Billmon and the Territories

A truly, truly savage critique over at Billmon of the Bush administration's announcement of support for Sharon's plan of a unilateral pullout of the Gaza strip (in exchange for entrenchment of existing West Bank settlements).

Here's just a taste:

This is a shameful capitulation. As the Reuters story notes, the statement overturns in one stroke almost 40 years of official U.S. policy -- a policy Shrub's father actually showed a fair amount of political courage in defending. For decades, Israeli leaders (Likud and Labor alike) have worked to create those "new realities on the ground" -- as the statement, with the usual neocon arrogance, describes them -- through illegal land expropriations, relentless discrimination against Palestinian landowners, and lavish government subsidies for Jewish settlers. And for decades, the U.S. government has refused to accept Israel's bully boy tactics, despite the relentless, continuous efforts of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

That's gone now -- and probably for good, as I'll explain in a moment. Today's statement essentially guts the road map (itself a largely gutless process) by deleting the essential principle that the final status of the territories will not be determined by unilateral action on either side (which in the real world, means on the Israeli side.) It also negates the fundamental premise of UN Resolution 242 -- the bedrock of all peace efforts over the past 40 years -- that territory will not be acquired by force.

Indeed, Sharon actually ends up with something better than an approved settlement list from Bush. He gets virtual carte blanche to keep any settlement he wishes to keep -- and indeed, to grab any part of the West Bank he wishes to grab, as long as it can be connected in some way to those "existing major Israeli populations centers." And if you know anything about Israel's settlement policies in the occupied territories, you know how good they are at connecting things.

That's just a small part... Billmon is TICKED. (Needless to say, the comments thread is 395 comments strong and just getting warmed up). In some respects, I share his concerns; I have believed and continue to believe that the final borders must be subject to negotiation, and that an over-focus on "the situation on the ground" as deterministic of the final outcome creates a very dangerous precedent. Uprooting thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of settlers would be a disturbing and potentially violent task, no doubt, but this was always part-and-parcel of the settlement process. The Israeli government can't shuck its own responsibility for this slow explansion any more than the P.A. can for the "drive them into the sea", anti-semetic rhetoric of its extremist members.

(In fact, considering the financial incentives for settlement in the Territories, one could easily hold the Israeli government directly responsible, but that is a debatable matter.)

Still, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with Billmon's insistence that "Washington truly is Likud-occupied territory now". Needless to say, that sort of argument is the first step down a very dark road indeed, and obscures the fact that no matter how powerful, AIPAC and the neo-cons are only a few players in a very large game indeed.

For those who actually read this site and don't read his...

Atrios is on Air America right now.

Although I'm more than pleased at his success, he's about the most public secret pseudonymous commentator I've yet ran across.

(Were I invited onto Air America- which is probably unlikely given my current posting frequency- I'd at least use a voice disguiser. Mostly because they sound cool, sure, but pseudonymity requires some sacrifices.)

Edit: it's been pretty good, although I think that Janeane and Sam's take on Bush's backers misses the historical context of the Republican spin machine: to attempt to manufacture their own counterparts to FDR, Wilson, LBJ (to an extent), and other notable Democrats. The record of Republican presidents since the start of the century hasn't been exactly inspiring, and the ones from the last 30 years are almost hilariously bad. They've got to cover for that.

(Yes, that includes Reagan. The only reason Reagan's foreign policy wasn't a total failure was Mikhail Gorbachev.)

The spin is because now that there's a war on, they really, really want Bush II to be the new FDR. They'll do and say anything to do that. They're also desperate to keep Clinton's reputation in the toilet, because his relatively successful presidency and sexual dalliances are a serious threat to the core tenet of social conservatism: that private (sexual) morality determines success.

Unbelievable

Bush's press conference tonight was unbelievably bad. When he wasn't stammering or transparently dodging questions, he was looking astoundingly insincere about concepts (like grief for the 9/11 victims) that should have been impossible to fake! And that tie? Who vetted the tie? Fish markets don't have herringbones like that! The first and easiest rule of television, a medium that he's supposed to have mastered, gets completely forgotten!

In any case, this is also a note that due to a spam buildup at my other address, I've switched addresses to hegemons_shadow@hotmail.com. That should keep the harvesters off for a few weeks or two at least. Those of you who rely on that address, take a note of it.

(Once again, there's no affiliation between my humble site and either the views or works of Mr. Card or of the ancient greek orator.)

I was wrong, by the by, about those Japanese hostages. I really wish I hadn't been.

Crisis (probably) averted

It looks like the Japanese hostages will be freed, instead of being burned alive by their kidnappers. That's good news, extremely good. It may not stem the controversy over what happened, though.

Japan's presence in this particular conflict has always been problematic at best. The Japanese people were extremely opposed to sending over GSDF forces to Iraq, and I've got the impression that even the government would have said "no" had Bush not leaned on Koizumi to send some sort of help. The eventual compromise position was that the Japanese would go over, but would operate strictly on a humanitarian basis. They'd only use their guns to defend themselves. There was, and is, a controversy over what would happen if Japan lost soldiers and/or civilians, and we've come very close to seeing what would happen.

