Jumping To Conclusions

Always read the fine print. The New Jersey Education Association wants the state to raise taxes on a certain group:

The solution: what the NJEA and nearly 100 other groups calling themselves the Fairness Alliance have dubbed the "millionaire's tax." The tax is designed to infuse about $1 billion into the state budget for education, health care and the arts by raising income taxes on those earning more than a half-million dollars a year.

From today's Times:

"WASHINGTON, June 2 — The Justice Department's roundup of hundreds of illegal immigrants in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks was plagued with 'significant problems' that forced many people with no connection to terrorism to languish in jails in unduly harsh conditions, an internal report released today found.

The highly critical report from the Justice Department's inspector general concluded that F.B.I. officials, particularly in New York City, 'made little attempt to distinguish' between immigrants who had possible ties to terrorism and those swept up by chance in the investigation.

Justice Department officials said they believed they had acted within the law in pursuing terrorist suspects. 'We make no apologies for finding every legal way possible to protect the American public from further terrorist attacks,' said Barbara Comstock, a spokeswoman for the department."

I'm all for finding every legal way possible to protect the American public from further terrorist attacks. Who isn't? But, an apology is in order, for what was done was not legal.

I'm not a lawyer, but it's not difficult to figure out why the actions taken weren't legal. All one has to do is go to these four sentences:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Those are, of course, the 4th, the beginings of the 5th and 6th, and 8th amendments to the Constitution. People must be secure in their persons. They must, if they are imprisoned, charged with a crime and given a speedy trial, and they cannot be forced to languish in jail under unduly harsh conditions. It's un-American and un-Constitutional.

Paul Krugman's column today. Many others are going to link to it, some will attempt to "fisk" it. It's a must read.

Jay Mazumdar is right when he reminds us that we need to be precise about what we talk about: "The likelihood of Iraq having no WMDs seems pretty thin considering who Saddam was, how big Iraq is, and how many of its neighbors also seems to have WMDs. The WMDs probably are there, as the newly discovered trailers demonstrate. The question we should be emphasizing is whether Saddam ever had enough WMDs to present an imminent threat that justified a preventive, unilateral war lacking international legitimacy."

The war is over; what's the answer to this question?

I am as critical as the next blogger about abuses of police power, but when Partha writes about post-9/11 immigration enforcement that "what was done was not legal", he's simply exhibiting the knee-jerk reaction the New York Times wants him to. He skips the eighth word in the very first sentence of the article. Hundreds of illegal immigrants were rounded up. It is not, of course, "un-American and un-Constitutional" to detain and then deport illegal immigrants.

The article begins by pointing out that many of the people arrested had no connection to terrorism, and then goes into great detail about their treatment, but underplays considerably the fact that the people who were detained were, in fact, criminals. Indeed, as the article notes, "most of the 762 immigrants have now been deported." Although the Times does include one sentence suggesting actual legal problems --

But the inspector general's report found that some lawyers in the department raised concerns about the legality of the tactics, only to be overridden by senior officials.

This is part of a pattern of New York Times stories portraying illegal immigrants as victims, rather than criminals. It's apparently true that (a) most of those arrested were not dangerous, and (b) most of these people would never have been arrested had it not been for the post-9/11 crackdown. As such, it would be reasonable to question whether post-9/11 immigration enforcement has been efficient or even effective. But that in no way is synonymous with the idea that these people were wrongly arrested. If the Times wishes to take the last as its editorial position, if they wish to argue that the nation's immigration laws shouldn't be enforced, they should do so overtly, rather than using the news section to repeatedly insinuate that the government violated the rights of criminals by arresting them. And if the Times has evidence that laws were actually broken, it should say so.

Donald Luskin can occasionally be a little strident in his attacks on Paul Krugman, but he effectively demolishes Krugman's recent partisan screed (yeah, I know, that doesn't narrow it down. I mean this one, from Friday.) Krugman's main theme lately -- okay, his only theme lately -- is that the Bush administration is dishonest. But Krugman (or "former Enron advisor Paul Krugman," as some like to call him) feels so desperate to establish this, that he resorts to dishonesty of his own. In this case, Krugman strings together a series of damning quotes proving that the Bush administration was lying about Iraq -- and the results are compelling. I know Bush lies -- he's a politician, after all -- but reading the editorial made me think the charges were extremely serious, this time around. The only problem is that Krugman pulled them all out of context, as Luskin points out. One example:

And, inevitably, the tangled yarn finally leads to a clipping from Krugman's favorite source for war news -- the BBC.

