If You Use The Constitution, They Can't Complain

My views on the current illegality of the NSA warrantless survelliance program are well-established. I think the program needs to be squared with FISA and Congress. However, I've also gone on record as opposing the ruling by Judge Taylor that strikes the whole program down as unconstitutional. My main problems with the ruling are that it goes too far, not providing any legal remedy to square the program with the Constitution, and that the ruling is pure sloppy jurisprudence. Ann Althouse has written a brilliant op-ed in the New York Times (pause for irony), that makes a solid case against the ruling.

Her piece has gotten a lot of heat, from commenters at her own blog, and from commenters at The Volokh Conspiracy. Keep in mind, that she's not defending the DOJ's argument (I don't know her actual views on the program's legality-she never says), but rather criticizing the judge for not providing a clear constitutional response:

Immensely difficult matters of First and Fourth Amendment law, separation of powers, and the relationship between the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Authorization for Use of Military Force are disposed of in short sections that jump from assorted quotations of old cases to conclusory assertions of illegality. Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington, told The Times that the section on the Fourth Amendment is “just a few pages of general ruminations ... much of it incomplete and some of it simply incorrect.”

For those who approve of the outcome , the judge’s opinion is counterproductive. It will be harder to defend upon appeal than a more careful decision. It suggests that there are no good legal arguments against the program, just petulance and outrage and antipathy toward President Bush. It helps those who have been arguing for years about result-oriented, activist judges.

Laypeople consuming early news reports may well have thought, “What a courageous judge!” and “It’s a good thing someone finally said that the president is not above the law.” Look at that juicy quotation from Judge Taylor’s ruling: “There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.”

But this is sheer sophistry. The potential for the president to abuse his power has nothing to do with kings and heredity. (How much power do hereditary kings have these days, anyway?) And, indeed, the president is not claiming he has powers outside of the Constitution. He isn’t arguing that he’s above the law. He’s making an aggressive argument about the scope of his power under the law.

The President isn't asserting that he's above the law, rather he's asserting that he has inherent authority in wartime to do these things. The argument is a serious one. It's totally wrong, and at war with the Constitution, but it deserves to be approached, and it must be correctly attacked. The problem is, the whole affair has the appearance of an unelected judge, who just happens to be a liberal, who just happens to have been appointed by a Democratic President, and confirmed by a Democratic Senate, overriding the decision of a popularly elected Republican President, in a time of war, based on her own opinion. It looks like she just hid the argument under the robe, and laid down the result she wanted. This is a parody of what right-wingers complain about with so-called "activist judges." It looks like she's a rogue judge trying to attack Bush.

These apppearances matter, because they undermine the trust that the Judiciary has. It only emboldens the partisans. It's not just about how it looks though. Judicial opinions need to be solid, in order to hold up on appeal, and establish good precedent. As critics of the program know, this is about more than just this program. The underlying argument needs to be struck down. This is about more than Bush. It seems like Taylor forgot that. Her point about "hereditary kings" is ironic, because judges themselves are just as suspectible to monarchical tendencies as the Executive, being that they're unelected.

The point to all this is the question of why we should defer to unelected judges in these matters, over the elected Executive. We do, because the Constitution says we do. We do because of judicial review, and airtight legal arguments, based on clear Constitutional support, and not what could be interpreted to be simple Bush-bashing. There is a clear case to be made that this program is illegal, and that Bush exceeded his authority. It needs to made clearly, to withstand scrutiny. That way, Bush supporters can't complain about activist judges, or anti-Bush Democrats, or East-Coast lawyers running the war, or election year stunts, or the usual pro-Bush blather over this. All that won't matter. If you use the Constitution, they can't complain.

The Race War Hits Primetime?

