Dean's World

Friday night open thread.

Go.

Cool: the creator of "The 99," the world's first culturally Arabic-Muslim comic book superhero team, recently won an international award.

More info on the comic, including a free preview, right here.

I love stuff like this.

(Via Gateway Pundit.)

Michael Yon has an essay and photo.

But in the latest film incarnation, scribes Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris sought to downplay Superman's long-standing patriot act. With one brief line uttered by actor Frank Langella, the caped superhero's mission transformed from "truth, justice and the American way" to "truth, justice and all that stuff."

"We were always hesitant to include the term 'American way' because the meaning of that today is somewhat uncertain," Ohio native Dougherty explains. "The ideal hasn't changed. I think when people say 'American way,' they're actually talking about what the 'American way' meant back in the '40s and '50s, which was something more noble and idealistic."

Very interesting.

This White House has the most assertive press policy with the adversary press we have ever seen (or at least the most assertive legitimate policy — I'm not counting Nixon!). Here the Administration writes to the Times:

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort.

Via The Other Club.

Meanwhile, it's getting catty among the titans of the mainstream media! (Hat tip to Drudge again!)

Via the Examiner:

BEIJI, Iraq - For more than two years the attacks came like clockwork. As soon as the military secured and workers repaired the pipelines from Iraq's northern oil fields, just when the valves were about to open, insurgents would strike. But roughly three weeks ago they suddenly stopped, letting crude oil flow freely from Iraq's vast reserves near Kirkuk.

Perhaps insurgents feared reprisals in Salahuddin province, where pipelines from Kirkuk flow to the country's largest refinery in Beiji. Maybe terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death disrupted a chain of command that ordered the attacks, military officials said.

Whatever the cause, the U.S. forces welcome the change, even if history since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 has shown the free flow of oil in Iraq is only temporary at best.

I just hope that it lasts long enough where people start realizing 'Damn, we're making money. We could be rich like Kuwaitis," said Army Lt. Col. Craig Collier, deputy commander of the 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division. "But what is really going on? We don't know."

[Link thanks to Ace]

I wouldn't know from experience, but here's what they guys in the lab coats are saying today (via Drudge):

Your next raise might buy you a more lavish vacation, a better car, or a few extra bedrooms, but it's not likely to buy you much happiness.

Measuring the quality of people's daily lives via surveys, the results of a study published in the June 30 issue of journal Science reveals that income plays a rather insignificant role in day-to-day happiness.

Although most people imagine that if they had more money they could do more fun things and perhaps be happier, the reality seems to be that those with higher incomes tend to be tenser, and spend less time on simple leisurely activities.

. . .

The results showed that higher income had less of a correlation with momentary happiness than with overall life satisfaction.

"If people have high income, they think they should be satisfied and reflect that in their answers," said study team member Alan Krueger, an economist from Princeton University. "Income, however, matters very little for moment-to-moment experience."

The study's not an advertisement for poverty, of course. But it confirms what most of us really know — or, in my case, guess. Ask yourself, are you perhaps really one of the luckiest people on the face of the earth? And if you're not, who do you think is?

July 4th is coming up next Tuesday. In anticipation of that, I offer the following Declaration of Freedom of Humanity. It is an updating of the July 4th, 1776, "The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies."

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown, that Humanity are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of those living under Dictatorships of whatever form; and the history of the world's present Dictatorships is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over their people. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:

Dictatorships subject their People to:

Laws without their Assent, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good;

The obstructed of Justice, by refusing their Assent to Laws for establishing independent Judiciary powers;

Prison without Trial by Jury;

Their Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries;

Taxation without their Consent;

Swarms of Officers and Officials to harass them, eat out their substance, and loot their possessions;

The expropriation of their commerce, products, and monies for personal use;

Corruption so vast that bribing officials and officers is the only way to get anything done;

The dissolution of what ever Representative Houses they suffer too exist, for opposing with manly firmness their invasions on the Rights of their People;

And Death by the bullet, sword, and tank treads for only demonstrating their Right to be heard.

Mass Impoverishment, Famine, and early Death;

A border-to-border Forced Labor, Concentration, or Reeducation Camp;

Internal and foreign Deportations and mass Migration that deprives them of their Homes, Villages, Communities, and Roots;

Torture, Rape, Genocide, Democide, and Demoslaughter;

Rule by Fear;

And the Death and Destruction of Aggressive and Imperial Wars without the People's Assent.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Rightness of our Declaration, we mutually pledge to Communicate this declaration far and wide, and to support by whatever peaceful means at our disposal the freeing of these subject People.

If you join me in this Declaration, please post it on your blog, website, or otherwise publish it by whatever means at your disposal. If you go here, you will find a copy of this Declaration with a form at the bottom for passing information on it to others by email.

I'm very tired. I'll be away most of the day today as a result. I curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git...

10 points if you can name that song. No Googling...

