Posted by Venkat

Imagine if you will the following scenario:

your favorite sportscaster takes a trip down to Key West. Enters an Incredible Hunk contest where the contestants consume large quantities of alcoholic beverages, strip down, and dance around naked. The contestants sign or are subject to some sort of operative waiver/form. [Facts vague here.] The contest proprietor or some third party films the performance. Proprietor then licenses the video to a third party, which then *as expected* posts the video on its Web site, consisting of a preview and pay per “full” version. Firestorm of publicity ensues. Newscaster quits or is fired.

Newscaster sues for an injunction prohibiting broadcast of the video, and obtains one.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/254

Posted by Hei Lun

I like April Fool's Day too, but this is just disturbing ...

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/253

Posted by Vance

Today, I decided to give the new liberal radio network, Air America Radio, a try. Specifically, I listened to the show that is getting the most publicity, the O'Franken Factor.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/252

Posted by Hei Lun

The Passion of the Christ is coming to a video game console near you:

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/251

Posted by Hei Lun

I'm glad that I joined Begging To Differ, now that Duke owns the entire public domain (hat tip: Volokh):

In a move shocking to all, Duke University, of Durham, North Carolina, purchased the entirety of the public domain late last evening for a fee of 2.2 trillion dollars. Sources familiar with the negotiation report that Duke's reclamation of the public domain is unprecedented. As a result of the purchase, Duke University is the sole rights-holder to a huge collection of materials, including the Bible, the works of Shakespeare and Dante, and Francis Scott Key's The Star Spangled Banner.

I'm sure that as Duke alumni Greg, Steve, and Vance will have access to all these materials, and will let their co-bloggers have the same access. As for the rest of you, well I guess y'all will have to stop quoting Shakespeare, for starters (which might not be a bad thing).

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/250

Posted by Hei Lun

So what exactly is wrong with what Paul Hornung said?

Hornung, the football Hall-of-Famer and Notre Dame alumnus, was asked on a radio show yesterday on how Notre Dame can return to the glory days when the school was a national football powerhouse. Hornung responded by saying that the school should lower its academic standards to "get the black athlete":

"We can't stay as strict as we are as far as the academic structure is concerned because we've got to get the black athlete," Hornung said. "We must get the black athlete if we're going to compete."

Notre Dame spokesman Matthew Storin released a statement that read, "We strongly disagree with the thesis of his remarks ... They are generally insensitive and specifically insulting to our past and current African-American student-athletes." Since then, Hornung has apologized for his comments.

The criticisms of his comments seem to be that he is implying that black athletes are less academically qualified than white athletes, and therefore racist. Now here's my question: how is what he said different from the rationale for affirmative action?

According to Hornung, Notre Dame should lower its academic standards so that the school would be able to admit more black athletes. According to affirmative action proponents, colleges should lower their academic standards so that the schools would be able to admit more black students. What's the difference? It seems to me that if one were to complain about Hornung's comments, one should also disagree with the rationale for affirmative action.

P.S. Doesn't Hornung's comments also imply that blacks are better athletes than whites? Where's the outrage in that?

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/249

Posted by Venkat

I used to often wonder and also engage in a long-standing debate with a friend about exceptional people. Were they just created that way? Do they work harder to do exceptional things? Are they figments of the media? Do they even exist?? Listening to Ian McEwan last night at the Seattle Arts & Lecture Series [good set of links] answered that latter question for me in the positive.

[update: Paul points out in comments that he was detained at the border for 24 hrs (Seattle PI article here). Totally ridiculous. Although it didn't come across initially, I'm on McEwan's side here and think that the HSA and US authorities should get their act together in dealing with foreign artists and authors. This is not the first instance of this happening and looks so, well, gauche.]

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/248

Posted by Greg

There's already been some discussion around here about whether the concept of liberal talk radio can work and whether the market can support it. The consensus seems to be that a market exists, if everything is done properly, to sustain liberal talk programming.

But this article about the launch of Air America leaves me to wonder whether these people have the wrong approach:

"I don't think of it as a business, but I know it has to make money to be sustaining," Franken said in an interview, perching his feet up on the desk after a rehearsal session for the show. "A lot of it is mission."

The sense of mission is felt just as strongly several floors down, where the makeshift offices of Air America Radio are marked with handwritten sheets of paper taped on the wall, including those for CEO Mark Walsh, where the phones have yet to be hooked up.

