Faux PoliBlog Report

Here's the update on the "PoliBlog" at the Seattle Times. I e-mailed the fellow running the site and he apologized for not googling the name, and he noted that they planned to shut down in November and that they did not plan to establish a serious blogspheric presence. I found that to be acceptable--given that if they are going to shut down, why cause a stink? He posted the following today:

First, a note on the other Poliblog [You mean, original, right?--ed.], professor Steven Taylor of Troy State University in Troy, Ala. This Poliblog apologizes to that Poliblog for not taking the simple step of Googling "Poliblog" before we decided on it, but we'd also like to thank professor Taylor for recognizing that the country is big enough for the two of us. So check out the other Poliblog, and bookmark him.

Given that according to my Hosting Matters stats I have received all of 8 hits from the faux PoliBlog site, I am guessing that I shouldn't be too worried about its influence at the moment ;)

Of course I do find the concept of a web site having a geographical significance to be somewhat amusing.

What I Think I Think about the Sandy Berger Story at this Stage

In no particular order:

1. There are two parts of the story, both incontrovertible, that utter baffle me. a) It is clear that he did take documents out that he knew he shouldn't have--the hand-written notes alone makes one wonder what in the world he was thinking, and b) it is clear that he did this more than once. How in the world could a former National Security Adviser be so, well, stupid?

2. I remain dubious about the socks/pants-stuffing, but hold out the possibility that it is an accurate account. I also hold out the possibility that someone is making it up for any number of reasons. It is noteworthy that the stories I have read on the stuffing business cite sources (plural) not just "a source" as witnesses to said stuffing activities.

3. He should've told the Kerry campaign that he was under investigation.

4. At this point I feel kind of sorry for him, because if this ends up being a wholly innocent story, he has substantially damaged his career for absolutely no good reason.

5. The political fall-out of this story is likely to be slight--it strikes me as no more than a small example of the general Republican charge that Democrats shouldn't be trusted with with national security. However, directly linking this to Kerry isn't going to work too well, one would think. Still, having the Berger and Wilson stories out do blunt, to some degree, the whole Kerry line of argument that states that the country should "trust" the Democrats with the nation's foreign policy.

6. The timing issue is bogus: no matter when this was revealed, the Democrats would have claimed that the timing was suspicious. Indeed, one could argue that it would have been better to waiting until October, when the buzz would likely have been the Berger might by the SecState in the new Kerry admin, and then break the story (or, as reader Steven noted in the comments of a post, why not wait until he was an "official" advisers to Kerry, rather than an "unofficial" one). Indeed, even Kevin Drum notes that the leak's timing is more advantageous to the Democrats than the Republicans, if one assume that the story was going to come out at some point prior to the November elections.

7. The partisan flavor of the coverage from the NYT has been utterly remarkable. The initial story was buried, and one knows full well that if this was a former Bush administration official accused of these kinds of activities that it would be a front page story on a daily basis. As it stands one has to hunt their website for the latest updates. Indeed, the suggestion in today's story (White House Knew of Inquiry on Aide; Kerry Camp Irked) is more aimed at who might've leaked the story than the story itself. After all, if the White House knew, it must mean that someone in the Bush administration leaked the story! And certainly leaking the story is far more important than what Berger did.

Same Song, Different Verse

Starting with the advent of cassette tapes and video tapes (and most recently with Napster and the like), don't we go through this story over and over again with each new technology?

TiVo's Plans Lead to Fight On Copyrights.

Like the p2p music brouhaha, which Steve Jobs figured out to make money with while the rest of the industry fought the inevitable, this strikes me as part of the ongoing merger of tv, computers and the internet. They can fight all they like, but they aren't going to win.

The better way to go is to figure out how to get on the new technowave and ride it to profitability. Instead, it seems that the default position is to simply fight the new tech as long as one can.

It's Chock Full o' Lycopene!

Sean Hackbarth has the latest House of Ketchup.

*Sniff* the HoK is now 19. And I remember when it was born.