I am often asked what it takes to be a popular weblogger. I get that question fairly regularly, in email or sometimes in person. As obnoxious as it sounds, the truth is that Dean's World is a popular blog. So how did this happen?

Surely some of it is that I write well, and I've chosen contributors who also write well. Which, in the vast scheme of things, is about as significant as saying you can bench-press 250 pounds, or, that you're so flexible you can put your left foot behind your head. Or, you can kiss you elbow. Or, you can stick out your tongue and lick your nose. (Oh, go ahead and try it, no one's looking.)

Yes, if you can actually do things like that it's impressive. But so what?

The real truth to understanding blogs is that you have to realize that it is conversation. Not "like a conversation," either. It is conversation.

Every day on this blog--and I do mean every day--I make a mistake. Without fail, I make at least one mistake. And do you know what the result of that mistake is?

Someone points it out. And I either fix it, or, I say, "yeah, you're right."

The real secret to blogging is this: be you. Always be you. The more honest you are about things, including yourself, the more people respect you. Never apologize for being you. Never apologize for being wrong, either. Just say, "I was wrong."

Oh that's so hard isn't it? Those three difficult words: "I was wrong." Or you can say it more informally: "Whoops, you got me."

Even if you are not a sports fan--and I am not generally a sports fan--the sport of American baseball is very instructive. If you watch baseball at all, you should notice that it is a study in failure. Pretend for a moment that you are a professional baseball player: if your lifetime batting average is .333, you will almost certainly be inducted into the Hall of Fame. You'll be one of the greatest who ever played the game.

.333? That means that in a thousand times at bat, you made it to first base 33% of the time. It's not even that you scored. You just have to have made it to first base at least 33 times out of a hundred.

Which means you failed 66% of the time. That achievement would make you one of the greatest players in history.

Many people consider Babe Ruth the greatest baseball player of all time. Maybe he was, maybe wasn't. But his lifetime batting average was .349. Which means that out of a thousand times at bat, he made it to first base 349 times... and was struck out or called out 651 times. And, that's not even how many times he scored. I's just how many times he made it to first base. (For non-baseball fans, that means he only came close to scoring.)

The greatest player who ever played the game f***ed up 63 times out of 100. He failed far more than he ever succeeded.

But he never quit, did he?

If you blog, you should put 100% of your passion behind it. Your only promise to yourself (the most important promise is always to yourself) should be that you are honest.

You will always have bad days. You will always f*** up. You will always make mistakes.

Your only test: "Was I honest? Did I speak truly to what was in my soul?" If you can do that, you can be proud. Even if you often make an ass of yourself (and I promise you, you will), if you were honest then you know you did good

But don't stop. That's the real secret.

Don't ever stop.

Visual satire hasn't been the same since Allahpundit hung up his mouse. However I have been forced to use Photoshop over the past few years and actually have begun to enjoy it. While he was truly a master of visual satire, I am learning.

Check out my recent work here (link). Note that some of the work is that of others, so feel free to browse to their sites too.

UPDATE: Many of you aren't following the link, and are thereby missing the parody of Britney Spears on the Bazaar cover found here.

You've heard about the Supreme Court's ruling by now:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a strong rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.

This stuff — war powers, the Geneva Convention — is not my speciality, but I was involved in one short exchange on one of my alumni email lists:

On Jun 29, 2006, at 10:37 AM, [my friend] wrote:

The only thing I found kind of odd was a quote [from] Justice Thomas who, during reading of his opinion, said the decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy".

Whether that's true or not, how is it relevant? If the law is a violation of the constitution, what does it matter if it helps or hampers the president?

I replied,

I think we may be missing something. The Constitution and SCOTUS recognize that the President is the Commander in Chief and has very broad powers to make war and defend the country. The question here is whether his war powers are broad enough to encompass these tribunals, and they answered no. But certainly whether the President is helped or hampered in his execution of those powers, how much he is or is not, and what other competing interests there must be, are part of that discussion.

Well, that's the depth I can get you to, as the official legal talent among the contributors here. In fact, there's much more going on here. I recommend clicking here to get into the vein of what people on the center-to-right-of-center blogs are saying about this decision.

UPDATE: Great coverage from a player, Walter Dellinger, at Slate. He explains:

For the proposition that the president has the authority to decline to abide by statutes he views as unconstitutional, the administration has relied principally on an opinion I authored as head of the Office of Legal Counsel in 1994. And rightly so. That opinion is based upon long-standing and consistent executive practice. Moreover, the most relevant U.S. Supreme Court decision, Myers v. United States, 272 US 52 (1926), by clear implication considers it appropriate for a president to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes. And as President Carter's Attorney General Ben Civiletti wrote in an 1980 opinion, the president's constitutional duty to execute the laws "does not require him to execute unconstitutional statutes; nor does it require him to execute them provisionally, against the day that they are declared unconstitutional by the courts."