Walsh, a former America Online executive and adviser to the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites), said liberal politics would be a "teaser ... a loss leader in the window" for the radio network, which is also being broadcast in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Ore.

AOL...loss leader...the DNC...a "mission." It's not a pretty picture, once you connect the dots. If Air America fails, it might have nothing to do with what the people want.

(Link via guest-blogger Paul at Wizbang, who has already started a dead pool for Air America.)

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/247

Posted by Hei Lun

Several weeks ago, I was in a company of friends who were discussing the Sopranos. In the course of that conversation, I asked why Tony doesn't just order a hit on his wife if he doesn't like her that much. I was told that according to mob rules it's out of bounds for mobsters to order hits on the mothers of their children.

Mobster Peter Gotti is now up for sentencing in New York. I heard on the radio this morning (couldn't find a link on Google news yet) that his wife, Catherine, has written a letter to the judge asking him to impose the maximum sentence. She is angry at her husband because he has been cheating on her (the girlfriend, incidentally, was found dead in a motel room this morning with a suicide note, and so far there's no evidence of foul play). In the letter, Catherine wrote that she had sentenced herself for forty years of misery for married Gotti.

My question is, does mob etiquette allow under these circumstances for Gotti to order his wife killed? (disclaimer: the blog does not condone any murders of the wives of mobsters)

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/246

Posted by Steve

I got a fortune cookie once that said, "The philosophy of one age is the common sense of the next." Modern times being what they are, an age now lasts about ten years.

I started college in 1991. Always a fan of conversation and controversy, I purposefully sought out the most radical courses on campus. I wanted to experience this thing called "political correctness" that was (according to the weekly news magazines) taking over Duke University. So naturally I took classes in the Women's Studies department. I learned a lot about 1990s-style feminism.

I learned that pornography is bad because it objectifies women. I learned that rape is a very common occurrence, and that even consensual heterosexual sex is rape, given the inherent power differential between men and women. I learned that boys are systematically advantaged in elementary and secondary education. I learned that men are stubborn and aggressive while women are empathetic, collaborative problem solvers.

These are just a few broad concepts. There were details, too.

I learned that because football is a violent sport, men tend to beat up their wives and girlfriends on Super Bowl Sunday. I learned that the 28-day menstrual cycle is caused by the orbit of the moon. I learned that fashion magazines produce eating disorders. I learned that women are just as good as men at everything except lifting heavy objects, but that women were closing the gap there, too.

These are just a few details. There were also recommendations.

I was instructed to refer to all female persons over the age of 18 as women, not girls, because the latter term is dismissive and demeaning. I was admonished to take full responsibility for ensuring the explicit consensuality of all sexual encounters, and warned that acting on consent given under the influence of alcohol was tantamount to rape. I was reminded that women can open doors all by themselves. It was suggested that I urinate sitting down because errant droplets of piss reinforce the patriarchal order against the predominantly female housestaff tasked with cleaning the campus toilets.

I took all this in. We all did, we earnest young men of the 1990s. We did not want to rape anyone. We did not want to oppress our sisters and our girlfriends. We sought to exemplify the most enlightened ideals of what was then an enlightened age.

But now here I am, 31 years old, apparently modern yet hopelessly out of date.

Harvard University now sponsors a magazine featuring photographs of naked undergraduates. (Whether or not this is "porn" appears to be a semantic question of dubious relevance - this would not have flown in 1994). I see 16 year-old girls wearing tank tops emblazoned with the word "Bitch" strutting around the mall. On Sex In The City bright, successful women delight in clothes and shoes and obsess (gasp) about finding the right man. The hot new thing for women is to stay home with the kids.

There is a whole new feminism afoot, one which has transformed the philosophy of the 20th century into a refreshing common sense. It is rooted in the concepts of freedom and choice - in exercising control over the definition of self. Young women appear to be entirely comfortable deciding for themselves whether to be victims or perpetrators, sweethearts or bitches, virgins or whores - to defy or embrace all such expectations, all at once, or in a series of rediscoveries. The old bumper sticker finally fits: "Feminism Is The Radical Notion That Women Are People."

