, things have really begun to improve," he says.

One of the most indispensible features to appear in the blogosphere in the last few years was Art Chrenkoff's "Good News From Iraq" series. Art was forced for career reasons to retire from it, and since then there have been several efforts to revive it by other parties, with mixed success. The best to date has probably been Scott Crawford's Iraq's Progress series for National Review Online, and the Winds of Change crew's Good News From The Front. But without disparaging any of those efforts, I think a better tack can be taken. Good News From the Front is a blog, not a regular feature you can count on, and without being rude about it, National Review and Scott Crawford are overtly partisan conservatives.

What's going on in Iraq is not a partisan isssue, it is a monumentally important struggle that all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should be very involved in. It is in some ways a conservative cause, but in many other ways a very liberal one. It is neither left nor right. Nor is it an American issue: it is an issue of enormous ramifications for the entire Arab world and, more importantly, the entire human race.

Sadly, in America, it has degenerated into a sniping partisan issue. That needs to change. And even more sadly, we have a press that pretty much treats the war effort like a Hollywood movie or some form of gruesome pornography: all that's fit to print on the front pages is too often nothing but death and destruction and mayhem.

Yet those of us who have friends who live there, relative who've served there, know the truth: the story is neither all negative nor all positive, but, if all you do is scan the headlines then you see an overwhelmingly negative picture. This is a dangerous form of misinformation, and there needs to be a counterbalance.

I've written Art Chrenkoff about this, and he's given me his blessing to do whatever I want to try to resurrect "The Good News From Iraq." So I'm going to take the plunge and, without disparaging or competing with any other efforts, try to get this feature up and running again, on a bi-weekly basis, and to promote it as far and wide as possible.

Without question, this will not be "balanced." The entire focus is simply on "what are the good things that are happening that you might not know about?" That's the mission.

The truth is that to do this, however, I'll need help. What I envision we'll need is a team. We'll have an inbox to collect news stories, which can come from any legitimate source: mainstream press, blog postings from respected (and non-anonymous) bloggers, government press releases, and so on. We'll need "stringers," people who volunteer to scan the 'net semi-regularly looking for interesting and positive stories--whether it's about Iraqis, or the Iraqi government, or their security forces, OR good things happening in other parts of the world to help Iraq, OR about what coalition forces--any members of the coalition--are doing that's good and laudable.

It's important that people know that what's going on in Iraq is not just a non-stop scream of violence and destruction. We need a bi-weekly release rounding up all the best news story from the region, and one that's conducted in a completely non-partisan way. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans, right-wingers or left-wingers, about being pro-military or anti-military, or any of that. It's about getting the story out that isn't being heard.

Will anyone volunteer to help me?

Support for the democratic peace proposition that democracies don't make war on each other continues to accumulate from social scientific research, while the information gatekeepers continue to ignore it. This is an incredible gap. On the one side there is these well accepted empirical findings about this solution to war, democide, and famine; on the other side is American foreign policy based on these findings; but in the middle there is a vast ignorance and misunderstanding of the democratic peace. So, I will continue to harp on it in the hope that I will help making more widely known this incredible power of democratic freedom. That is the purpose of this blog, my website, my novels, and all else I've written in the last 25 years.

Also to this end, I want to present the best work I've read on the democratic peace, which is the Ph.D. dissertation by Harries-Clichy (Pete) Peterson, Jr., titled PAX DEMOCRATICA: IMPLEMENTING THE INTER-DEMOCRATIC PEACE PROPOSITION (University of Hawaii, 2001—I had retired well before then and was not a member of his dissertation committee). The date is crucial, since it was written the year of the 9/11 attack, and thus before President Bush announced his democratic peace based, Forward Strategy of Freedom. Anyone reading both Peterson's dissertation and Bush's speeches since then might conclude that Bush had studied what Peterson had to say. I don't think so, but it is clear that both are eating at the same social scientific table.

(Continued here)

Speaking of organizations with (genuinely) hidden agendas, Trudy Schuett has an interesting look at misbehaving Netizens and dishonest advocacy groups.

Part 2 is here.

Gay Patriot has some rather pointed questions for the Log Cabin Republicans.

I'm not taking sides in this, but it does point out to me, once again, how awful these "independent" organizations are. They were created by the despicable "campaign finance reform" laws, and they are incredibly difficult to hold accountable for anything.