This view is based upon the principle that the president's ultimate obligation is to the Constitution, and if a statute contravenes the Constitution, the president has the authority to decline to enforce it. This applies to laws that unconstitutionally impinge upon the president's own power. It is also unremarkable for a president to announce his view that a provision is unconstitutional in a statement issued when he signs the law.

. . .

This administration has taken the astounding position that if the president has "inherent authority" to do and act whenever Congress is silent, then it follows that any act of Congress that regulates such an authority is an invalid impingement on his "inherent power." This conflation of what a president can do if no law prohibits his action and what he can when the law forbids it is a truly insidious legal doctrine.

The court made short work of it today. RIP "inherent presidential authority" to violate valid laws. Justice Kennedy makes this point more simply than I have. After noting that the military commission order "exceeds limits that certain statutes have placed on the President's authority to convene military courts," he asserts: This is not a case, then, where the Executive can assert some unilateral authority to fill a void left by congressional inaction. It is a case where Congress, in the proper exercise of its powers as an independent branch of government … has set limits on the President's authority.

This seemingly simply proposition has huge consequences.

Jim Baen has died.

Carter, that is. about Dubai Ports World, demagogy by Democrats, and (by implication) Islamophobia. Check it out.

I think that President Carter does not get enough credit for being the first to tie human rights to foreign policy. Sometimes, it seems like he was also the last.

And let me add - that Islamophobia is a detriment to the war on terror. Nowhere is that more evident than in the difference between muslims in America and muslims in the UK and Europe.

Martin has some geek thoughts.

Man, is it ugly. Try this: on Firefox hit [Ctrl]+[+]. Now do it again. That’s how me and my week eyes habitually read webpages. Now, look at how Slate handles that. ugly. It’s not as if Slate’s new font were so big that it doesn’t need being made bigger, either...

Also, I don’t know what it is about this mix of colors, but they are unappealing together. I hate white text on any background—Slate’s frequent use of it is jarring. The new “look-ma-no-round-edges” seems like something fresh from 1997. Also: I’ve got a 19 inch monitor. Slate is using only about 12 inches of it—when maximized. I’d hate to think what sort of one-word-per-column mess I’d get if I made the window any smaller...

Perhaps this is a retro look designed to remind readers of their founding a decade ago? If so, switch it back...

One of the worst lies about the liberation of Iraq is that it was and is a "unilateral" action by the U.S.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Murdoc Online notes:

Romania, Italy, and Japan

Poland, South Korea, and Georgia

Australia, Denmark, and El Salvador.

"Unilateralism" my butt!

Martin has a review.

I'm taking Jake this weekend.

This week I recieved not one but two lawsuit threats over things I've published on Dean's World.

Scout's Honor: not one but two such threats. Within 48 hours of each other, actually.

I'm pretty upset about this. It's been over a year since I got such a threat.

I thought I was losing my touch.

(Note to JW: Just ask nicely and the deed is done. Otherwise, seriously: f*** off.)

Celia Farber is now a Dean's World contributor.

I hope you'll give her a warm welcome.

The freedom is paralyzing and I don't like it much. Dean handed me the secret code to the control room and dared me to write one single paragraph about anything at all. I think it was weeks or maybe months ago. I keep stalling. He knows I am frozen solid from 20 years of magazine journalism, which has given me a rich and properly traumatic life, but also made me spectacularly uptight about whether what I write possibly has whiskers that need clipping. You never know what people might say, not to mention women.

Magazine journalism is not to be dismissed but it is safe to say that the form teaches us to bind our true selves as tightly as Chinese maiden feet. (The Censor is frowning: "I'm not entirely clear what you mean by Chinese maiden feet.")

It was the rythms that started to drive me crazy, in the end--the rythms of the journalistic prose that were identical to all the rythms that had come before. They seemed to correspond to core grooves that existed in our minds, that had not and would not be perturbed, that somehow say: "I am the voice of reason. I am the voice of reason." Terribly ungenerous.

So.

Dean Esmay has been--for about a year-- inviting me to understand what blogging is, and to try it, and I have reacted like somebody who is asked to run naked down Broadway. Tonight he pressed me a bit harder, and actually made a case for the idea that if I write what I am really thinking and feeling it will not be a disaster.

But where is the EDITOR? Where is the HOOK? Where is the STORY?

And what if it isn't "working?"

Dean says not to worry. I can be myself.

Why?

You mean I can say anything I want?

Ok then. I'll tell you some things. The war I won't name (you denialist scumbags at Dean's World know what I mean) is raging all around, all sides being driven to screaming hysteria, lawsuits, e-rage, fire and brimstone accusations. I breathe shallowly and watch from a ditch, and dream of home.

Home is Sweden, where I grew up. I got a letter today from one of my closest friends, who's known me, as he likes to remind me, since I wrote my views straight onto my ripped jeans with a black Sharpie pen.

I swore I'd get home by midsummer (June 23) but I didn't make it. He said the gang was awaiting me expectantly and had plans to sink my laptop and cell phone into the Baltic sea under the dock on day one.