It is not the feminism of Gloria Steinem. It is something after, something better.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/245

Posted by Vance

Someone apparently forgot to tell the powers that be at Clear Channel that they're part of the conservative radio conspiracy, because they've signed up Jesse Jackson for a one hour Sunday morning talk radio slot. Also, it doesn't seem to be getting much publicity that one of the six Air America stations, KPOJ in Portland, Oregon, happens to be a Clear Channel station.

So how does this fit into the popular myth on the left that there is a significant conservative bias in the media, and, in specific, that Clear Channel is a conservative political lackey?

It doesn't. It is just market forces at work. Rush Limbaugh's success is an indicator that there was a strong market need for an absurdly biased conservative commentator. And, given the domination of conservative voices on the radio, it is quite logical that there might be a market need for the left side of the political spectrum. Given Clear Channel's desire for market share, it isn't surprising that they would be part of the early testing grounds for liberal talk radio. If Franken or Jackson end up pulling in ratings, there will probably be a healthy supply of Clear Channel stations on their list of subscribing stations.

The Invisible Hand tends to work pretty well, in spite of the roadblocks thrown in its way by Washington.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/244

Posted by Greg

The consumer electronics and technology weblog Engadget, young upstart rival to Gizmodo, has posted an item on Albertsons Shop n' Scan program. This marks the first, and likely final, time that I beat Egadget to the punch on a consumer technology story.

On an almost-related note, I've finally succumbed to the inevitable and purchased a hard-drive based portable audio player. I resisted the glitz and glamour of the iPod and went instead with the Gmini 220 from Archos ($287 from NewEgg.com with free shipping.) I'm relatively pleased so far. It's small (shorter and squatter than the iPod), fast (a single CD loads up in about ten seconds via USB 2.0), versatile (in-line recording, a voice recorder, photo storage with compact flash reader) and roomy (20 Gig-- I've already loaded about three fourths of my music collection and still have about 13 Gigs free). The best thing about the Gmini is that it plugs into my USB port and automatically shows up as a portable hard drive. To load it up, I can simply copy and paste music folders from my computer.

There are only two drawbacks so far. The battery life is relatively short; the Gmini 220 may be the only player with a shorter battery life than the iPod. But it charges quickly. Also, I haven't been able to get the ArcLibrary file storage system to work yet. It's a minor problem because the files may also be accessed through a browser that accesses the files through folder directories. As long as I organize my music by artist and album, the ArcLibrary isn't really necessary. In fairness, I'm not sure if the fault is with the player, the bundled MusicMatch Plus software, or my own incompetence. I'll grant iPod devotees that the iPod's wheel controller is pretty nifty, and the iPod is shiny and pretty. But my Archos player is cheaper, more versatile, and has more capacity. It sounds great, too, and comes with all the cables needed to hook it up to my stereo (something I haven't tried yet). I look forward to quiet nights at home listening to my Gmini while all the cool kids are out living it up at their exclusive iPod parties.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/243

Posted by Hei Lun

So President Bush finally agrees to let Condi Rice testify under oath before Congress on the condition that this would not set a precedent for executive staff to testify before a commission created by Congress. But wouldn't this set a, um, precedent under which all future executive staff needed to testify before Congress will be expected to do so under the same conditions?

Imagine ten years from now that Congress creates another commission to investigate an important matter, and again the National Security Advisor has something pertinent to say about the matter being investigated. Is anyone who wants the NSA to testify going to buy the argument from the future White House that the Rice testimony did not create a precedent? Or are they going to argue that the NSA should agree to the same deal that Bush and Rice did?

Precedents are set by the action's being done, not by whether the parties agree on its being a precedent.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/242

Posted by Vance

Factcheck.org attacks this DNC attack ad in this critique, and for good reason. There are numerous instances that the ad gets the facts wrong. That doesn't bother me that much, though, because attack ads by both sides can often create a false impression.

What really bothers me is that the premise of the ad is truly idiotic. First, the ad criticizes President Bush for the ballooning deficit. So far, so good. But then, in citing the causes for the deficit, the ad goes on to cite various budget cuts, clearly stating that the cuts somehow leads to a "ballooning deficit". Yes, the deficit may force spending cuts for favored programs in the, but that is not what the ad says. It says that past spending cuts increase the deficit, which in turn will lead to more spending cuts.

Either a) the people at the DNC have no clue what causes deficits, or b) the DNC has very little regard for the intelligence of their main constituency.