Yes, Log Cabin Republicans existed before these "527" groups did, but many formerly respectable groups turned into "527" political groups because of the campaign finance "reform" laws and became something hideous they never used to be: simple money-laundering systems for very partisan agendas--agendas that might not even match the name of the organization.

(Let me be clear. It's okay not to be a Republican. It's okay to be against Bush. But is it okay to call yourself a pro-Republican organization, then give almost all your money to Democratic candidates and causes, under the guise of campaign finance "reform" laws that make this sort of skullduggery seductively easy?)

Aaron's CC was recently attacked and hacked by what appear to have been primarily Saudi Arabian hackers, who apparently don't like his hawkish views on the War on Terror--or his, er, Jewishness.

An interesting question being, is Aaron the first? Will he be the last?

Hmm. Curiouser and curiouser: there doesn't seem to have been very much actual news in Dana Priest's Pulitzer-winning "expose" of supposed torture and illegal detention facilities. Dan Riehl shows, rather patiently (please, do click the link and read before commenting) that most of the things "exposed" in the 2005 report was just rehashings of things reported before.

Quite honestly, while I was taken aback by just how very similar the stories from 2002 and 2005 were, I wasn't surprised by this. I've noticed for four years now a decided shift in attitudes in the press and in some--not all, some--circles on the subject of torture.

Indeed, ever since September 11, 2001, the subject of "torture" has resurfaced roughly every 6-9 months throughout the blogosphere. It's so regular, and so repetitious, it's almost funny. I've noted this every time it comes around: "Oh, here's the 'torture' meme again." And every time it comes around, the same arguments are put forth, but everyone involves seems to act like none of the earlier news, and none of the earlier conversations, ever took place.

My own view on the subject of torture has never--and I do mean never--wavered much at all. My very first posting on Dean's World on the subject was this one, written almost exactly four years ago: Torture Abu Zubaydah? Interestingly enough, it was exactly the fourth posting I ever wrote for Dean's World. And I think that if you search Dean's World on torture, and look for anything involving the War On Terror, you'll find that my view has never changed substantially. There are things I consider real Torture with a capital T that should never be done, or only be done in the most horrible emergencies. But there are lesser offenses which I consider acceptable against illegal combatants captured in times of war. Sleep deprivation, yucky food, annoying music, stuffy rooms, uncomfortable seating positions that are non-crippling, minor infliction of pain that is non-debilitating, frightening people by letting dogs bark at them, poking them with fingers, yelling at them in ways that won't puncture their eardrums, humiliating them, and things on that level are all perfectly acceptable to me if the belief is that it's going to save lives or help round up more members of Al Qaeda. Because I do believe we are indeed at war, and the enemy does not follow the Geneva Conventions and should not be treated like those who do--even though I draw the line at anything truly crippling or life-threatening, since that's genuinely wrong. Ditto doing any of that to people we only have vague suspicions about.

I am also willing to wager that the vast majority of Americans would agree with all of that, without hesitation. I will happily debate all that with anyone, at any time. Indeed, it would be interesting to see a national debate on that during this election year: I suspect those who took my side in such a debate would win the election handily.

Anyway, the only change I've noticed over the last four years is that whereas I was, in the early days after 9/11, often lambasted for being a bleeding heart liberal pansy for my views (no killing, no crippling, avoid inflicting pain if you can, use extreme measures only in extreme cases), now I am routinely lambasted as a cold-hearted right-wing torture advocate. My view's never wavered much, but some other people's views have. I do find that fascinating.

So, again I note: read Dan's compare-and-contrast of the Washington Post's reporting on this issue, between 2002 and 2005, and ask yourself: what's changed?

Dan suggests this is fraud, but I don't think that's it. I think it's that people have honestly forgotten, that some people of certain mentalities have simply obliterated what they were saying and thinking four years ago so they can act shocked and appalled today.

It does of course still leave open the question of what truly classified material the tratior Mary O. McCarthy and her friend Dana Priest actually spilled. Frankly, though, I'd rather not know that--I just want to know that the traitors are caught and punished.

In continuing analysis of the conspiracy theorist film "Loose Change," I here present part II, courtesy of YouTube:

In watching the beginning of this film, I immediately notice footage that contradicts what the film makers said earlier. The photos they gave us led us to believe there was basically a roundish hole where the "missile or whatever" hit. Yet clearly, from the helicopter photos, we see an enormous trough has been cut clean through from roof five floors down to the floor, cutting almost to the center of the building--not at all consistent with a pinpoint missile strike to my (utterly untrained and non-expert) eye.