Then we would do as we always did; Start a fire, get the guitars, pour some schnapps, go pick wildflowers for the table (my job.) I kept writing cramped emails explaining that I was trapped in some kind of psychic warfare that made it impossible for me to do anything other than defend and survive--hammer out unending emails to an unyeilding universe. Gain one yard, get beaten back, advance again. A political existence, barren either way.

Our summer island is called Runmaro, and it is the gem of Stockholm's archipelago. Everybody was there, I hear, including Erik, who is never without his butterfly net, and who babysat our favorite poet Tomas Transtromer's butterfly collection on the island one summer. (This story has a subplot I won't reveal just yet but if you stay with me in my new incarnation as late night blogger, all will be revealed...)

So there I was, stiff with worry, sick with worry, over the war, the pogrom, the gangrenous infinity of it all.

And my friend wrote: "Erik told me that the Apollo butterfly has just been seen on Runmaro again!"

That is the famous butterfly that Mr. Transtromer wrote an ode to: "How I love that butterfly. As if it was a fluttering corner of Truth itself."

That's the story: The Apollo Butterfly Has Just Been Seen On Runmaro Again.

I was going to start posting hundreds of pages of data about who is Right and who is Wrong, but my soul went with that butterfly, and I decided he or she is a much better story.

(Via Bill.)

Whatever else you might say about Putin--most of it not very good--he knows how to deal with terrorists. After conferring briefly with the Saudi government, he ordered his secret service to find and kill those who murdered four Russians in Iraq.

Not "arrest them." Kill them.

What, no concern for their civil rights, or Russia's reputation abroad? Won't Putin squander the world's goodwill by behaving like a unilateralist cowboy?

War in the Middle East... flamewars on Dean's World... You want a nice little World Wide Web break that will warm your heart? Check out this story. If you've been on the Web more than ten minutes, you won't be disappointed — especially if you have a place in your soul for former Vice Ministers of Banking eager to find a trustworthy overseas friend to dispose of the proceeds of a recently tragically-killed war lord with no next of kin....

Norm Geras is right as usual.

Professor Volokh notes that it's wrong to say that money is speech.

Of course money isn't speech. But it is an abridgement of free speech to try to limit what you spend on speech. And he makes the point very well: would a law which limits doctors to charging no more than $2.00 for any abortion or abortion-related services be a restriction on abortions? Yes. But this doesn't mean "money is abortion."

Would a law which limits how much you're allowed to spend on gasoline or airline tickets inherently harm your right to travel? Would a law limiting how much you're allowed to spend for your education inherently limit your ability to get an education? That doesn't mean "money is travel" or "money is education," either.

Money isn't speech, but laws limiting what you spend on speech are inherently un-American and a direct assault on the First Amendment. This is why campaign finance "reform" laws have to be resisted, as strongly as possible. Laws against bribery or quid-pro-quo arrangements in politics are fine; limiting political donations or what you can spend on political advertising are evil.

Besides, such laws are stupid on their face. They're based on the false belief that he who spends the most money wins the election. That's not true now and never has been true. What you need in politics is enough money to mount a credible campaign, to get your message out to the voters. Anything beyond that is gravy and can actually be harmful.

All these laws limiting campaign donations do is protect incumbents by making it much harder to raise sufficient funds to mount a credible campaign. The incumbent already has a thick rolodex full of supporters who'll donate money to his campaign; the challenger rarely does.

Campaign finance "reform" has been a disaster for America. It's time to abolish these laws.

The latest Carnival of the Vanities is up at Lil Duck Duck.

Via The Hill:

House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution today condemning The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking records.

The resolution is expected to condemn the leak and publication of classified documents, said one Republican aide with knowledge of the impending legislation.

The resolution comes as Republicans from the president on down condemn media organizations for reporting on the secret government program that tracked financial records overseas through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), an international banking cooperative.

Matoko and I were chatting yesterday and it was an extremely interesting back and forth. I admit that I took a rather immodest Zen Master tone but that's just because I was trying to stay on topic - Matoko is like an intellectual hurricane, vey difficult to keep stationary :) I've got her okay to reprint the chat here (hidden text, just click "show" to reveal it)

unfortunately that's as far as we had time for. However, I think that the conversation illustrates the difference between high IQ and high g. I was challenging Matoko to break out of her strict box of high-IQ thinking and embrace the pathway beyond - and tap into her impressive reserves of g. And she responded to the challenge, with spirit. Still, I didn't complete the experiment, so I hope she and all of you will continue in the comment thread below.

And yes, while it may be transparently obvious where I was going - let's please not state that explicitly? Just follow the analogy...

Al-Sabah newspaper reported Monday that seven insurgent groups supported the reconciliation plan and may be ready to announce a cease-fire. But Ahmad Essawi, of the Islamic Army of Iraq, said he spoke with 13 factions in the insurgency and "they were all astonished that there are resistance factions that want to negotiate."
"None of them is negotiating, and will not negotiate, because we know they do not want to negotiate but to wipe us out," he said. "The departure of their last soldier is our goal; our policy is combat, and hard strikes against all forms of foreign presence on our land. So no negotiations."