As the banner atop this blog attests, I have a big problem with unwarranted hysteria. I don't like to overreact on things. The thing is, this is beyond vulgar. I'm willing to cede that the producers weren't trying to be racist, but this is bad taste, and will only do harm to the culture. I've seen good, controversial shows that tackle the race issue. Black/White was one. I loved that show. This just seems tawdry, exploitative and dare I say, racist:

"Our original idea was simply to have the most ethnically diverse group of people on TV. It wasn't until we got to casting and started noticing this theme of ethnic pride that we started thinking, 'Wow, if culture is still playing such a big part in these people's lives, that's our idea. Let's divide them based on ethnicity,' " he said.

So, the answer is to exploit that ethnic pride, to promote diversity? I don't see that. I see things being made worse. It all seems like racial bloodsport, fueled by crude stereotypes. I mean, maybe I am overreacting. Maybe they'll set things up in such a way that when the tribes merge, it'll be an example of races coming to together. It's possible, but I doubt it, seeing as how the racial tension angle is the whole gimmick here. I'm telling you, this could get ugly real quick.

At the end of the day, it's just Hollywood tripe. I'll not watch it, and I really haven't watched since the fifth season. I prefer The Apprentice (Mark Burnett's other show) anyway. Ratings for Survivor are down to their lowest ever (which partially explains the need for controversial gimmicks), and I don't think this will help.

I wonder though, if this succeeds, what's next? Divide them up by religion? Christians vs. Jews vs. Muslims? Do I even need to elaborate on how that'll end up?

The Moose on the Iranian Threat

Bull Moose returns, with some sharp observations on the Iranian threat to Israel and the West:

Of course, Iran is not just a threat to Israel, but to all liberal democracies. However, Israel uniquely comprehends the immediacy of the Iranian threat. Time is not on our side. While the mullahs may be a few years from obtaining nukes, there is a point of no return in their efforts - and it is soon.

The world, unfortunately, would rather sleep. Sanctions are just so inconvenient. Money is to be made. And diplomacy, regardless of its effectiveness, is holy in the church of the left.

Even though Iran has been showered with generous offers of incentives, the left wants them to be given even more carrots without the serious threat of a stick. Lefties claim they are tough and they are only anti-war when it comes to Iraq, but appeasement is their instinctive impulse when confronted with a national security threat to America or her allies.

But, make no mistake - the recent war with Hizbollah has taught Israel a painful lesson. They cannot afford to slumber while their enemy prepares for a slaughter. In the next war, Hizbolla could be supplied with the ultimate weapon by their patrons in Teheran.

And the writing is on the wall...

Read the whole thing.

Spike Lee on Katrina

I saw the first part of Spike Lee's Katrina documentary, When the Levees Broke, last night. I was thoroughlly impressed, despite some concerns. I thought it captured all that should be captured, and gave a serious, emotional, and pretty unbiased account of the events. I'd have to say my only real complaint was the intellectually lazy idea once again put forth that somehow having troops in Iraq slowed the National Guard response and cleanup efforts. It was bogus then, and it's bogus now. It doesn't hurt the movie that much, but it was an annoyance.

UPDATE: As expected, the reviews are not all glowing. Many had real problems with the film. Honestly, many of the criticisms are legitimate. Brendan Loy, who basically became the blogger of choice for Katrina coverage, and is actually in the film, had some issues. You really ought to read his post.

Honestly, I still say this is a good film so far. At first, I expected a full-on conspiracy flick a la Fahrenheit 9/11, but I was pleasantly surprised. Sure, you had your conspiracies put out there, which should have been rebutted with alternative arguments. You had copious amounts of criticism of the Bush Administration and the Feds, most of which were legit and accurate. I say most, because some of it was over the top (Harry Belafonte, Sharpton). The point about Condi was problematic. Surely it was in Bad taste to buy shoes during the disaster, but it wasn't really her job to manage the federal response. The point made about other nations (namely Venezuela and Cuba) offering assistance was laughable. Does Harry Belafonte really think Hugo Chavez gives a damn about the people of New Orleans?