"This week a senior British intelligence official told the BBC that under pressure from Downing Street, a dossier on Iraqi weapons had been 'transformed' to make it 'sexier' — uncorroborated material from a suspect source was added to make the threat appear imminent."

But it turns out that Krugman's version of the BBC story is what's uncorroborated -- by the actual content of the BBC story, that is. Hogberg found John H. Hinderaker of the Power Line blog has tracked down the BBC story, "Iraq Weapons Dossier 'Rewritten'". Hinderaker writes,

"Even the BBC's own anonymous source concedes that 'Most things in the dossier were double source.' In fact, there is only one fact stated in the dossier that the BBC's anonymous official questions: the statement that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could be 'ready for use within 45 minutes.' This statement was based on information from only one source, who was not considered reliable by the BBC's informant.

"That's it. Everything else in the British dossier is conceded to be correct: '[T]he official said he was convinced that Iraq had programme to produce weapons of mass destruction, and felt it was 30% likely there was a biological weapons programme. He said some evidence had been 'downplayed' by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix."

Why does Krugman go on like this, clipping his clippings and linking them together and searching endlessly for the key to the secret code that will reveal the truth about the Bushie plot to hijack America?

But the official said he was convinced that Iraq had programme to produce weapons of mass destruction, and felt it was 30% likely there was a biological weapons programme.

He said some evidence had been "downplayed" by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix.

Roger Simon takes on Krugman's morning Times column:

06/03/2003: THE TROUBLE WITH KRUGMAN
What appalls me about this morning’s Paul Krugman NYTimes column about WMDs are not the factual errors, bad as they may be, reported on Instapundit and elsewhere, but the continued “Old Consciousness” Krugman’s article represents.

What factual errors in this morning's column? Instapundit does not list any. Neither does Simon -- he just states that they are there, that they are "bad," and his is appalled. Just saying that they are there doesn't make it so.

He and, alas, too many of my one-time allies on the Left are still mired in a “gotcha game,” attempting to dethrone George Bush at all costs, as if that were the most important action in the world, while the rest of us have moved on.

There is nothing wrong with being critical of the government or of our leaders. This isn't a "gotcha game" -- it's democracy. It's important. I wonder where Simon has "moved on" to.

This “Old Consciousness,” call it politics-as-usual or pre-9/11 or Party Politics, if you will, has placed Krugman and his ilk clearly, and I assume inadvertently, on the side of fascism—what should be a very uncomfortable spot for a left/liberal, former or otherwise. But on the side of fascism they are because the focus on missing WMDs, instead of on the unearthing of thousands of mass graves and the overthrow of a brutal, torturing regime that supported terrorism, distorts the reality of the victory in Iraq, which has already freed the people of that country and has changed the equation in the Middle East so that Israeli-Palestinian peace seems possible for the first time in years.

Krugman and his ilk are fascists? Or are on the side of fascism? Sticks and stones.

Krugman address this issue (of the "overthrow of a brutal, torturing regime") in his column: "It's no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I could point out that many of the neoconservatives who fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass murders by Central American death squads in the 1980's. But the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility."

The question remain: Was Saddam an imminent threat?

But Krugman must get the demon Bush, using any pretext he can, the WMDs in this case. But let’s give Paul his due. Let’s stipulate, even though we have no way of knowing at this point, the presence of these weapons was exaggerated by the administration; I still say—so what? Saddam’s gone. It was worth it. And I ask Krugman this simple question: What if some leader had used a similar ruse to get rid of Hitler in 1940? What would he think of that?

Prediction: We won’t be hearing a Krugman answer to that one any time soon.

I'll answer it.

I'm sure -- positive in fact -- that some leader would have LOVED to have used any ruse necessary to have gotten rid of Hitler in 1940. But, of course, no ruse was necessary in 1940. Great Britian and France were already at war against Germany.