Recently I upbraided a Dean's World commenter--a regular who often leaves quite intelligent and funny comments, and whom I generally consider quite wonderful--for being excessively obnoxious in one particular discussion.

The offending party then pointed to an incident where another commenter had been even more obnoxious toward her, accusing her of s***ing d**k of people he didn't like.

Now, in the vast scheme of things, s***ing someone's d*** is a very nice thing. The world would be a lot nicer with more cunnilingus and fellatio going on. But, when rendered in the context of a political discussion, that sort of comment is really beyond the pale.

So why did I let that slide by? Answer: I didn't see it. It may shock you to learn this, but I am not omniscient. I hope you can manage to get up every morning once you've realized this to be true.

On a slow day well over 100 comments are left here. On a busy day, several hundred. I, in the meantime, am quite human, utterly imperfect, do have a day job and a family, and don't always have time to carefully read everything.

It may also shock you to learn this, but I occasionally lose my temper and behave in a hypocritical manner. No, really! I'm sure you've never noticed this, me being the paragon of perfection and the resurrection of Socrates and all. Dean doesn't see everything? Say it ain't so!

Okay, humor aside:

I'm very proud of the comments on Dean's World. Whatever my own talents as a writer, I honestly believe that among blogs we have something unique. If you see an article on Dean's World, and there are 20 comments left to it, you can click that comments link and uncover a wonderful treasure: thoughtful, witty, insightful, and just plain honest responses. Indeed, the comments are often better than the article they were left in response to.

Do not think this is an accident. For over four years now I have, like a gardener, carefully fertilized and pruned the comments section on Dean's World. And it's not about whether people agree with me, either. Not a single day goes by where someone doesn't disagree with me (or some other contributor) about something, sometimes vociferously. It is often a humbling experience, reading the comments here. I often learn from the commenters, and I know I've become a better writer and thinker because of them.

That's not because it's a democracy, by the way. It isn't a democracy. It's a meritocracy. And it's not about me, or the contributors. It's about your ability to stand up on your own two feet and advocate for a position, even an unpopular one. Or your ability to at least be funny.

"Defending the liberal tradition..." is the charter.

Michael (a former DW contributor who's gone on to do great things with his own blog) recently left a comment to a thread where he noted that the discussion seemed to have veered away from our charter. And he was right about that.

So here's a favor I'm asking of all of you: I can't always keep up with everything. So any time a discussion veers away from the rational and civilized, please feel free to say so. Ditto if you think I or any of the contributors have failed to live up to that charter.

And if you're a DW contributor, you should feel even less shy about bringing it up: "Hey, please stop being a jerk."

"Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy" is our charter. If I'm not living up to it, or any contributor or commenter is not living up to it, say so. If you think it's completely out of control, bring it to my attention because I might have missed it and may need to intervene. Otherwise just say, "hey, stop being jerks, people."

This is a community. Let's all help police it. "It's not what you say, it's how you say it" should be the byword.

So if you think we're missing the mark, or I'm missing the mark, please pipe up. "Rational discussion" is the yardstick. If we aren't measuring up, take action and say so.

I'd take it as a personal favor if you did.

Again I note: the ideal should be that you click on the "comments" link, and your reward is you get some great comments from interesting people. If that's not happening, something's wrong. Feel free to say so whenever you see it.

Probably my second-favorite Monty Python skit of all time was "Four Yorkshiremen." The funny thing is, the first time I heard it, as a young American, I couldn't quite make out half of what they were saying because of the thick accents. I learned to understand them, but if you need help here's a script. And, just so you know, Yorkshire is a semi-rural region of England which includes the city of York, which New York was named for.

But I think even without all that explanation for Americans, this is still a scream. :-)

"Looxureh" is still one of my favorite in-joke words.

(Thanks for finding that for me, Robert.)

In response to rocket attacks, Israel has invaded Gaza. Word is that Egypt has amassed troops on the border to prevent refugees from fleeing out of Gaza into Egypt, but is otherwise avoiding being drawn into the conflict.

I remain oddly non-fearful about these events. Probably because I feel that now the elected Hamas government is going to have to face reality--and I strongly suspect they're going to blink.

The latest Homeschooling Carnival is up at Homeschool Cafe.

Michael Barone notes that the Supreme Court yesterday struck down some anti-seditioncampaign finance "reform" laws yesterday. Unfortunately it was a fractured decision with no clear result. Barone rightly notes, "...and so our First Amendment jurisprudence still stands for the proposition that the Founding Fathers intended to give blanket protection to nude dancing, student armbands, and flag burning—-but not to political speech."

It's an Orwellian world these days, in which you supposedly have free speech but if the government doesn't approve of your message in the months leading up to election day, they can clamp down on how much money you spend to get your message out. Which of course only makes political campaigns more corrupt and protects incumbents. All based on a very stupid idea: that money is what wins elections. Which it doesn't.