Oh, and Nagin's performance ought to have been scrutinized more clearly. He blew it big time, as did Blanco, and the Feds.

Like I Said, A Really Bad Bargain

Well it's pretty clear now that the "cease-fire" resolution is nothing more than a surrender. Apparently, this UN peacekeeping force is going to be harder to put together than many thought. The French, co-authored the resolution (this fact alone ought to raise a red flag), but are now having problems with the way it was written. They're still going to lead the way though-- they've committed about a couple hundred troops. Yep, that's it. You can always count on the French leadership to sell out the Jews, it seems. So, the French have decided to resurrect the Vichy glory days, and the UN has basically said that they're only there to help the Lebanese army disarm Hezbollah, and the Lebanese army isn't remotely ready to even begin disarming Hezbollah. So, another resolution unenforced. Hezbollah won't be disarmed, and Israel loses.

A handful of stand-up nations are doing their duty and sending troops, but will it be enough? The only force that could have really done damage was the Israeli military. but Olmert agrred to the "cease-fire," and there you have it.

A Really Bad Bargain

As I'm sure you all know, the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict has ended in what is being called a cease-fire. If you ask me, it smells more like a surrender. Per the mandate of the U.N. Israel has accepted a cease-fire that basically gives up everything that they asked for. This whole conflict started when Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers. The cease-fire is in place, but the kidnapped soldiers are basically forgotten, and Hezbollah is still standing, claiming an "historic" victory. However, Israeli PM Olmert and President Bush call this a victory for Israel. The fact is, this is a loss, a big big one, for Israel, America, and the West.

I hate to think this way, but I can't see how Israel wins with this result. The original plan was to get the soldiers back, rout Hezbollah, and impede their ability to function as a state within a state. Hezbollah doesn't have to return the soldiers, Israel withdraws, and all that's left to disarm the terrorists is a U.N resolution and a peacekeeping force, that everyone knows won't be able to get the job done? It just looks bad. I'm not a pessimistic as Ralph Peters and others, but it looks bad. Remember, all Hezbollah (and other terror groups) need to do to win is to not lose completely. Anything short of a decisive victory becomes a Pyrrhic victory, easily turned into a defeat. Even if Hezbollah was reduced to half their strength, they could still rebuild, if not thoroughly routed. Indeed, they've lost fighters and resources, but how much was really done? Was it enough to justify the loss of Lebanese infrastructure and civilians? I'm not saying Israel shouldn't have fought this battle, or that they're somehow the villain here, but it seems like they didn't have the resolve to take it to the ground. You can't win wars like this with just air power.

The international community pushed this cease-fire. We all know that many international players aren't the biggest fans of Israel aggresively defending herself. Big Daddy Sheik Nasrallah has already said he won't disarm, and laughed off the U.N resolution. He's not impressed, and why should he be? It hasn't worked before.

I am totally pro-Israel, but I think the leadership bungled this. It appears that the leadership didn't have the stomach to do what really needed to be done. The Israeli people are pissed, and they should be. Politically, this is bad for Olmert, not that the politics really should matter. The legendary IDF has been embarrassed, Israel's name has been dragged through the mud, and Hezbollah survives, and is emboldened. The captured Israeli soldiers have yet to be returned. Hezbollah won't disarm, and the puppet masters Iran and Syria watch from the sidelines. I hope I'm just overreacting. Maybe Condi and the diplomats are right. Maybe the "birth pangs" are over. I fear though, that what has been born is a signal to the terrorists that the West doesn't have the stomach to do the heavy lifting, to endure the long twilight struggle. We've got to prove them wrong. We ought to do it now, because eventually, it will come down to our very survival.

OK. I hope I wasn't too hysterical.