And, does Simon genuine believe what he wrote in that paragraph? That it doesn't matter if our leaders -- and I'm not saying they did, he's saying that if they did, it doesn't matter -- if our leaders lie to us? That only the end result matters?

I happened to run across this post from last week, in which Dwight Meredith points out what he considers to be a major inconsistency in George Bush's attitudes towards juries:

George W. Bush has a perverse view of juries. Some people think that juries make essentially random decisions and have no trust in the accuracy of jury verdicts. Others, myself included, think that juries generally find the truth. George W. Bush is firmly in both camps.

While Governor of Texas, Mr. Bush showed an abiding faith in the unerring accuracy of jury decisions in death penalty cases.

[...]

Mr. Bush has much less confidence in the accuracy of the verdicts of civil juries. Mr. Bush has proposed that politicians and not jurors decide the amount of non-economic damages due to the most seriously injured victims of negligence.

That doesn't negate the validity of Meredith's observation that criminal defendants are more likely to have poor representation than high-profile civil defendants are. However, that observation is relevant only to the extent that the problem in each situation is one of jury error due to imperfect information. But that isn't the case; the issues presented aren't the same. With regard to criminal trials, the question we must confront is the accuracy of the verdict. With regard to civil trials, the issues Bush is raising (correctly or otherwise) are (A) the costs of frivolous suits regardless of the outcome and (B) overly generous damage awards. The latter is not a question of "accuracy"; indeed, the whole point is that there is no "correct" amount of punitive or non-economic compensatory damages (i.e., pain-and-suffering). 

A civil jury that awards millions to a woman for spilling coffee on herself (and spare me the ATLA propaganda about this case; I've read it, and it isn't convincing) is not making an inaccurate decision due to imperfect information; it is making a dumb decision based on emotion. Of course, one could argue that the same problem could present itself with regard to criminal juries, but (a) Dwight Meredith isn't making that argument, and (b) as I noted above, the differing standard of proof in criminal cases would (hopefully) make that less likely. Moreover, the situation is different precisely because there is a right answer in a criminal case. We ask the jury whether they're convinced that the defendant committed the crime; that's a question of historical fact. Whether the parents of an injured child suffered $15,000 worth of non-economic damage or $15,000,000 worth is inherently arbitrary, leaving far more leeway for the jury, providing more opportunity for a bad decision.

So, in fact, this "perverse" inconsistency that Dwight Meredith sees in Bush's views exists only if you accept his premise that the primary problem with jury verdicts is imperfect information correlating with the skill of the lawyers. Presumably Bush is not working from that premise.

Thirty-five years ago today, Robert F. Kennedy won the California Democratic Primary and, after making his acceptance speech, was shot. (He was actually shot a bit after midnight on June 5th, but it was still the night of June 4th.)

Many extraordinary books have been written about Kennedy. Some of this countries best historians and journalists have weighed in -- including Evan Thomas, Pierre D. Salinger, Jules Witcover, David Halberstam, Jack Newfield, Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

For my money, however, the best biography of Kennedy is Joseph A. Palermo's In His Own Right: The Political Odyssey of Senator Robert F. Kennedy. It's extraordinary, Kennedy's voice comes across loud and clear, and it's a shame that it did not get the same attention as, say, Thomas's book, which was excerpted in Newsweek magazine a couple of years ago.

If you're interested in Kennedy's life, I highly recommend Palermo's book.

Opponents of the Iraq war, and of George Bush, have been very vocal lately in claiming that the failure (so far) to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq proves that "Bush lied." But for people worried about honesty, they don't seem to have any trouble distorting the truth for their own agenda. First we had Maureen Dowd falsely claiming that Bush said that Al Qaeda wasn't a problem anymore. Then we had Paul Krugman, among many others, claiming that Paul Wolfowitz said that weapons of mass destruction were just an excuse for war.

Now we have a fellow named George Wright in Britain's Guardian repeating that lie, and extending it, claiming that Wolfowitz admitted that the U.S. was really motivated by oil:

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.

The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

The second problem, though, is more fundamental. Wolfowitz didn't say what the Guardian claims he said. From the actual transcript:

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil.  In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq.  The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

As the Guardian frames it, Wolfowitz is apparently claiming that Iraq's oil is important to us economically; as Wolfowitz actually said it, he's claiming that Iraq's oil was important to Iraq economically, giving us no options in pressuring them financially, unlike the near-bankrupt North Korea. They manage to reverse the meaning of Wolfowitz's words entirely.