I notice once again we're also relying on a small handfull of eyewitness accounts, who are either carefully quoted without context and not interviewed in-depth to ask them for any clarifications. Also, much is made of one lady who claims that while she was in the hospital she was visited by anonymous men in black who urged her to take the insurance money and keep her mouth shut about what she saw. Now, correct me if I'm wrong but there were hundreds of people hospitalized from the Pentagon strikes. Is there any possibility even one of them was a little goofy in the head? Or even dazed and woozy from a head injury? Where's the followup on this woman who claims the Men In Black visited her?

The filmmakers make much of the fact that there were extra explosions after the intial impact at the Pentagon and at the twin towers. Why would that be surprising? Secondary explosions would be expected after a massive impact and fuel spillage, wouldn't they be? I'm not a firefighter, so tell me if I'm wrong about that. Also, is it plausible that there were parts of the Pentagon which had some items in it that might explode under the right circumstances?

They make much of the fact that in the 1940s an airplane hit the Empire State Building, and it didn't collapse. They erroneously tell us it was a B-52. No it wasn't, it was a B-25, a much smaller plane. Indeed, I checked numerous sources: a B-25 is a 10 ton airplane, propeller driven. The 757 is about a 65 ton jet airplane. The B-52 would likely have been going a couple of hundred miles an hour or so, probably less as it was flying through fog in an area where the pilot felt lost and trapped amid buildings. The 757s that hit the WTC were going at their top speed of around 500 miles per hour. It's an unbelievably large disparity, even leaving aside questions of whether the WTC towers were build in such a way to make them more likely to collapse.

I notice they're doing a whole lot of quoting from news sources, very selectively, without much context. I also notice that we're more than halfway through this film before they even give us our first interview with anyone who was present at the World Trade Center disaster--and he's a janitor who worked there.

Nothing wrong with being a janitor. At all. He's a ligitimate eyewitness. But the only reason he seems to be there is to help establish that there were multiple explosions after the airplanes hit. I just have to ask: I'm no fire expert, but when you have a major building on fire, are secondary explosions not kind of, well... common? Or what?

Why are they not interviewing any of these experts on building construction, fires, military, etc.? This movie's almost 2/3rds done, and we have no real interviews except a flight school instructor, and a janitor from the WTC? All these people you're carefully quoting, and you've talked to none of them?

And finally in this segment, as we are 2/3rds done with the film, we have some very short clips of interviews with some FDNY guys, taken from another documentary, with just a few seconds from each of these guys chosen to make their point.

I haven't seen the final third yet. So I'm just being honest about what I'm seeing as I see it. Maybe that's not fair, maybe I should be watching the whole thing before saying anything, but... from the very moments this film started I've seen problems with their entire approach and an awful lot of flimsy reasoning.

Tomorrow I'll post the last segment and my final thoughts. I invite readers to tell me what I've gotten wrong, or if they think there's something important I'm missing.

Bottom 2: Paris and The Pickle. I'm not happy to see Paris there but not surprised. :-(

Gone: THE PICKLE!!!!

Update: By the way:

Season 1 winner: Kelly Clarkson, from Fort Worth Texas.
Season 2 winner: Ruben Studdard, from Birmingham, Alabama--with close runner-up Clay Aiken from Raleigh, North Carolina.
Season 3 winner: Fantasia Barrino, from High Point, North Carolina.
Season 4 winner: Carrie Underwood, from Cheecotah, Oklahoma, with close runner-up Bo Bice from Huntsville, Alabama.
Season 5: Of the five remaining contestants, Katherine McPhee is from California. The other four are from Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. Spot the trend?

I now theorize that southerners tend to exert a strong influence on this competition, and most of them really were sick of The Pickle's "Ahm from Hooterville and I done gradjitated from the 4th grade!" schtick.

Update: Apparently, the Mystic Negro disciplehood say Vote for the White Dudes! Well this year, I (probably) agree. Heh.

I just saw last night's Boston Legal.

You know, it's always a good episode when Denny Crane shoots someone. And in this one, he shot someone twice, so it was twice as good!

Heh. What a hilarious show.

After a couple of under-the-weather months during the bad weather months, Bob Cox of The National Debate and the Media Bloggers Association is back in business.

He also continues his strenuous efforts to save the Republic from its single biggest threat, Keith Olbermann, though it seems unlikely — given the pernicious role of that online Fifth Column, Wikipedia — that even the talented Mr. Cox can turn back that red tide.