If You Keep Telling People They're Not Wanted, Eventually They'll Leave

Consider the example of now ex-Democrat Brendan Loy:

Okay, I’m calling it. It’s over. Ned Lamont has won the primary. Democrats in my home state of Connecticut have seen fit to give their incumbent U.S. senator, the honorable Joseph Lieberman, the old heave-ho. Get out of our party, the Democratic voters have told Joe. You aren’t one of us anymore.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that Lieberman’s fine Senate career is over — he says he’ll run as an independent, and if he does, he may well win. Nor does it necessarily mean that the majority of national Democrats, or even the majority of Connecticut progressives and liberals, agree with the decision that today’s voters made. Connecticut’s largest “party” is unaffiliated voters, who were ineligible to vote in today’s primary, and they have long been big Lieberman supporters. Moreover, even among registered Democrats, it was always going to be more difficult for Lieberman to motivate his contented-but-not-fervent supporters to vote in the same numbers as his rabidly angry critics. Lamont was bound to have a natural advantage in this primary, and Lieberman a natural disadvantage, for the same reason that moderates are almost always at a disadvantage in primaries. (See, e.g., the 2002 GOP gubernatorial primary in California.)

But regardless of all that, the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: there’s no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonight’s result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. It’s really much more than just a single primary in a single state; it’s a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, there’s one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today:

I am no longer a Democrat.

I'm with you, Brendan. I don't really plan on switiching parties yet, because I've never been that much of a party loyalist anyway, and I remain a Dem basically because I agree with them more than the Republicans, and I feel that Democratic policies are better for the country than Republican ones. The fact is, the elite Democrats have been sending the message that has now been set in stone: Moderates like Joe Lieberman are not welcome. You see, Lieberman didn't abandon the Party. The Democratic Party abandoned him, and all of us who have the clarity to place our national security interests above knee-jerk Bush-hatred and the antiquated idiocy of the hard-Left.

Despite all this, I'm still holding out hope. At the end of the day, I still believe in theose time-tested Democratic principles. I'm not leaving. I plan to stay and fight. I'll have to do it from the sort of wilderness I've been forced into, because alot of the Democratic elite has made it clear than there's no room in the tent for people like me. It's not just the war, either. My view that the abject killing of the unborn is not the best plan of action is verboten in the tent. Right now, I'm an independent Democrat. A lone-wolf Democrat. I've been that way for awhile now, as the Dems have increasingly lost their minds.
I must take issue with one point that Loy brought up. While the Dems have proven themselves to be intolerant of any ideological dissent from the Party line, I reject the idea that the Republicans are any better. The bold steps of Rudy, Arnold, and McCain notwithstanding, as far as the base is concerned, neither would make it through.

At the end of the day, neither Party has a big tent, and both have been hijacked by ideologues. Although the idea of the big tent was a uniquely Democratic staple, one that has been slowly undermined over the past ten years, and may have suffered the death blow Tuesday night.

Hat tip: Centerfield

UPDATE: Based on some the comments on this post over at Booker Rising, I think a clarification is needed. Moderates are still welcome in the Democratic Party, as long as they don't openly support the war in Iraq. Heck, the fact that Ned Lamont has a track record of supporting Republicans 80% percent of the time, while Lieberman supports Democrats 90% of the time is proof that even if you vote like a Republican, if you're anti-war, the anti-war Left will back you.

UPDATE #2: It looks like all hope might not be lost.

Well, Anti-War Left, You've Won This Round

Lieberman concedes. He must now run as an independent. The Kossacks must be turning over cars right now. Yet, I'm confident. I tell you, this is not over.

Deluded, and Devoid of Purpose

As I'm sure you all know, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, for the first time in 50 years, relinquished power a few days ago, in order to have surgery. Miami Cubans, and Cuban exiles everywhere cling to the hope that Castro may have finally met his end, despite reports from the government that Castro is stable. Castro's record of tyraany and despotism is undisputed, except in the minds of some. It has always been a talking point of the Right to suggest that the far-Left loves Castro. The sad fact is, for many on the extreme Left, it is true. I'm convinced that this support is isolated on the fringes of the far-Left, despite the right-wing assertions to the contrary. One must wonder though, why are so many self-professed progressives genuinely sad that Castro's reign may actually end?