I just don't understand it. Do reporters just assume that nobody will ever check up on them? I suppose it's not an unreasonable assumption -- just an outdated one. Before the age of the internet, it was very difficult to do so. Reporters apparently simply haven't adapted to the fact that the real transcript of a press conference can be available to us before their own versions of it are. (I guess the only way to file the story sooner than the truth can come out is to use Jayson Blair's approach -- skip the time-consuming reporting process and go right to the writing.) But even though it's wonderful to see that the public can learn the truth in spite of media attempts at spin, it's depressing to realize how many stories we'll never know the truth about, simply because they slipped under the radar or happened before the blogosphere arrived to point out their lies.

The Guardian has admitted that the article I (and every other blogger) jumped all over was wrong, and has actually taken the step of removing the article from their site. (Doesn't that seem awfully sneaky, by the way? While I certainly endorse the practice of printing corrections, should a paper really hide its errors by rewriting history to pretend they never published the error in the first place?) At least one blogger has suggested that the error may have occurred because the reporter was working with the German translation of the speech rather than the actual transcript of the speech. That seems slightly plausible, given how quick they were to admit that they were wrong. So let's assume it was an honest, unintentional error.

But step back a minute, and try to figure out exactly what they were thinking. First, a reporter had to read the speech and interpret it that way. Then, an editor had to approve the story. And neither one thought anything was strange about this story, as written? Wouldn't someone reporting such a bombshell pause for a minute and consider whether there was something wrong with it? And if they did, and concluded that it was reasonable? What does that say about them?

In order to believe that this story was reasonable, they would, fundamentally, have to believe that it was true: the U.S. war was about oil. Okay, well, a lot of people believe that, although I'm not sure they have a clear grasp of what "about oil" would mean. But they would also have to believe either that (a) the Bush administration had suddenly, inexplicably, decided to admit this inconvenient truth, or that (b) it was such a self-evident truth that Wolfowitz just couldn't help but admit it, even though he was trying to keep it a secret.

If that doesn't sound that strange to you, insert different facts. Would you think it remarkable if Jacques Chirac "admitted" that he opposed the war because he doesn't like Jews? Or if Gerhard Schroeder "admitted" he did so because he was on Saddam Hussein's payroll? If you heard either of those things secondhand, even if you believed it, wouldn't you say to yourself, "Hey, wait, that can't be right. He wouldn't say that. Maybe I'd better doublecheck that"? Of course you would. For neither the reporter nor his editor to do so? Can't you just picture them sitting there, reading it, nodding, and saying, smugly, "Well, of course. I already knew that. No point in going to the original source. That's obvious." For one guy to do it, well, someone can be biased. But for two people (or more, for that matter)? What kind of groupthink is there over at the Guardian?

Once again, Jay Mazumdar is right on target.

With all the repulsive back-slapping and congratulations throughout the blogsphere about the resignations at the New York Times, perhaps it's time for some of these bloggers to come clean themselves. The New York Times has; will bloggers? Or is the blogsphere above self-correction? We know the New York Times can accept responsibility. Is the blogsphere above accountability?

Jay writes: "Prior to the onset of the war, right-wing bloggers were throwing around all sorts of accusations about how the French and the Germans opposed the war because they provided Saddam with his WMD arsenal in violation of UN sanctions. They promised us -- most prominently Steven den Beste -- that the war once prosecuted would reveal French and German duplicity and complicity with a murderous regime."

But den Beste wasn't alone. Andrew Sullivan made these accusations. Instapundit repeatedly made them (or repeated them).

So, it's time for accountability. Did the French and Germans provide Saddam with WMDs? Or, are we going to see a correction soon?

I'm not holding my breath.

Recent diplomacy aside, on this anniversary, it's important to remember who are great friends are.

Instapundit approvingly quotes someone saying: "These people destroyed themselves. Nobody went on a witch hunt for Raines or Lott, they dug their own graves and made a lot of enemies all on their own."

Huh? No one went on a witch hunt for Howell Raines?