The bombing of the Shiite al-Askari shrine in February brought furious reprisals. The attack also exposed the insurgents' strategy: divide and conquer. Exploit simmering ethnic and religious tensions. Make sure a free and democratic Iraq never rises.

Internecine killing continues, of course, whether it's called a civil war or something else. But Iraq now has a new prime minister-designate, Jawad al-Maliki, and a top leadership representing all of the people. Most important, its leaders appear to have learned the most necessary art in a democracy: compromise.
...
In a country without a long history of democratic traditions or institutions, a country strafed by a violent insurgency and struggling to find its national voice, this is a hopeful day. Just as sure, this is a grim day for the insurgents, a day that they had hoped to derail. A unified, free and democratic Iraq is what they fear most.

...he decided to save the air force for future needs and ordered his commanders to hide their aircraft. This decision was yet another indication that Saddam did not believe coalition ground forces would ever reach into the heart of Iraq. He was sure his regime would survive whatever conflict ensued.
...
When it came to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), Saddam attempted to convince one audience that they were gone while simultaneously convincing another that Iraq still had them. Coming clean about WMD and using full compliance with inspections to escape from sanctions would have been his best course of action for the long run. Saddam, however, found it impossible to abandon the illusion of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world.

As late as March 30, Saddam thought that his strategy was working and that the coalition offensive was grinding to a halt. On that day, Lieutenant General Abed Hamid Mahmoud, Saddam's principal secretary, directed the Iraqi foreign minister to tell the French and Russian governments that Baghdad would accept only an "unconditional withdrawal" of U.S. forces because "Iraq is now winning and . . . the United States has sunk in the mud of defeat."

There are two kinds of liberty, negative and positive. Negative liberty is freedom "from" things; positive liberty is freedom "to do" certain things. Berlin describes how these notions of liberty have been put to very different uses in history and how each concept attracts a different kind of political soul.

Negative liberty means simply that one is free from interference by the state and others, that one has a zone of liberty and in that zone there can be no interference so long as another's liberty isn't constrained. What you do in the zone of negative liberty is your business.
...
Negative liberty is the ethos of classic liberalism, not 'liberalism' in the partisan sense that the word is typically used in America today. Its essence is, "I know what's best for me, leave me alone."

The vast majority of Americans now have internet access, and more than a third have broadband. Both trends are still growing rapidly.

These and other interesting statistics right here.

In March I wrote a blog on my just completed The Blue Book Of Freedom, which I wrote to get the word out about the incredible virtues and moral goods of democratic freedom. I purposely kept it short (about 80 pages), on message, and factual. It is a declaration of war on thug regimes, and I envision the book as something like Mao's Red Book. People are encouraged to wave it vigorously in front of the North Korea, Sudan, and Iran embassies shouting, "Long live freedom. Down with thug regimes." Even, "We will bury you."

I sent a query about the book to over a dozen literary agents, all of whom said they weren't interested in handling it. But, I wrote this query stupidly, and included this turn off:

This democratic peace—especially that democracies don't make war on each other—is the foundation of President Bush's foreign policy. It was a pillar of President Clinton's foreign policy also, and has been articulated by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Rice, and Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, among other leaders.

So, I eliminated the offending paragraph and sent out another query to a different batch of agents. So far, I got one request to consider the book.

But there is success in another direction. John Wagner of the John Wagner Recording Studios in Albuquerque New Mexico, the largest recording facilities in the Southwest, volunteered to produce a three-CD audio of the book. It sounds and looks great, and obviously much expertise went into the production. He is advertising it on his website and you can purchase it there. I receive no royalties and all money he receives from the sale of the CDs will go toward costs or into a special fund for marketing the audio and spreading its message.

So there you are. If you want to listen to my eternal truths about freedom while you drive, eat, or lie in bed with your sweetheart (no, better than Debussy's Bolero), it can be yours.

Click to hear a sample

A friend of mine who I like and respect recently saw a documentary called "Loose Change," which alleges basically that there are numerous inconsistencies in the official 9/11 story. Parts 1-3 are on YouTube. I started to explain what I found wrong with it, but I thought I might be easier to discuss it here.

Here's Part 1 of the film, via YouTube. I'm not sure I'll watch, or post, the other two parts.

Time was when this film would have made me angry. I would have refused to link it just because I didn't want to encourage these people. But enough time has gone on since 9/11, and I've run across enough people who think there are "inconsistencies in the official story," that it seems maybe a constructive analysis of something like this would be useful.