Give Me Whoopie Pies (I'll Pass on the Whoopi Goldberg)

I'm with Will Collier:

I love Whoopie Pies. They're what a Moon Pie ought to be if Moon Pies were actually edible.

Oh, and he notes a nice story about President Bush visiting the Amish.

(Yes, all of a sudden the Amish seem to be a major theme here at the Real PoliBlog^TM--accept no substitutes).

You Know You are Approaching Middle Age When...

...you get birthday cards from your bank and the company that manages your 403(b).

I know it's got nothing to do with the amount of my money they have, so it has to be an age issue.

I Don't Suppose they Would Agree to Keep it There?

UPN Keeping 'Amish' Reality Series Under Wraps

UPN has rejected requests by congressmen and its affiliate stations to preview the controversial reality show "Amish in the City" ahead of its July 28 premiere.

"Amish" -- a reality series that chronicles a group of young Amish men and women ages 18-24 as they first encounter the modern world -- was shot secretly in a Hollywood Hills hideaway after initial news of its development provoked some outcries.

Two reactions:

1) Is this the definition of bad taste, or what?

and

2) Why in the world would a member of Congress be requesting an advancd viewing.

The Timing, it Appears, is Everything

Forget the substance: timing is everything.

"The timing speaks for itself," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. (USA)

''The timing is very curious, given this has been underway now for this long," said Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota. (BoGlo)

"The timing of this leak suggests that the White House is more concerned about protecting its political hide than hearing what the commission has to say about strengthening our security," the Kerry campaign said. (Reuters)

My main question is: when would the appropriate timing be?

Mirror Kirk?

Interesting: Enterprise Spoilers Revealed

Rick Berman, executive producer of UPN's Star Trek: Enterprise, revealed to SCI FI Wire several spoilers for the upcoming fourth season, including the possible casting of original Star Trek star William Shatner (Capt. Kirk) in a familiar role. "We're still discussing it with Bill," Berman said in an interview at UPN's fall press preview in Los Angeles. "He had a terrific episode [idea], and we had a nice long lunch meeting with him a couple of weeks ago. And there's a lot of things that need to get ironed out in terms of scheduling, in terms of money. ... But he would play an incarnation of a Kirk, yes. He would not be playing another character."

The only other "incarnation" of Kirk that I can think of would be the Mirror, Mirror Kirk.

Could be interesting.

Multiple Helpings of Sloppy Bergers

For a variety of reasons I haven't had much time for extensive news consumption since about 1:30 yesterday afternoon. However, aside from issue involving clothes-stuffing (which I currently considered uncofirmed), there is another aspect of this tales that is truly vexing, and not disputable:

After one of his visits to the Archives last fall, one of the government officials said, Berger was alerted to the missing documents and later returned some of the materials. On subsequent visits by Berger, Archives staffers specially marked documents he reviewed to try to ensure their return. But the government official said some of those materials also went missing, prompting Archives staffers to alert federal authorities.

Source: USAT.

I am not going to accuse Mr. Berger anything at this point, but one has to ask: how does one do this twice?

For more on this aspect of the story and more linkage, see
Outside The Beltway.

I'm Shocked!

I mean, I thought everyone listened to and complied with the UN.

Israel Defies U.N. Vote Against West Bank Barrier

Israel vowed Wednesday to press ahead with construction of its West Bank barrier despite a U.N. resolution demanding it be torn down, but Palestinians called for international sanctions to force compliance.

I must admit, I was not a big fan of the fence when it went up, and the basic idea still doesn't really sit well with me. However, it does seemed to have contributed to a decrease in suicide bombings. As such, I can't blame to Israelis for building it, or wanting to keep it up.

You Know You are Specialized When...

While I fully understand that importance of the topic to development politics, for some reason I find the fact that there is a Journal of Peasant Studies to be somewhat amusing.

(Ploughing through three weeks of accumulated mail in my office...)

Minor Morning Rant

It never ceases to amaze me that administrative types on a university campus can be surprised when faculty aren't hanging out in their offices in the summer. Given that most faculty are on 10-month contracts, why in Heaven's name would they be on campus? Indeed, isn't one of the things that is the hallmark of the professoriate is that we are often hard to locate? Along with absent-mindedness, isn't being difficult to find one of the key stereotypical traits of professors? It ain't like one gets a ton of writing done in one's university office.