Our federal government is spending way too much, and President Bush's actions are a big reason why. That is partially why there is absolutely no chance that we see a balanced budget any time soon, even though President Bush really did say in 2002 that we had a shot at a balanced budget in 2005. But if the DNC wants to criticize the Bush administration for the deficit, the least they could do is cite causes that are not logically absurd. Causes that are based in truth would be an added bonus. There certainly are plenty of legitimate causes out there, if the DNC just took a few minutes to look.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/241

Posted by Steve

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/240

Posted by Steve

On a recent trip to Washington DC, I enjoyed a rare phenomenon - liberal talk radio. WPFW, an affiliate of Pacifica Radio broadcasts on 89.3 FM. My favorite show was a call-in program with two cheerful hosts. The male host respectfully thanked a caller for making the point that, in reality, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell are white. When another caller expressed her frustration with the Bush administration, the female host enthused, "Let's keep that indignation level high!"

It was like listening to Rush Limbaugh... only different.

Pacifica Radio's mission statement includes this noble objective:

In radio broadcasting operations to engage in any activity that shall contribute to a lasting understanding between nations and between the individuals of all nations, races, creeds and colors; to gather and disseminate information on the causes of conflict between any and all of such groups; and through any and all means compatible with the purposes of this corporation to promote the study of political and economic problems and of the causes of religious, philosophical and racial antagonisms.

I can only assume this statement of principle is meant to be ironic, because WPFW runs the show "We Ourselves," hosted by Ambrose I. Lane, Sr. My ears perked up upon hearing Lane proclaim over the radio waves that the Republican Party is "thoroughly infiltrated by Nazis" invited into the organization by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The "Republicans as Nazis" theme had become so familiar that it almost (almost) wasn't shocking, but it seemed out of place in a public forum that appeared to take itself seriously.

Not one to hastily judge, however, I ordered a copy of Lane's 1990 book, Your Inherent Superiority Can Beat Even A Stacked Deck. (I see now that the asking price for the 104-page paperback is almost $200. I think I paid ten bucks. I have no explanation for the current price).

Much of the volume encourages young black citizens to aim high and work hard to overcome the obstacles in their paths. Check. Much of the rest of it, however, makes me wonder how Ambrose Lane came to be associated with an organization that purports to advance "lasting understanding" between the races.

All capitalization in the following quotes appears in the original.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/239

Posted by Hei Lun

Last week, we were supposed to believe that Richard Clarke was a non-partisan source who could be trusted. After all, he did vote in the Republican primary in 2000, when the nomination for both parties were up for grabs. I even read today in the New Yorker that Clarke "was a registered Republican in the last election". The conclusion we were supposed to arrive at is that Clarke was a Republican so the negative things he was saying about the Bush administration can be taken at face value. Well, it turns out that all this is a bit ... misleading.

Yesterday on Meet the Press, Clarke told Tim Russert that he voted for Al Gore in the general election in 2000. He also voted for John McCain in the Republican primary, according to a Mickey Kaus reader. What do both votes have in common? It's against Bush! To paraphrase John Kerry, Clarke voted against the president before he voted against him.

But wait, there's more, as the saying goes. One of the reasons why Clarke voted in the Republican primary was that there was no Virginia Democratic primary in 2000. Virginia had a Democratic caucus in April, but by February it was obvious that Gore had locked up the nomination, while McCain was still alive in the Republican primary, having won New Hampshire and then Michigan just a week before the Virginia primary. Having voted in the 2000 Republican primary is not an accurate proxy for being a Republican.

Whereas Clarke seemed as if he could be a credible witness last week and that what he will say could be damaging to the Bush administration, now that notion is laughable. (For some real laughs, see Josh Marshall say, "I have no stake in Richard Clarke." Yeah, and Steve and Greg don't care if Duke wins or not.)

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/237

Posted by Nick

A spoiler free movie review.

Jersey Girl contains all the Kevin Smith humor that you weren't expecting encased in a finely heart warming tale. Ben Affleck's character is a newlywed who must overcome the loss of his wife and a nose dive off of the economic ladder in order to raise his child. It's an interesting role because Affleck is playing sort of the opposite of his character from Good Will Hunting, and Kevin Smith being the genius writer and director that he is keeps the character well within Affleck's acting abilities.