(Via Glenn.)

Click the cartoon to see te full sized version:

I really liked this tribute. (Via this tribute.)

Update: Rob's obituary.

We've been watching you, and we think you're getting paranoid.

Roger Simon sez: "In all the brouhaha over the New York Times' publishing top secret information on financial surveillance, one thing amuses me in a dark comic way: from my point of view the Big Scoop is one of the great myths of our post-Watergate times. Almost always it is simply handed to you. It takes no guts whatsoever or even, in many cases, much legwork."

More here.

Didn't realize that my correspondent was banned from Dean's World earlier. I've deleted the earlier post I had and will repost if he can provide proof for the central assertion.

Welcome to the Carnival of the Liberated, a sampler of some of the best posts of the week from Iraqi and Afghani bloggers. This week we've got the Maliki reconciliation plan, freedom of the press in Afghanistan, life in Baghdad, the state-of-the-blog in Iraq, and much, much more.

Afghan Warrior is concerned for the freedom of the press there.

I really, really try to avoid editorializing much in the Carnival of the Liberated. Honestly I do. But this post from Faiza of A Family in Baghdad was so…I have no words. Here's her email correspondence with someone in the United States:

Dear Debbie

I discovered in my last visit to America, it is not a free country any more. this government is controling everything , and keeping the people either ignorant or scared to do anything against their policy in Iraq. they are in crisis, but the change is coming... good people in America, will make the change on ground small actions will accumulated to move the mountain

all my best
faiza

Dear Faiza,

Most everyday I am emailing a Congressman or Senator or signing petition for the US to pull out of Iraq. I was involved in a silent vigil last October here in Prescott, AZ.

Arizona is a Republican State. Most people are afraid to get involved in any rally here in fear of losing their jobs. One teacher who taught at the college was found out she was attending the rally and she was told to leave and go back home to Spain. Another man said he lost his job when he attended the last rally and his employer fired him. Jobs are hard to come by anymore.

Faiza, you are a brilliant woman. I admire you so very much. You see through all of the bull our US government does and says. You are very very wise.

I am trying to form a protest rally in our area. Don't let anyone tell you that the US is a free country because I am ready to dispute that. It is not a free country in many ways.

Thank you for listening to me..I had to vent.

Oh, Faiza you and your lovely family and the people of Iraq are in my prayers and on my mind all of the time.

Blessings to you all,

Debbie

Abu Khaleel of A Glimpse of Iraq, no fan of United States himself, posts his translation of the powerful post from an Arabic language blogger living in the “Sadr City” neighborhood of Baghdad. This is a must read!

Baghdad Connect comments on the murder of one of Saddam's defense lawyers.

Ladybird of Roads to Iraq pronounces Maliki's reconciliation plan DOA. Mohammed of Iraq the Model is not enthusiastic about the plan. He gives us an update on the progress the plan is making here. Treasure of Baghdad has a long, thoughtful post on the plan in Iraq and is more favorably disposed to it, thinking the Maliki government is on the right track.

Ali of Free Iraqi re-surfaces after a several month hiatus to bring us up-to-date on how he's doing and comment on the death of Zarqawi.

Zeyad of Healing Iraq meets some Jordanian bloggers and contrasts the state-of-the-blog in Iraq and Jordan.

Ishtar of Iraqi Screen posts a quiet, understated description of what I suspect life in Baghdad is like today.

Dave Schuler posts regularly to his own weblog, The Glittering Eye. The Carnival was originally conceived by Ryan Boots.

The Supreme Court declined yesterday to get involved in the Winnie the Pooh litigation, despite the opportunity it presented for another swat at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That means another summer of thistles for the rest of us — or at least, for the Milne family.

Something caught my eye in this story: even though I'm not a Harry Potter fan, I find it interesting that J.K. Rowling says Harry Potter and other major characters might die in the end of her 7th and final book. Details here.

What caught my eye was this:

"I wrote the final chapter in something like 1990, so I've known exactly how the series is going to end," she told a chat show on Channel 4 television.

That interests me. I remember talking to a friend of mine who was attempting to write a novel, and he was getting stuck even though he sort of knew where he wanted to go. My advice to him was to write his climax chapter first. Then he'd know what he was writing toward. John and I wrote the climax chapter of Methuselah's Daughter more than a year before we wrote most of the rest of the book. (We're still fiddling with it in preparation for a Fall release, FYI.)

When you write a story I think the most important thing is to create a story arc, to know where your beginning, middle, and end are. I think the biggest mistake a lot of fiction writers make is that they get a neat idea and they write a fascinating beginning, but then they don't know where to go.

Ah, the '70s, the hair, the outfits, the pretensions.... despite it all, some real ass-kicking:

Funny thing is I had to learn to appreciate Led Zeppelin, and that wasn't until I was well into my 20s. I'd always thought they were hideously over-rated and juvenile and for losers. Well the juvenile part isn't wrong exactly, but, what a great band.