Not that he had anything to do with Raines's demise, but there is a two word answer for this incredible falsehood: Andrew Sullivan.

Ken Layne writes (and Virginia Postrel agrees) that Howell Raines's legacy is a legacy of lies.

Other than trying to figure out which lies Raines actually told in these various scandals (did he tell knowlingly any?), I have to disagree with Layne and Postrel.

True enough, some will gloat on and on about Raines and his resignation. To these people, this will always be Raines's legacy.

To most, I believe, what they will most remember about Raines's stewardship of the Times will be its post-9/11 coverage (for which it won 6 Pulitzer Prizes) and, most of all, the Portraits of Grief. The Times is not a newspaper without fault. But, these were journalism at journalism's highest.

Remember those museum looting stories? They might have been a tad bit premature:

Almost all of the priceless items feared stolen from the Baghdad Museum when it was ransacked by looters have been found safe in a secret vault, the U.S.-led administration for Iraq said on Saturday.

Another trove of priceless jewelry, the Treasure of Nimrud, was found in a flooded Central Bank vault on Thursday.

The Nimrud artefacts, hundreds of gold and gem-studded pieces from the ancient kingdom of Assyria, were retrieved by U.S. investigators after the vaults below the gutted shell of the looted bank building were drained.

The treasures, discovered between 1988 and 1990 in ancient royal tombs below an Assyrian palace dating from the ninth century BC, had been feared lost. But U.S. investigators learned they had been placed in a central bank vault in the early 1990s, possibly to protect them during the 1991 Gulf War.

"They were never lost," acting Central Bank Governor Faleh Salman said. "We knew all along they were there. It just took a bit of time to get at them because of the flooding."

We're seeing another example of the media piling on right now, with the lack of discoveries of weapons of mass destruction being cited as proof that Bush lied. Maybe they're right, or maybe we'll find out in a few months that they were hidden right before the regime fell, and some Iraqi will say, "We knew all along they were there."

As many bloggers are either taking credit for Howell Raines's resignation or crowing about it, let's remember what the vast majority of the blogsphere still is. Once again, Jay Mazumdar, from a few months back: "But really, [bloggers] are little more than ideological librarians, providing links to stories (by real reporters) which confirm their preconceived notions. The writing styles of even the most respected bloggers (you know the ones) differ greatly from that found in news stories or respected columns. These bloggers confuse condescension with argument and sarcasm with wit, leaving the bitter aftertaste of pathetic know-it-all-ism. If blogging does have a future, it should be because true journalists have more to offer, other than their print media pieces. I think Josh Marshall is an ideal example, combining actual reporting with analysis reflecting both his opinions and a sense of fairness. It would be nice to see more blogs with actual news reporting and fewer peddlers of ideological rigidity."

Jay mentions Josh Marshall. There are other wonderful exceptions: Kos, Brad deLong, Kieran Healy, the extraordinarily literate duo of Molly Wyman and Deirdra Clemente (neither of whom write much about politics, and, in Molly's case, recently hasn't been writting much at all, but when they do write, it's written so incredibly well), and Jay Mazumdar. There are, of course, other exceptions, but, as of now, these are just exceptions and there are few.

Blogging is not journalism. Not that there's anything wrong with finding "actual news reporting" in blogs, but arguing that blogs should have "actual news reporting" is like arguing that the science section of the newspaper should contain "actual scientific research." It conflates roles. Bloggers are commentators, essayists, pundits. They -- we -- are not reporters. Sure, if we happen to experience something firsthand, we can report it. If we feel like doing original research, we can. But that's not our primary function.

While I don't agree with much of his politics, I do agree that Josh Marshall's blog is a high quality one -- and it should be, since Josh Marshall is a professional. But most bloggers are not, and it's unrealistic to hold them to the same standard. Even if it occasionally seems otherwise, Glenn Reynolds has a full time job; Instapundit is just a hobby for him. Is he an "ideological librarian?" Perhaps. So what?

If I want reporting, I'll read the New York Times. (And then believe the opposite of what they say.) If I want commentary on Australian politics, I'll read Tim Blair. If I want someone to savage Paul Krugman, I'll read Donald Luskin. If I want a roundup of all the important Middle Eastern news, I'll read Little Green Footballs. If I want essays on applied economics, I'll read Asymmetrical Information. If I want professional punditry, I'll read the New Republic. Etc., etc. But it surely doesn't make sense to criticize one media outlet for not being the other.