I am only being honest when I say that I see all the hallmarks of a Conspiracy Theory here in this film. It's not that I don't like contrarian views, or radical thoughts. I have my own opinions which often run counter to the established wisdom. So let me explain what are, to me, the hallmarks of Conspiracy Theories:

---

1) Conspiracy Theorists rely on evidence that they themselves have carefully put together, even though none of them are experts in the subject. They then ask you to draw your own conclusions, even though you're not an expert either.

2) In events with huge numbers of eyewitnesses, it is entirely normal for there be people who are confused, misremember things, contradict themselves, or contradict each other. You see it every day: people don't even agree with each other on what they just saw on the news last night, let alone some big scary event where things are blowing up and people are screaming and running for their lives. But such normal contradictions are used by Conspiracy Theorists as evidence that something is very deeply wrong.

3) Conspiracy Theorists require that very large numbers of people--hundreds, even thousands--are involved in carefully plotted and carefully timed events, and then all (or mostly all) keep their mouths shut, and continue to hide the "real truth."

4) Conspiracy Theorists tend to have an explanation for everything. Or, they expect you to. In real life there are often ambiguities and things people don't quite understand. This is normal, but the Conspiracy Theorist uses it as evidence that something is very deeply wrong.

5) Conspiracy Theorists have an overpowering narrative to explain the whole thing which involves something very sinister, such as world domination, spreading an Empire, swinging an election, exterminating Jews, blacks, white Christians, or whatever.

---

Now to be clear, none of these things PROVES a theory wrong. But any one of them is a red flag for me. The more of them I see, the more troubled I become. And I gotta be blunt, I see ALL of them in this film.

Furthermore, some of the items these guys bring up are just plain goofy. They want us to believe there was extra gear on the bottom of one of the planes, and none of the ground crew ever saw that? And the plane could still fly? And shoot missiles? Can we find an expert on civil aircraft who would support that theory?

They show us a photo of the plane hitting and a bit of a white flash before the orange explosion--so they want us to think a missile got shot out of this extra hidden gear at the bottom of the plane? How's this for an alternate explanation, from non-expert me? The plane nose hits, and a bunch of white concrete rubble flies out just before the belly of the plane with all the fuel hits.

Just a guess, but who do you think's closer to the truth? Me? Or these guys who want to tell us a freaking missile from special add-on equipment was shot from the belly of the plane, a fraction of a second before impact?

I could go on and on like this, but I don't think I have the energy. I mean, what really gets me is this:

There actually was a conspiracy here: a group of Islamic radicals, who years ago declared war on the United States and the Western World, decided to kill a bunch of Americans by flying airplanes into buildings. That's not enough of a conspiracy for you? You need something involving the U.S. military, the C.I.A., the F.B.I., the White House, The Pentagon, and even people placed inside the World Trade Center to carry this all off?

Popular Mechanics has a pretty good myth-debunking article that goes into a lot of this stuff. I nevertheless leave up the video, to invite Dean's World commenters to tell me if they think I'm wrong and have missed something important, or to chime in with whatever flaws they might also see in this film.

I'm hoping it generates some worthwhile discussion that doesn't degenerate into name-calling. Please try to discusses the merits of the film rationally, without name-calling or any of that. Tell me what else you see wrong here--or of you think I'm wrong about something, please tell me what you think I'm missing that's important.

Here are my notes on last night's performance more or less as I wrote them while watching. I’m honestly not much looking forward to this: love songs, with Andrea Bocelli as an inspiration? I’m skeptical that it’s a good match for this group but I guess we’ll see. First up:

Katherine: She’s doing "I Have Nothing." I have to admit... she's not making me think much about Whitney Houston, and is putting her own spin on it quite nicely. I’m not a huge fan of Katherine's but that wasn’t bad.

Judges: Randy thinks it was too big a song for her. Paula sounds weird, like she’s talking from a tunnel. She's also making excuses for Katherine, obviously didn’t like it. Simon basically says that she’s just not as good as Whitney Houston and shouldn’t have tried that song.

I actually think they were too tough on her. That wasn’t earth-shattering but I liked what she did with it. (Then again, I’m not a Whitney Houston fan. At all.)

Elliot: A great Donny Hathaway song. Holy cow, this may be Elliot’s best performance on this show yet. He really sounds like this is coming from deep inside him. That was just great.