The mark of a good rock and roll band is whether they can pull off live what they do in the studio. They had that too.

John Scalzi, generally an excellent writer, has I think a bad argument for why a flag-burning amendment would fail. To loosely paraphrase, he says that to get around it people could make objects that look a lot like the American flag and still get around the Constitutional amendment.

This is mostly mistaken because the Congress or the states can define things sufficiently broadly to include many flags that are not-quite-standard. More importantly, cops, prosecutors, and judges would generally have reasonable lattitude in interpretation, just as they do in other matters of law. Despite what you may have heard the truth is such vagueness is found in law all the time. For example, you won't get out of an assault with a deadly weapon charge by saying "Hey, that was just a steak knife!" Nor will you get out of a contract by making your signature all funny and then claiming, "hey that's not my real signature!"

Mind you, I do think a flag-burning amendment is a bad idea. But I think the much stronger argument is that if you outlaw it, you will actually encourage the behavior. They'll burn the flag, they'll be rebels, they'll be proud to be arrested! It'll be a mark of honor for the creepazoids.

I quite enjoyed, and agreed with, this latest issue of Hot Air regarding loose lips, and was delighted to see the old, rare Private SNAFU cartoon.

However, Michelle & co. make a big mistake: these cartoons were voiced by the late, great Mel Blanc, not Mel Brooks.

Mel Blanc voiced very nearly all the great Warner Brothers cartoon characters, including Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Sylvester, Tweetie, Speedy Gonzales, Foghorn Leghorn, Yosemite Sam, Porky Pig, and a host of others, including, yes, Private Snafu. Blanc was also a regular on Jack Benny's classic radio and television shows. He also did cartoon work for Hanna-Barbera's studios, including Barney Rubble from The Flintstones and Mr. Spacely from The Jetsons. He was an incredible talent, with amazing vocal and stylistic range.

Whatever his other talents, I don't believe Mel Brooks ever did much voice work, and he was certainly not Private SNAFU. Just watch the cartoon and listen and you can tell whose voice it really is.

I again note: I agree in substance with the rest of the piece.

Update: I see they've updated with a correction on the site. Cool. But I'll leave up my tribute to the great Mel Blanc, because he was a truly great performer, one of the few to achieve genuine immortality with his voice alone.

Rob Smith, known as "Acid Man" of "Gut Rumbles," has passed away. Our condolences to his family.

Rob was an interesting, interesting man. He was at times crazy. He was at times obnoxious. There were lots of bad things people said about him, some of them true. But he was also courageous, and funny, and searingly honest in his writing, and very, very real.

He was also kind to me when I first started blogging, and we occasionally traded amusing emails. I always had the notion that I would meet him in person someday. Alas, it's not to be.

So I'm looking forward to this weekend. I'm gonna take my son to see Superman Returns. I'm not really a big Superman fan per se, haven't been since I was maybe 8 or 9 years old (although I do love the Fleischer studios cartoons from the 1940s, which were stunningly beautiful). The advance reviews on Rotten Tomatoes make it look like it's probably good but not great. But so what? What more joy can there be than taking your 8 year old son to see Superman?

When I was a kid my uncle used to read Superman comics with me, and I'll treasure taking my kid to see it. Bonus: we're going to check it out in Imax!

I see Ann Althouse is having a discussion on astrology. She even starts with a quote from one of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein:

"A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an 'intellectual' — find out how he feels about astrology."

It's worth noting, however, that this was put into the mouth of one of his fictional characters, Lazarus Long, and as such the statement should be considered on its own merits without assuming this to be exactly what Heinlein thought. Indeed, if you read Stranger in a Strange Land (which is nowhere near my favorite book by Heinlein, but is his best known), it contains a really quite sympathetic portrayal of an astrologer. Which isn't actually at odds with the quotation above, but at least adds a certain subtlety to the issue.

I personally don't put much stock in astrology, but I don't view it as any odder than any other faith-based system of belief. Indeed, if one is a "Bible believer," one is almost required to believe in astrology at some level, for at least one if not all three of the Three Wise Men from the Gospel according to Matthew would have to have been an astrologer. Although the actual practice of astrology is mostly frowned on in the Christian and Jewish (and I think Muslim) traditions, the assumption that it's valid at some level is shot all through the Bible.

And, although there are certain theological concepts I find risible, and some contemptible, as a rule I think an intelllgent person realizes that sometimes people believe odd things, and it doesn't make them bad or stupid people.

Yes, we're all pretty exercised about this!

Glenn Reynolds:

-- as we have been saying, hardly alone, since forever. But then, why we expect the New York Times, of all people, to understand that point?

Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, responds to reader questions about the Times's publication of information concerning government efforts to track and prosecute the financial support of terrorism:

I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands...It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.

The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry.