Last week, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press created some big news by releasing their annual survey of world attitudes towards the U.S. as part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project. Eric Alterman, occasionally accused of anti-Semitism for his anti-Israel bias -- and quite defensive about it -- made a big deal of one of its findings:

In the meantime, check out this amazing statistic. "U.S. policies toward the Middle East come under considerable criticism in the new poll. In 20 of 21 populations surveyed - Americans are the only exception - pluralities or majorities believe the United States favors Israel over the Palestinians too much. This opinion is shared in Israel; 47% of Israelis believe that the U.S. favors Israel too much, while 38% say the policy is fair and 11% think the U.S. favors the Palestinians too much." Did everybody get that? The Israelis think we favor Israel too much. Call me an anti-Semite, but I think that makes it true.

There's always a danger of rejecting inconvenient facts just because they don't support our preconceptions, but I don't think that's the case in this instance. A friend of mine likes to quote Carl Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" saying, and I think it applies here. (At least, I think that it's a quote from Sagan.) Given that our recent policy consists of supporting the democratically-elected Israeli government, that "finding" is essentially the equivalent of saying that half of all Israelis are less supportive of Israel than the U.S. And that, despite the fact that the opposition to the current Israeli governing coalition was pummeled in the last election.

That's possible, I suppose -- but does it make sense to say so based only on a single question asked once of 903 people? Isn't it more plausible that (a) the random sample wasn't truly representative for some reason, or (b) there was a translation problem which caused the question to be misinterpreted (We only have the English translation of the questions asked, but presumably the surveys were conducted in the native languages of the various countries), or (c) there was some sort of error in data compilation, or (d) the numbers represent a typographical error, or even (e) fraud occurred?

In this case, I suggest that the design of the question was flawed. The question asked for the respondent's opinion of U.S. policy:

Q.29 What’s your opinion of U.S. policies in the Middle East – would you say they are fair, or do they favor Israel too much, or do they favor the Palestinians too much?

We tend to take survey results as gospel, at least within the mathematical confines of the error margin, but they're subject to the same limitations as any other reports: mistakes, lies, confusion, the vagaries of chance. (A 95% confidence interval implies that one out of twenty times, there will be an error larger than the error margin.) We shouldn't ignore data that's strange merely because it's strange, but we shouldn't toss our common sense out the window, either. And if the strange results surprisingly agree with us, we should be doubly cautious that we're not accepting the results merely because they provide validation for our idiosyncratic opinions.

The Wall Street Journal opinion page is irate at the federal prosecutors handling Martha Stewart's case.

The WSJ says that Stewart's crimes, if there are any, aren't that big. It compares it to lying about speeding. Also, since she hasn't been charged with insider trading, they note that she shouldn't be charged (as she has been) with lying about participating in insider trading. (It's more complicated than this, but, basically, Stewart denied that she committed a crime, and the prosecutors have used this denial to charge her with misleading the prosecution and her stockholders). The prosecutors, the WSJ claims, are overreaching.

I wonder if the WSJ was able to write all this with a straight face? Or if they were intending to be ironic?

The Wall Street Journal, of course, was unrelenting in its pursuit of President Clinton. Clinton, whose crime (if you actually believe it was a crime), was lying about something he did. And the thing he lied about wasn't even a crime.

You can't support Martha Stewart and not support President Clinton. It's not logically possible. Except if you're the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.

Last night's Charlie Rose show was a low point of American journalism. It was something you'd expect from Fox or the local news.

Rose had Chris Matthews and Margaret Carlson on to talk about Senator Hillary Clinton's new book. They weren't to talk about the buzz around the book, but what was actually contained in the book.

All three actually admitted that they hadn't finished the book, yet. You'd think that ethics would preclude them from discussing a book they hadn't completed. They just sat there, talking about what they assumed was in the book and making jokes about the Clinton family.

When I read a movie review, I expect that the critic has seen the movie. When I watch PBS, I expect the "experts" to have read what they are analyzing. From now on, I'll make exceptions for Chris Matthews and Margaret Carlson.