Judges: Randy says he didn't like the arrangement, but he thought Elliot was the bomb. Paula bursts into tears. Jeez. I’ve never seen that. Simon says it was superb.

The Hideous Pickle: Oh please oh please oh please. I'm praying for a train wreck. She's going to do Unchained Melody? Are you kidding? Oh man oh man... there is no way in Hell she can sing this. Bocelli and Foster are being nice to her just because she’s a cute girl. Bleah.

Hrrrrm. A mildly interesting spin on a classic. Very mildly. Ooh, flat note. Oh lord this is boring. Flat note again. Oh man and her voice is thin and reedy. I'm biased but I don’t think she rocked the house there.

Judges: Randy laughs and says it was "very strange" and the wrong song. Paula says "it's hard at this point in the competition." She’s struggling to say anything good. Simon says that deserved tears but because it was bad. "The neverending song." Yeah, I agree.

Paris: Okay, she’s doing "The Way We Were" by Streisand? Aaaaaaargh! Nooooo! Paris is such a wonderful singer but she keeps picking songs that are way too old for her, that she has no business singing until she’s at least 10 years older than she is. Damn it. I haven’t even heard this and I think it's going to suck. Bocelli is right that she's got an incredible voice. Damn it, bad bad choice.

Okay, okay, now she’s singing. [sigh] I like the new hairdo. Otherwise... this is technically brilliant, as always. The ending picked it up pretty well. But she doesn't have the gravitas for this performance. She can't sell it. It's a mistake she's made week after week and she's going to pay for it I think.

Judges: Randy thought it was pretty good, liked it but didn't love it. Paula says she oversang it. Simon thought she sounded a bit like she was trying to impersonate an older artist—a little?

Taylor: Yuck, what a horrible suit. "Just Once" is a great choice for him... I didn’t think so at first but yeah, it’s a great song for him. Wow, big notes out of Taylor! This is almost like a new side to the guy.

Judges: Randy wonders if he's in a bad mood but he didn’t like it at all. Paula didn't like it. Simon thought it was a hotel lounge performance. I think again they’re a bit harsh.

Chris: "Have You Ever Really Loved A Woman." Interesting. Whoah. Dude. Dude! This may be Chris's best performance ever. Holy cow. Dude, that could be a hit on the radio right now.

Judges: Randy says it was amazing. Paula, "Love you love you love you." Simon says it was a great performance.

---

Winner: Chris

Second place: Elliot

Bottom two: Kellie and (ouch) Paris

Going home: Really, really should be Kellie at this point, but I fear her blonde hair will save her one more week. :-/

Update: More thoughts from Cullen, Sarah, and Tracey.

Also, Dial Idol picks Kellie and Paris at the bottom, with the results much too close to call.

Wow. Tony Snow, ladies and gentlemen:

...is the new White House Press Secretary.

I really like Tony Snow and have for some time. He's a moderately conservative Republican but not an ideologue. He's intelligent, well-spoken, and funny. He can even take on a vicious demagogue like Bill Maher and come off looking intelligent and reasonable. More background info on him here.

This must be a big pay cut for him, but I think he'll probably be a brilliant choice for a White House that's been floundering in the press recently. It's also, frankly, got to be a smart career move long-term. Not that he isn't already well-established, but "White House Press Secretary" is a permanent burnishment on any resume.

I wonder what other interesting shakeups we might see in the near future? New Chief of Staff, new Press Secretary, anything else do you suppose?

Popular Mechanics has a pretty reasonable look at several fuel alternatives to gasoline. It was a pretty good article, although I had a few frustrations with it.

My #1 frustration was that they only mention corn as a source for ethanol. They don't mention that other plants can produce far more ethanol than corn can, nor do they even contemplate the possibility of using genetic modification to boost the fuel-bearing capacity of some of corn or other plants.

They also state: "Only 2.3 percent of the nation's electricity comes from renewable resources...." Presumably, they've fallen for the old trick of believing that nuclear energy is non-renewable, when in fact it is highly renewable. It gives off far fewer pollutants than most forms of power generation too, including solar--and yes, that's including the radioactive waste.

If were intelligent, we'd be drawing 90% of our electricity from nuclear, with fuel provided by highly protected breeder reactors to the rest of the non-breeder reactors in the country (and world). It would make 100% electric vehicles much more practical and economical, and would help spur hydrogen fuel cell vehicle development too.

Sadly, most Americans remain deeply fearful of nuclear power, as if it's powered by ghosts or demons