I've always thought it uncontroversial that Castro is a villain, and the Cuban people were suffering under his boot. Apparently, Castro has a lot more support than I realized. Again I must ask, why do so many on the extreme Left (keep in mind, I'm not talking about mainstream liberals and Leftists here), even in America, sympathize with the cigar-chomping madman? Is it their predictable misguided belief in utopian state socialism? Is it pure anti-Americanism? Some have gone so far as to even deny that he's a dictator. One of the common excuses from this fringe is the fact that Cuba has universal health care, and good schools. Could it be, that these people are so devoid of purpose, that universal health care and litearcy programs are all that matter to them? Are they so devoid of purpose, that they would abandon all commitments to progressivism and liberal democratic principles, and embrace the full-on welfare state, with all the comforts, as long as they don't value their freedom? I suspect it's no different than those on the extreme right, who flirt, often openly with the idea of authoritarian fascism, past and present. Further proof that the extremes of both ends meet somewhere in a soulless void, that aims to swallow freedom whole.

OK, Now Let's Just Calm Down

I've made clear my support for Israel, and their campaign against Hezbollah, and terror in general. That being said, I cannot figure out this overreaction from Howard Dean, or the boycott of some Congressional Democrats of al-Maliki's speech earlier today. Yes, he criticized Israel, and failed to openly condemn Hezbollah. I understand that. This seems like a major overreaction, one that is gratuitous and kind of irresponsible. The only reason I can come up with as to why some Dems feel the need to lay into the duly-elected Iraqi PM is a general distrust of the Iraq campaign. It's the same overreaction that drove the needless outrage over the "amnesty for Iraqis" nonstory. Frankly, the whole thing reeks of trying too hard. Everyone knows the Democratic Party supports Israel, and condemns Hezbollah. We don't need to rip into our new ally, because of some unfortunate comments, to prove that. Again, I think it all goes back to a mistrust of the Iraq campaign, and a lack of faith in the new government. If Iraqi leaders say something inartful, Dean and crew can then stand up and say, "see, I told you he couldn't be trusted."

Somebody explain to me how this helps Iraq, or Israel for that matter.

From the "I Need A Break From Serious News" File

Consider this unscientific, highly interesting poll, birthed from a mind that stayed up past 4 am last night. Enjoy!

Which of these methods of settling hot-button political disputes is the least barbaric and undemocratic? Mortal Combat Tetris, Best of 7 Games Lottery Test of Strength/Prowess Test of Wisdom (The Smartest One Wins) Popularity Contest Coin Toss The system we have now. Free polls from Pollhost.com

Now This Is What I Call A Consensus

The Congress is split and partisan over Iraq, regardless of how you look at it. Fortunately, the Congress is united behind Israel, as this vote shows.

Israel vs. Lebanon (Hezbollah): The War Rages On

As I'm sure you all know, Israel has been engaged in a two-front war, fighting against Hamas in Gaza, and now against Hezbollah in Lebanon. It's pretty clear that Hezbollah is being fueled by jihadist Iran, and Baathist Syria. I'm totally supportive of Israel, and believe that they have a right and a moral duty to defend themselves. It does seem though, that Israel might be going in the wrong direction, in their all-out attack on Lebanon. I'm no expert on this, and I totally understand what Israel is trying to do (responding to unprovoked attacks), but they don't want to heap unnecessary havoc on innocent Lebanese, most of whom are anti-Hezbollah, and even pro-Israel. They've spent months rebuilding after the Syrian occupation. We don't want to lose them as an ally. Honestly, I still place the chief blame on Hezbollah. They started this.