Peter here. David invited me to be an occasional contributor to his blog, and who am I to turn down such an invitation? I suppose this is where I'm supposed to tell you a little about myself. But really, if you want to know about me, stick with the site and read my posts; you'll figure me out eventually.

At our college reunion weekend, Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy took to asking fellow alumni the following questions:

• How does your life today compare with what you thought your life would be like at your 10th Reunion as of the day you graduated from college?
  
• If you could go back to the beginning of your freshman year of college and give yourself advice about how to go about college, what advice would you give yourself?
  

My answers were "it's about as I expected" and "work harder and play harder". (Hey, it's the best I could come up with after a weekend of drinking.) The latter answer seemed to be about what most people came up with as well. Take college by the horns. Live life to its fullest. Good advice, always.

Well, a little while later, Orin links to party-pooper Dan Simon, who notes that basically, none of us would follow our own advice. (He links to a Nathaniel Hawthorne short story that illustrates the point). And he's probably right. But I already knew he was right about me. I'd hear the advice from my future self, and then probably go right ahead and be the lazy-ass I was doomed to be. Which is fine with me, because I enjoyed college, and I'm generally happy with my life.

But if I only had the presence of mind to ask my future self for some hot stock tips...

By now, you've no doubt heard that the Army has been using "culturally offensive music", such as Drowning Pool, Metallica, and Barney (yes, the purple dinosaur) to break the spirit of Iraqi prisoners. Turns out that Metallica is none too pleased. But they know their limitations:

"What am I supposed to do about it," [drummer Lars Ulrich] asked, "get George Bush on the phone and tell him to get his generals to play some Venom?"

Actually, that sounds like a pretty funny idea to me...

It's fashionable, and perhaps too easy, to bash the United Nations. Still, sometimes it's so easy because it's so necessary. The problem is not that the UN is utterly useless -- plenty of organizations are -- but that people are determined to pretend otherwise. Remember all those people who wanted to let the UN handle the Iraq situation, both before and after the war actually began? Well, maybe the way the UN, and the international community generally, is handling the mess in the Congo should be seen as instructive of why the Bush administration was determined to bypass the organization as often as possible:

Three days after gun battles between warring ethnic militias brought this town to a terrified standstill, the newly arrived commander of the multinational force dispatched by the United Nations pledged today "to reassure and to protect" its people. But he made clear he did not intend to disarm the fighters, many of them children.

Speaking to reporters on the airport tarmac here, the commander of the French-led force, Brig. Gen. Jean Paul Thonier, said he would not strip the militias of their guns, venture outside the city or get in the middle of a gun battle.

"Separating the factions is not part of my mission," he said.

The United Nations peacekeepers in Bunia — who preceded the European Union force, and are hampered by a mandate allowing them to use weapons only when fired on — have been unwilling to risk investigating such incidents, let alone stop them.

Now, the situation in the Congo -- an ethnically-based civil war, in which neighboring powers keep interfering -- is a mess, providing no simple answers. And certainly the United States hasn't made the sort of commitment to resolve the situation that it did with regard to Iraq. But is that required? Is the lesson we're supposed to take away from this situation, and the rhetoric surrounding the Iraq crisis, that a practical model of successful international cooperation involves Europeans deciding when something should be done, and then Americans providing the muscle to make it happen? Because I don't think that's going to be acceptable to many in the United States. Nor should it be. If they can't take care of the minor problems without us, then why should we solicit or respect their input on the major problems? The only reason would be if they had superior wisdom and judgment to that of the U.S. -- and it's a little offensive to suggest that.

Tired of being subjected to unwanted Metallica and Barney, Iraqis are fighting back by forming boy bands:

Cinemas, breweries and alcohol stores have been threatened and attacked by militant groups, and in many areas women have been told not to walk outdoors without a veil. But Unknown To No One say they won't let extremists get in their way.

"We lived under dictatorship for 35 years. I'm not prepared to go through that again, and I don't think anybody is," said lead singer Nadeem Hamed, a 20-year-old biology student. "If people attack us for being in a band, that's terrorism."

Seriously, this is great news. May thousands of Iraqi boy bands bloom. As a bonus, it's a perfect way to piss off anti-American-culture fundamentalist Muslims and anti-American-culture fundamentalist leftists at the same time. Someone get George Bush on the phone and ask him to play Unknown to No One at his next press conference...