Can ordinary citizens just walk into a presidential press conference, without any press affiliation? Could you walk into the Pentagon with a camcorder and say - 'I'm a US citizen' and be invited to ask Rumsfeld detailed questions about our current actions in Iraq? Were you, as an American citizen with full rights to publish your beliefs, invited to Stephen Colbert's oh-so-daring and truthy Bush-bash? Does Joe Wilson have your number on his speed dial? Are wealthy and influential politicians willing to meet with you privately without the presence of security guards and advisors to openly discuss their goals and plans?

The press and the government have a symbiotic relationship, and this relationship depends on a certain degree of trust. The privileges and perks that the press have long enjoyed are not protected by the Constitution. In fact, the media's belief that they are more equal than than the average citizen might bother the founding fathers.

The New York Times was, for many years, a legitimate and trustworthy news source. They betrayed that trust. Their recent actions have proven that they're not worthy of the privileges they've been given. As a result, they should lose those privileges.

Yesterday eight Palestinian Hamas terrorists dug a tunnel under a security fence separating Gaza from Israel and attacked an Israeli checkpoint, killing two Israeli soldiers, wounding another while capturing a fourth. The captured soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shilat, is being held by Hamas somewhere in Gaza. No word on their demands, but such kidnappings usually result in Israel trading hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for a single soldier.

However that equation works for a terrorist group: it doesn't work for a government.

Hamas has been under pressure to renounce violence and accept the existence of Israel since it won elections early this year. Hamas has so far clung to its ideals and refused, daily launching rocket attacks on southern Israel launched from Gaza. It, and the Palestinian people that put it in power, has paid a high price for its idealism, with major aid donors refusing to provide aid to the Palestinian Authority under Hamas.

Just when the EU had worked out a compromise to provide non-governmental aid to the territories, Hamas pulls this stunt - showing it is just as good as the PLO at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Israeli forces have massed at the Gaza border as Hamas tries to distance itself from its own "military wing". So far reports are Cpl Shilat is alive, but wounded. Israeli intelligence in Gaza is rather good, so if his condition changes or the opportunity presents itself, Israel will act. The only question is on what scale?

Regardless, the Palestinians have freely elected a terrorist group to rule them. As HL Mencken once observed, people deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard. The rocket attacks were one thing, kidnapping is another - and the Israeli public is demanding that Prime Minister Olmert act. Even the Left-leaning Haaretz newspaper reads more like the hawkish Washington Times today, filled with pictures of the awkward and geeky-looking Cpl and reporting news about his condition every few minutes.

Over the past decades we have seen terrorist groups evolve, pursuing their ideals through ballots not bullets. The IRA faded into Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. The ANC left its violent past behind and took power in South Africa. But for some like Hamas, violence has become an end to itself. Hamas cannot renounce violence because its identity is founded on violent attacks against Israel and the Jewish people. Give up violence and Hamas ceases to be Hamas.

Already the Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya is trying to distance himself from "the military wing" of Hamas, after some Israelis called for Israeli Forces to kidnap him and exchange him for Cpl. Shalit. Israelis aren't buying the idea of a split between the "military wing" and "political wing" of Hamas for the same reason, some say, that birds need two wings to fly.

"It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. . . . The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly."

So sayeth Bill Keller of the New York Times, in order to rationalize despicable behavior by his paper. And what grates so much is that "given to us" line, for it does not appear that Keller thinks "us" means "me and you." Instead, it seems to me to come more from a place of, "we of this institution have been given this power, and we take that power seriously."

But no institution called "the press" was granted any power. The people--all the people--were granted this right. Anyone who has the ability to use printing technology is free to use it.

And as with all rights, it's not a right without limits.

My article at Global Politician. Its a little snarky:

On Thursday, GPC leadership expressed sheer panic at the prospect of losing Saleh as their figurehead and being forced to articulate an ideology. The inability to produce an alternate candidate in a democratic manner raised the ugly specter of Saleh's relatives fighting it out to become the presidential nominee. The GPC executive council threatened to resign rather than face the constituency it had so long taken for granted, stolen from and lied to. With Saleh's announcement Saturday, their fears were assuaged and their futures look bright.

The rest.

Saudi prince Al-Walid bin Talal is not an Islamist. In fact he is one of the most modernist members of the Saudi royal family. He has been known for spectacular philanthropy, including donations of $40 million to Harvard and Georgetown, as well as massive investments in American corporate icons like Citigroup, News Corporation Ltd (of Rupert Murdoch and FOX News fame), and Apple. He also has a record of advocating social and political reform in Saudi society, as summarized by his Wikipedia entry:

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is not part of the ruling executive within the House of Saud, and has generally kept out of politics, concentrating on his business interests. However, he has recently started to make overt political statements in his press releases and interviews. His views can be seen as critical of Saudi traditionalism, proposing reforms to elections, women's rights and the economy. He has also openly criticized operation of the state-owned oil company, Saudi Aramco. He is vocal about women's rights and hired the first female airline pilot in Saudi Arabia, Hanadi Hindi.

He has also taken a notable pro-American stance, backed up by his $10 million financing of American study programm