There are great Mideast blogs that cover this a lot better than I can. Michael Totten, our man in the Middle East has been covering this. He has a personal stake in this, for obvious reasons. He is one of the leading voices for informed, unbiased, and insightful coverage of the Middle East. Also, the Lebanese Political Journal has been covering things straight from Lebanon. Get yourself a healthy dose of smart coverage from all sides. Also, let's keep the debate sensible and intelligent, please.

UPDATE: It looks like a cease-fire might be possible. PM Olmert has aid that if Hezbollah releases the captured Israeli troops, stops attacking Israel, and if the Lebanese government puts their troops on the border, this can end. Also, at the risk of appearing to contradict my earlier position, I want to reiterate the Israel is totally justified in their fight against Hezbollah. Hezbollah is the villain of this piece, fueled by the two-headed beast of Iran and Syria. I do think Israel really should focus their attacks on isolated Hezbollah targets, and try not to attack the whole country, but Hezbollah has forced them into this position.

Like President Bush said, they need to stop doing sh*t like this.

UPDATE #2: I thought I'd change the title a bit, to reflect the fact that this war isn't/shouldn't be against the people of Lebanon, but Hezbollah.

Tolerance and Intolerance

Filling in for Michael Totten, Callimachus has written a great piece on the Founding Fathers' views on freedom of religion, and how they apply, or should apply today. He does a great job of making the case for religious toleration, with the limit being that one cannot use religious freedom to subvert religious freedom. Read it. I posted a good comment over there, as did many others. As with all heated discussions, there's troll activity.

Anyway, here's what I said:

In my view, there isn't that big of a difference between what the Founders thought, and what Popper thought. It is clear, and the Founders are correct, that they wanted a nation in which people had freedom of conscience, and of religion. The state could not impose one religion or the other, neither could it oppose one's right to freely exercise that religion. The line is clear, though. You cannot use your religion to actually subvert freedom of religion, or any other rights. You can believe that you should, but you do not have the right to actually act on such a belief.

Radical Islamists, Communists, Nazis, etc. can express any ideas that they want under the First Amendment, as wicked as those ideas are. They cannot use those ideas to justify acts that take away others' rights.

Rape, murder, actual acts of treason, etc. are not protected speech, because they violate others' rights. The answer is to confront evil ideas with good ideas, not outlaw them (regardless of any justifications the much ballyhooed Venona Papers supposedly establish). When ideas turn to action, then it's another matter.

As a matter of principle, I think Popper was simply suggesting that it is philosophically impossible to have unlimited tolerance (a fact that the hardcore multiculturalists haven't understood yet). It becomes problematic ehrn you start using the state to fight intolerance (a possible risk with a lot of European hate crimes laws), because you're back to the same problem again.

At the end of the day, the Founders believed totally in religious toleration, up until the point when it is used to undermine religious toleration (through state power, terrorism, etc). That rule ought to still apply today.

Joe Biden's Big Snaffu

Sen. Joe Biden likes to talk a lot. We all know this. Apparently, his mouth has gotten him into some trouble. At a campaign event, while thanking a supporter of Indian-American descent for his support, he pointed out how the Indian-Anerican community supports him, by saying this:

"You CANNOT go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent ... I'm not joking."

Oh, crap. He's stepped in it this time. I needn't explain to you why this was offensive. It clearly plays on the stereotype of Indians working only in convenience stores. Raj Peter Bhakta isn't happy, and has called out Biden. If the name sounds familar, it's Raj from The Apprentice. He's a Republican running for Congress. His blog covers more of the details of this. In case you're wondering, this is true. Biden did say this. There's a video.

Raj was on Hugh Hewitt's show talking about the double-standard, and how some Dems have done this before. In 2004, Kerry compared Sikhs to terrorists, and Hillary made a comment about seeing Gandhi at a gas station.

There's no defending this one. Joe's definitely put his foot in his mouth this time, and may have alienated all the Indian-Americans he claims support him.