In today's New York Times, William Safire writes: "In the Hillary Clinton Travelgate case, the independent counsel Robert Ray concluded that her sworn testimony was 'factually false,' but he declined to prosecute because he didn't think a jury would convict the first lady of perjury. Prosecutors hate to spoil their records."

Safire's implication is clear: Clinton was guilty, but her fame would have kept her from being found guilty.

If he would have pursued the matter, Robert Ray's record would not have been sullied because of the supposed incompitance of the jury. It would have been because, as Kenneth Starr himself said, there was no "substantial and credible" evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Safire is still trying to spin "travelgate" for his own devices. However, the witch hunt is over. It's time for him to give it up.

Less than 15% of the American workforce is unionized. The New York Times thinks it's awful that many government workers might have to suffer under some of the same oppressive working conditions faced by the other 85% of the population:

The House has already rubber-stamped a plan proposed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who wants the "flexibility" to become in effect the potentate of payroll. Under that bill, Mr. Rumsfeld and his managers would have final word on the merit, demerit and pay raises of workers, who would have minimal recourse to appeal. Workers are understandably anxious about this work force revolution, warning of a retreat toward the 19th-century spoils system of patronage and cronyism.

(And what if that did happen? Would it really hurt the quality of the federal workforce all that much, anyway?)

According to the National Weather Service, as reported in the New York Times:

the average temperature in New York for May, a customarily balmy month, has been an inhospitable 58.7 — several degrees below normal. More telling, however, is that for the first time in 20 years there was not a day in May when the thermometer hit 80.

Calling 58.7 degrees "inhospitable" is an allowable exaggeration, considering it's supposed to be spring. And along with the cold, it's been rainy and dreary here for a month straight. So how do they lead off that very same article?

On a chilly and sodden afternoon last week, Christina Vrachnos braced herself against the wind on Madison Avenue, and cast her eyes toward the skies. "Is it global warming?" she wailed. "What is it? What have we done to deserve this wretched weather?"

Talk about a political axe to grind. Global warming is somehow to blame for one of the coldest Mays on record? Perhaps without global warming it would only have been in the 40s. Perhaps we deserve this weather because Christina Vrachnos is an idiot. Or at best very gullible.

Peter overlooks a possibility; it may be that Christina Vrachnos is more subtle than the reporters at the New York Times. She might have been attempting irony which went over the reporter's head. Knowing the media's penchant for hyping the global warming issue, I often sarcastically blame the weather conditions -- whatever they are -- on global warming. Cold outside? Maybe it's because of global warming. There was an earthquake? Maybe it was due to global warming. The Cubs are in first place? Maybe it's global warming. I can certainly picture an overly earnest New York Times reporter overhearing such a comment and eagerly repeating it in a column. They want to believe it, after all.

And on the subject of global warming, there's an excellent post by Iain Murray, generally at the Edge of England's Sword, but guest-blogging over at the Volokh Conspiracy, in which he points out what a truly objective media would:

I've been dealing with climate science issues in detail for approaching a month today. As a result, I am amazed whenever I hear anyone say that "science shows" anything in the climate change debate. The plain fact is that normal scientific methods simply aren't applicable in the climate science area. Normally, you come up with a hypothesis and run experiments to check it. The trouble is that you can't run experiments with the climate. We have no other Earth to act as a control (anyone who points to Venus as an example is showing his ignorance there and then). The science can therefore only progress by building models, which, if acceptably accurate, might predict what will happen. But those models are based on theory. If they cannot predict what is currently happening (as we know from observation) accurately, there is something wrong with them and/or the underlying theory. Theorists, however, are often wedded to their theories.

I don't mean to suggest that there's anything dishonest about changing the models to explain new data; that's a perfectly reasonable scientific practice. The problem is changing the models to explain past data and then pretending that the models represent established science, as opposed to mere hypotheses.

Good news from Saudi Arabia: they're now telling al-Qaida members directly that they're bad Muslims:

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - Saudi investigators are using an unusual tactic in their interrogations of al-Qaida suspects arrested after last month's suicide bombings here: They're bringing in clerics to lecture the militants on the n