It's a shame that the duo Liv Tyler and Affleck were denied an entire movie to themselves, because they have some legitimate chemistry in their scenes and subplot, although I'd give far more credit for this to Liv Tyler than Affleck. In fact Liv absolutely carries two or three of their scenes like it was nothing, her great timing making the raunchy content of her speech all the more natural. J.Lo is a nonfactor in this movie as is the Pie-Kid, George Carlin was a believable cranky old man, and surprisingly Affleck's acting was only painful for about one-quarter of one scene. Acting next to an eight year old girl really works for him.

I'm not sure I'd call it a chick flick, but it's definitely a date movie. If you can stand the thought of almost seeing George Carlin cry then you can definitely see this movie.

For some spoiler loaded clarifications see below.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/236

Posted by BTD

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/235

Posted by Nick

Anyone who followed the exploits of Hei Lun and myself at Duck Season knows that I'm still an undergrad. One of the classes I'm taking in my final semester is a course on the American Presidency, and for this class I'm looking to write a paper that will, at least partially, touch upon the subject of neo-conservatism. My professor rolled his eyes when I mentioned that my primary material would be coming from an Irving Kristol article and some G-files (links can be found here). He suggested I check out sources that are more "academic". A few days later and I'm unable to find a darn thing.

So here's my bleg: If any reader could point me towards a good "academic" article or two dealing with neo-conservatism, (basically what it is, what it's goals are, etc. This is all information I'm familiar with, but I need heftier citations for my paper) I'll gladly send them some sort of gigantic no-prize as thanks. Article suggestions can be sent via e-mail or in the comments section.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/234

Posted by Hei Lun

I had to delete a bunch of spam in the comments section earlier today, including this one for a hair loss product:

Buying [product name with link] online is easy. keeping your hair is going to help you get laid.

Note to self: if I'm ever the master the universe, be sure to make all impotence drugs cause hair loss and all hair loss drugs cause impotence.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/233

Posted by Venkat

is in the blogosphere (see here and here).

[I was going to talk about how blogging is a social activity, but for now this will stand place as the illustrative exhibit.]

Happy Spring.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/232

Posted by Steve

I am constantly defending the South amongst my cosmopolitan friends in cities with underground transportation. Sure, we lost the war. OK, the agrarian economy persisted beyond the first phase of the industrial revolution. Fine, race relations have not always been our strong suit. Uncle!

These conversations inevtiably devolve into half-apolgetic muttering about nice weather and how NASCAR is best appreciated in person (there's quite a lot of strategy involved... really!) Then I change the subject to Fords and Chevys, or pick up a banjo, or install a massive plug of tobacco in my lip, or whatever - retreating into a self-flagellating celebration of educated redneck existence, all the while repeating a silent internal monologue of growing economies, an outsized role in presidential politics, the soothing lilt of southern drawl.

And then, sometimes, something happens in the South that causes me to abandon all my psychological defense mechanisms, throw down my corn cob pipe in disgust, button up both straps of my overalls and scream, "What the hell is wrong with you people?"

To wit: Georgia House bans genital piercings for women.

Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for female genital mutilation.

The bill would make such mutilation punishable by two to 20 years in prison. It makes no exception for people who give consent to have the procedure performed on their daughters out of religious or cultural custom.

An amendment adopted without objection added "piercing" to the list of things that may not be done to female genitals. Even adult women would not be allowed to get the procedure. The bill eventually passed 160-0, with no debate.

160-0? What? Isn't there, like, a city somewhere in that state? No, wait, I'm sure there is. I distinctly remember they had the Olympics there...

For now I maintain my sanity by clinging to the hope that the Georgia senate or governor will put a stop to this madness. And while they're at it, maybe they can nudge their neighbors in South Carolina and tell them tattooing is not a crime, either.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/231

Posted by Greg

Now a transcript of the March 24 hearing is available, we can explore some of the significant issues raised by Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission that seem to have been overlooked by the media.

First, it must be acknowledged that Clarke's critique is a hawkish one, the crux of which suggests that Bush did not act forcefully, preemptively, or unilaterally enough in combating terrorism:

But the president had decided ... that there should be a low threshold of evidence when it comes to the possibility of terrorists getting their access, getting their hands on chemical weapons. And he acted on that basis. And when he acted on that basis, he and his advisers were all heavily criticized.

So what I was suggesting there and what I am suggesting here now is that ... we should feel free to attack terrorist groups without waiting for them to attack us if we make a policy and an intelligence judgment that they pose a threat.