Sometimes, The Caption Says More Than We Realize

I just couldn't resist this. Beat this caption:














Note to Joe Lieberman: Don't even sweat this. Some of us still have your back.

An Excess of Zeal? (Or Why The New York Times Screwed Us All Over)

I'm sure you all know about the bruhaha over the NYT publishing a story on a classified Treasury Department plan to thwart terror funding, that was leaked to them by government officials. I've always believed that the press has the right, even the moral duty, the act as a check on government power, and keep the public informed, when they need to be informed, even in wartime. With this, on the other hand, I'm left wondering why they would release this. This isn't the NSA wiretapping story. This isn't Abu Ghraib. This is a terror-fighting tool that is unquestionably legal (they have warrants), and looks to have really worked. Now, it appears that the program may have been blown. The obvious question is, why publish it? What's the public interest?

Now I'm not one to in any way advocate prosecuting journalists for these sorts of things. Legally, the New York Times has done nothing wrong. The same cannot be said of those government employees who leaked classified info. I reject the idea that the press should be somehow suppressed, because as I've said, that undermines the rights of the free press. We don't want to go down that path. I'm left wondering what the Times' motivations are, besides the "public's right to know," and disdain for Bush.

For some, the answer is crudely simple. The NYT has sided with the enemy. I reject that in its entirety. The press generally believes in their role as a check on government abuse. If illegal or possibly illegal things are being done, let justice be done though the Heavens fall, they say. In most cases this is a good thing, but in wartime especially, we need a free and responsible press. Let me be clear:I don't think the NYT, or the press in general has somehow allied themselves with the terrorists. The problem is, they often see themselves as journalists above all else. The public's right to know, as they see it, trumps civic responsibility. If a plan to fight terrorists that works is undermined, so be it. Let's also not forget that Bush isn't really counted as an ally in that realm, and in many cases he's an outright foe. We all know how Bush Derangment Syndrome does a number on rational thought, like all ideological pathologies.

It seems to me that many journalists are so committed to the profession and the institution, that it becomes almost a religious commitment. The fact that a successful anti-terror tool has been compromised is not considered. The fact that this program is 100 percent legal is irrelevant to them. Their excess of zeal, often mixed with established biases, lead to these things happening. Honestly, I could defend a lot of the other stories on principle, particularly the wiretapping story, but this makes no sense. The public interest is undermined, because things that should be secret are now known, and thus compromised. All this being said, I still defend the press' right to inform. While I wish that many in the press would look beyond their zeal for being journalists, and anti-Bush zeal, and consider the effects their reporting might have on the country that buys their papers, any such cure for this problem would be worse than the disease.

While I don't think that it was necessarily the Times' intent to aid the terrorists, that doesn't change the fact that they may very well have.

UPDATE: I've changed my position slightly, regarding prosecution. It seems that they can be prosecuted for publishing this, and now that I think about it, probably should be.

The U.N. Is Coming to Get Your Guns!!

Well, no actually, they're probably not.

The Great Debate, Or A Partisan Ploy?

The House is debating the Iraq War as I write this, particularly a House resolution that essentially rejects a premature withdrawal from Iraq. As a supporter of the war (and therefore an opponent of premature withdrawal), the language of the resolution doesn't really bother me, but the underlying intent is manifestly partisan. This isn't as bad as when the Murtha resolution was "debated," but this whole thing, with such partisan photo-opping, is just unseemly. Let me say again that I firmly oppose a pullout, but I recognize that many people sincerely believe in that position, although they are flat out wrong on the issue. The fact that so many support a premature pullout is regrettable, but this just smells like a stunt.

Democracy Arsenal has a good piece on the politics of this thing, as well as the text of the Resolution.

Hollywood, Do Your Duty!

The word on the street is that Deadwood, one of the best shows on TV in a looong time, may not make it past a two-episode fourth season. This is unacceptable. I'm with Bob Cesca. Come on, Hollywood fat cats, do your duty!!