How Appealing is blogging the Supreme Court oral arguments in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases. Sort of like the Agonist for the war, but with silly wigs. Wait: I’ve been corrected, that would be the British legal system. Sorry.
Sometimes, it all depends on what your cause is. Kevin Drum took some heat recently for arguing that liberal extremism drives away the mainstream. He clarified later, exposing one of those unfortunate side-effects of a democratic winner-take-all system — you need to appeal to the middle of the road to get elected, so the fringes need to be carefully managed. This has the effect of muting certain extremes of discourse… A tangent, here. By forcing extremists to mask their views in order to gain any kind of political power, we make them more effective. Interesting little paradox. If the Patriot movement could win some political success without sneaking into the Republican Party, they’d be a far clearer target for those who oppose their views, and I could say similar things about various leftist groups. It’s like the TB virus — by forcing it to evolve in order to get past antibiotics, we make it stronger. Anyhow, I was talking about something else. ...
Peter Arnett has found a home (original) at the Daily Mirror, UK tabloid par excellence. Screw the silly treason charges; he’s pretty much blown any chance of being taken seriously as a journalist now. It’s fairly obvious that his priority is remaining in front of the cameras, and I think they teach you at journalism school that you aren’t supposed to be the story. Anyhow, the New York Times pretty much nails it. Note also this Walter Cronkite editorial. ...
Peter Arnett gave Iraqi television an interview over the weekend, and got fired for it. My first reaction to the news was, well, he ought to be fired for giving a propaganda interview. He’s supposed to be a reporter. Would that MSNBC routinely fired people who gave propaganda interviews; god knows we’ve seen enough of ‘em on Fox. Let’s break down the transcript. First off, he gives Iraq credit for being cooperative and courteous; probably untrue but meaningless fluff. Second, he says there’s “growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war and also opposition to the war.” He also says “It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments.” The first is true, mostly due to media coverage of recent events, and the second — well, if we fired people for saying that, we’d have to fire Ann Coulter. ...
I’m not sure why Blix’s latest comments (original) haven’t gotten more play. I think that when Blix says “We feel that Iraq must do more than they have done so far in order to make this a credible avenue,” that it behooves us to take note. He is in fact agreeing at least in part with the US claims that Iraq has not demonstrated that they have disarmed. ...
Well, that’s interesting. I figured when the Solomon Islands politely extricated themselves from the coalition, it was just one of those things and a good excuse to poke some fun at Bush. A diplomatic error but not a really important one. So what do I say when it happens again? This time, Slovenia is saying “Hey, wait, include us out.” This time it’s after we accidentally included them in the wartime budget. No kidding; we were slated to give ‘em four and a half million until the Prime Minister of Slovenia said they didn’t want our money.
This story (original) on a couple of Iraqi soldiers who surrendered in Umm Qasr is revealing all the way through. Start with the fact that they were both recent conscripts, one only seventeen years old. Notice how they didn’t feel safe surrendering until an old Iraqi who’d been through the first Gulf War told them it’d be OK. They were really happy to surrender once they thought it was safe, though. ...
Rumsfeld just told Syria to stop sending arms to Iraq, and stated that he considered supplying arms to Iraq to be “hostile acts.” Does that mean we’re threatening military action? “I’m saying exactly what I’m saying. It was carefully phrased.” Three things. First: Rumsfeld ain’t Secretary of State. Why isn’t Powell saying this? (Yeah, OK, so it’s a rhetorical question.) Second: if Syria’s actions are a hostile act, what is it when Russia supplies arms to Iraq (original)? ...
Hah. I’ve mathematically clinched victory in my group in the [Yahoo March Madness pool](http://web.archive.org/web/20220124012201/http://web.archive.org/web/20220124012201/http://tournament.fantasysports.yahoo.com/men/ (original)/) (original). Nobody can stop Mr. Domino! I’m actually doing pretty well overall, being in the 77th percentile. If Kentucky holds on and goes all the way I’ll have a respectable record. If not, well, I selected Florida to be in the finals, which tells you what you need to know about that eventuality.
So of course, Richard Perle is gonna stay on the Defense Policy Board. Good news for Perle; he still gets to make money from a venture capital fund which invests in homeland security, and he still gets to officially advise the President on matters which will affect those investments. I’d like to officially redefine the term “”Trent Lott moment”:/archives/000654.html” as follows: a Trent Lott moment is when someone in the public eye is caught doing something unethical, and as a result steps down from his or her former position in a way which doesn’t actually cause him or her any significant inconvenience beyond a loss of prestige. Thank you for your attention to this detail.