The summer thing truly floors me, however, such as when someone will try to schedule a meeting once classes are over with, and then be surprised that no one shows up. (That happened this year in late May. I warned the Chair that no one (myself included) would come to a committee meeting after classes were done. He thought we should try, but eventually decided to postpone until the Fall).

What further amazes me is that in this day and age that someone will leave one a voicemail, but not just send an e-mail. Or, if one really needs to talk to someone, surely a phone call to the person's home would be in order.

Stealing my Schtick

Thanks to an e-mail from Stefan Sharkansky of Shark Blog for pointing out that the Seattle Times has launched (looks like in June) their own in-house blog. It's name? PoliBlog.

I mean, gee whiz, they couldn't do a Google search to see if the name was already in use? I am the first result, after all.

Yeesh.

My Thanks to Dean

My thanks to Dean Esmay for adding me to his blogroll and for his kind post.

Misc Stuff

I have returned the blogroll to the front page (it was bugging me on its own page) and I have moved it to the right-hand column so if it hangs when loading, it shouldn't stop the main text from coming up. I plan to set up a cache for it, but haven't done it yet, along with numerous other blog-related projects I have been planning to do.

Socks II

CNN is also reporting the socks bit, and this is more detail than this morning:

Law enforcement sources said archive staff told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks.

Most strange.

These allegations triggered the following response:

That latter allegation drew a sharp response from Berger associate and former White House lawyer Lanny Davis, who challenged any unnamed official who makes such an accusation to come forward publicly.

"I suggest that person is lying," he said. "And if that person has the guts, let's see who it is who made the comment that Sandy Berger stuffed something into his socks."

This is the kind of allegation that is either some bizarre hallucination by a staffer or it is highly suggestive that Mr. Berger was trying to smuggle documents. I can think of no other possibilities.

Prepare to be Amused

Even if you saw the edited version this on Special Report with Brit Hume last week, this is worthy of a full viewing.

(Thanks to Citizen Smash for the reminder).

His Socks?!?

Come again?

Berger Reaction: Left v. Right

While the rightish side of the Blogosphere has been talking about the Berger business, the leftish side hasn't gotten into the act yet. At 11:30am central I checked Kos, Liberal Oasis, Kevin Drum, Hellblazer, Matthew Yglesias, Brett Marston, Crooked Timber and Atrios and found nothing (now, I will note that I searched only their front pages--it is possible they commented yesterday in regards to the initial story and that the post has already cycled off the main page. I searched Kos' archives, but still came up with nothing about this story). If anything, the righty blogs are talking about this right now, the lefty blogs appear not to be.

However, I did note a number of posts by Joshua Marshall and Oliver Willis had a response that mirrored my own initial response.

On the other hand, there have been numerous posts at Vodkapundit (here, here and, here. Also, InstaPundit reacted, as did Jeff Quinton (who has a link of others blogging on the story), dito James Joyner. Other right-leaning examples would be Michelle Malkin
and Wizbang. Indeed, there are more refs than I have time to note.

I am not drawing any inference from this observation save that it does seem to indicate that this story flows through the filter of partisanship in specific ways, at least in terms of piquing interest.

Indeed, the main reason I noticed is because I was curious as the more Democratic side of the Blogosphere's reaction, which was muter than I expected.

The New Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis has updated his site (it is easier on the eyes, IMHO) and is using a new engine for his blog.

"Sticking Them" in his Pants

Exactly what does this mean?

Berger and his lawyer said he knowingly removed notes he had made while reading anti-terrorism documents by sticking them in his jacket and pants.

Does "sticking them" in his pants mean putting them in his pockets, or literally putting them in the legs of his pants? If it means the latter, that is both odd, and suggestive that he was trying to remove them without detection. And why do some (not all, by any stretch) news accouns note the pants angle?