Of course, here Clarke was referring to Clinton's decision to bomb a pharmaceuticals factor in the Sudan. But the same logic can apply--in fact, must apply--to Bush if we are to accept the Clarke criticisms. Those who criticize Bush for not waiting for concrete information of the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction before engaging in preemptive military action will find no support in Clarke's worldview.

Clarke's other main critique is that the Bush administration was too preoccupied with Iraq to respond adequately to the threat from Al Qaida. The media has, for the most part, latched on tightly to this proposition. However, it shouldn't overlook a few other important points. First, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration did, in fact, attack Afghanistan and the Taliban in order to dismantle a regime that was giving sanctuary to a terrorist organization. Second, Clarke acknowledged in his testimony that Iraq, like Afghanistan, was providing sanctuary to terrorists.

The attack was Al Qaida; not Iraq. The Iraqi government because, obviously, of the hostility between us and them, didn't cooperate in turning [an Al Qaida terrorist involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attack] over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists. ...

KERREY: Can you see where a reasonable person might say that if Yasin is given a safe haven inside of Iraq, prior to 9/11, that the Iraqis are at least unwilling to do what is necessary to bring someone that we believe is responsible for killing Americans in 1993 to justice?

CLARKE: Absolutely. The Iraqis were providing safe haven to a variety of Palestinian terrorists, as well. Absolutely -- as were the Iranians, as were the Syrians.

Lately, one of the prominent theories for the "Bush Lied, People Died" crowd is that the Bush Administration deceived the American public by linking Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Though some of what Clarke has said may give added fuel to these critics, I don't think it's consistent with Clarke's overall message. Clarke believed that the U.S. government should be proactively attacking terrorists and the governments that support them, even if the "threshold of evidence" of a terrorist threat is low. Moreover, Clarke acknowledged that Iraq was "absolutely" harboring terrorists.

When the Bush Administration declared that it was prepared to go to war against terrorism, it didn't limit itself to Al Qaida. Using Clarke's own logic, I think Bush was correct not to do so. In order to prevent further terrorist attacks, by Al Qaida or by anyone else, we must be prepared to act preemptively to neutralize the terrorist threat. After the next terrorist attack, the name of the terrorist organization launching the attack will be of relatively minor importance. Whether the president did all he could to prevent that attack will not.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/230

Posted by Venkat

MSNBC reports here that "Rice seeks private meeting with 9/11 panel" [draw your own conclusions about how damaging the White House perceives Clarke's testimony to be from this decision].

The story focuses on whether Rice will testify under oath, which Rice seems reluctant to do. As expressed by Rice on Nightly News (White House Press Release here containing narrative of Brokaw interview), she has a responsibility to protect the President’s constitutional guarantee of executive privilege. The argument runs that the President will not be able to rely on his advisors to speak to him openly if they could be questioned about their advice to him. In Rice's words, she has to

be responsible and to uphold the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature. It is a matter of whether the President can count on good confidential advice from his staff.

Setting aside the obvious counter-argument that it does not make sense to attempt to rebut Clarke's (and others') sworn testimony with unsworn testimony, I'm having trouble digesting Rice's argument. At the end of the day, whether or not the Commission can access the testimony and question the witness about it is what really matters. The privilege, as with other privileges, allows an individual to refuse to testify, but not to dictate the circumstances of the testimony. To the extent that the advisor is unable to clam up and claim the privilege, the President's interactions with his advisors would necessarily be chilled. BUT if an advisor volunteers to testify, thereby ostensibly waiving (maybe in limited fashion) the privilege, there's no reason why the testimony should not be under oath.

Any better suggestions?

[And note, there doesn't seem to be any claim that the testimony should remain private due to National Security reasons? (Rice: "The public will know everything that I know.") Maybe the administration conflates the two concepts?]

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/229

Posted by Steve

« minimize

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/228

Posted by Hei Lun

Does anyone agree with me that if the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Michael Newdow and strike "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, we would have a new constitutional amendment within six months putting those two words back in? Almost nine out of ten people in an AP poll say that "under God" belongs in the pledge, though it's debatable whether many of these people would support an amendment putting those words back in if they were taken out.

And for those who missed it, Crescateer Amanda Butler was in attendance of the oral arguments and blogged the blow-by-blow, and Dahlia Lithwick does her usual job.

Trackback URL: http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/227