Source: LAT

Stephen Green has an amusing (and also quite serious in places) riff on the pants thing here

The Chicago Sun-Times, building on an AP story, notes:

However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers told The Associated Press.

This could end up being quite serious.

This version of the story using the phrase "placing them in his jacket and pants" to describe the removal of the documents,

It also notes that

Breuer said Berger believed he was looking at copies of the classified documents, not originals.

Even if that is true, it hardly exonerates Berger, who should full well know that even copies of classificed documents can't be taken out of the archives. And for that matter, since Berger states he "inadvertantly" took the documents, or what relevance is it that he thought they were copies?

CNN's version of the story notes the following:

But the sources close to Berger said there were other copies of the drafts, that the commission had the final version of the report and that Clarke had said there were not significant changes during the drafting process.

Indeed

Amusing.

Vlade to the Lakers

So reports the LAT: Lakers Turn to an Old Favorite.

While I have been a Spurs fan since 1991ish, I had followed the Lakers from the mid-1980s until the early 90s (when I returned to Texas for grad school). Vlade was a Laker at the end of that period of time, and so this is a real blast from the past. Not a bad move for the Lakers, I suppose, but he is 1) old and 2) no Shaq. I will say that he had a decent run in Sacramento.

For those who wonder as to my basketball fickleness: I didn't grow up watching the NBA (gee, whiz, the Dallas Mavericks were a new team when I was a kid, and the team we got on tv, and they used to stink back then. Plus, my Dad watched baseball, football and golf only back then, so the NBA was never on at our house). However, when we moved to SoCal in late 1983, we started watching the Lakers (the old Lakers: Kareem, Magic and Harold Kurt Rambis in those black glasses). However, once I moved back to Texas, I got the Spurs games and ended up converting. The Lakers were about to fall apart and David Robinson's Spurs were simply move appealing.

I guess if one doesn't acquire one's sports loyalties at a very early age, it is easier to switch. I would never depart from my beloved Cowboys (and I remember rooting for them at like 4 years of age, or even younger), and I even maintain my loyalty to the Rangers (who are having a surprisingly good season this year). However, I didn't solidify my college football loyalties until I went to UT for grad school.

Evolution!

Congrats to Bryan at Arguing with signposts for moving into the Large Mammal category.

"Sloppy" Berger?

At the moment, I am willing to assume that Berger was simply sloppy. However, having said that, I'm with Dean: ", what the hell was Sandy Berger thinking?"

As Will Collier points out, Berger should know better.

FYI: Here's the WaPo version of the story.

Things that are Annopying me Today (Iran/Iraq version)

Ok, the fact that the Iranians allowed safe passage to a number of men who would become part of the 911 attacks is disturbing and requires more investigation. The information in question comes from an advance leak of part of the forthcoming 911 commission's report.

Now, the part that annoys me is that this one piece of information led to a flurry of questions yesterday from commentators and politicians along the lines of "did we invade the wrong country"? I find this annoying because:

1) This is one rather small piece of information, perhaps we could wait for at leas what the report itself says before we start leaping to conclusions. This is just sloppy reasoning.

2) I note that most of the folks who are asking these questions are critics of the war in Iraq. As such, one has to wonder as to the degree to which they are genuinely asking the question, and the degree to which they are simply using one data point to criticize the administration (and one doesn't have to wonder long).

3) The question presumes that the main rationale for going to war in Iraq was Iraqi ties to the 911 attacks. As we know, it wasn't.

4) Are we really to believe that many of these anti-war types wold have supported a war with Iran because of the safe passage issue? As such they are setting up a false dichotomy in their question, as I do not believe that a) they would have supported such a war, or b) that this one piece of information would have been sufficient to lead to war.

5) It isn't as if this is the first hint we have ever had that Iran has cooperated with al Qaeda or that they are a state sponsor of terrorism. We do all remember the "Axis of Evil" do we not?

6) Part of the policy rationale of democratizing Iraq is that it might have the effect of aiding the reformist in Iran to topple the mullahs.

The part that annoys me the most is #1, because it really is some pretty sloppy thinking.