I've thought about it, and I think that there are really three ways it can go. First is a broadly "right-wing response", which will be overwhelming outrage at the deaths of Japanese in Iraq and a call for either an increased presence in Iraq and more aggressive rules of engagement. It would almost certainly be used as ammo for the right's crusade to end the section of Japan's constitution that outlaws war, which has been seen as outdated (if not humiliating) by the Japanese right for a while now. That'd almost certainly get blended together with a nice helping of xenophobia and anti-foreigner anger: at the Iraqis for killing Japanese, and at the Americans for forcing Japan's hand.

The more likely responses, however, are broadly left-wing, and they're a touch more interesting. The simple response is almost certainly the most likely: "let's get them out of there, I don't care how and damn the consequences". Unlike the United States, there isn't much support for their presence in the first place, and there's a conflicted attitude towards the military in general that makes appeals to "our troops overseas" unlikely to gain much traction. If Japanese citizens were to die in Iraq, it's quite likely that Koizumi would listen, and pull Japanese troops out. Even if they don't die, he may do so anyway if the current uprising is not quelled by the Americans.

The third option, however, is the one that is either the most interesting or the most disturbing, depending on how you look at it. Let's say Koizumi says "no, we can't leave, the Americans would punish us for it and we rely on them for their security". This is actually quite likely to happen. Some people will undoubtedly conclude that Koizumi is lying, but others will conclude that he's right- the Americans have the Japanese by the proverbial short hairs and there's nothing that Japan can do about it. What if some people say "Ok, then, let's get out from under the American umbrella and start handling our own affairs?" This isn't necessarily a right-wing response, because some on the left will almost certainly realize that the United States is going to be able to continue to dictate Japan's foreign policy as long as they're protecting them, and that Japan's freedom to remain broadly peaceful requires Japan to become responsible for its own security. There is also an economic argument to be made for Keynesian stimulus through military spending.

If that happens, Japan would almost certainly scrap Article 9 (the article that forces peace). If the left decided that pacifism is impossible as long as they're under the American umbrella then there would be little real opposition; the right certainly isn't going to oppose them. A Japan with a real military wouldn't really require the United States' assistance- they're already surprisingly powerful using only the constitutionally mandated 1% of GDP, and have leveraged their technological prowess into creating one of the best-equipped militaries in the world. They may have a small (and shrinking) relative population to other military powers, but you don't need a huge population to have an effective military.

If this happens, however, the strategic situation in the Asian-Pacific region would change overnight. China would almost certainly freak out, as Japan's technological prowess easily dwarfs their own. North Korea would likely do the same, but Japan's potential military capability really dwarfs their own; the only reason it doesn't now is because of that 1% of GDP limitation. Both have nuclear weapons, but Japan could easily build nukes as well, and public opinion on that issue is coming around thanks to the threat of North Korea. South Korea would be strongly opposed, but Japan isn't really the same country it was during the Meiji period; the obsession with invading Korea that plagued Japanese foreign policy since the late Ashikaga shogunate would be seen as ludicrous nowadays. In a lot of respects they're actually natural allies against China and North Korea. All the players in the region must also be thinking about the possibility of China flying apart into smaller statelets; the communist party can't last forever, and the centrifugal political and economic forces in China never really went away.

It would be deeply weird were the United States' actions in the Middle East to prompt this sort of massive change in East Asia. Indeed, the news that the hostages will be released implies that this scenario is farther away than it seemed yesterday or the day before. Still, the central contradiction of Japanese pacifism has been around for a long time, and Iraq is just as possible a catalyst as any. It's not like being an "economic tiger" is going to do it anymore. The 90's are long dead.

Kos and the Republicans

The biggest issue in Blogdom right now is undoubtedly the unwise comments made by Kos about the dead contractors in Fallujah. He said something along the lines of "Screw them" because of the fact coming out that they were mercenaries, and Kos is none too fond of mercenaries. Impolitic, but hardly the worst thing I've read online. The reaction, however, was enormous, with the Kerry site delinking Kos, various bloggers on the left criticizing him, and the right wing bloggers going absolutely mad over the whole thing. Kevin Drum made a good point about this:

Bottom line: like it or not, Kos is a spokesman for the left these days, and this kind of stuff doesn't help us. His advertisers are pulling out because of course they can't be associated with statements like this. It's a vote killer. And the end result will probably be a million bucks worth of fund raising for conservative causes. Not exactly what we need right now.

To an extent, I agree with him, but I think he missed the important thing: it's not about getting the Republicans money, it's about denying Democrats money.

See, I really see this as a sort of a test. The conservative online hegemony that prompted the creation of this website has been deminishing for a while now, as the "left blogosphere" and other related liberal websites have become more numerous and (this is key) more prominent. Most importantly, however, they've become a valuable source of money for various Democratic candidates. Bloggers like Atrios and Kos are becoming prominent "bundlers"- after a fashion. One of the primary Republican goals must be disconnecting these fundraisers from the candidates, and the best way to do that is by carefully scanning for "sound bites" that they can use to drive the wedge. Hence the reason Kos was targeted- they wanted to see whether or not the tactic would work in dividing the politicians from these most engaged fundraisers. And, if you look at Atrios' new linking and blogad policy, which emphasizes these delinks, it appears to be working.

Hence the reason why comments like Mike Stoller's comparison of blogging and Talk Radio, while excellent, strikes me as a little off the mark. Kos is a target because he's a valuable source of funds, not simply because he's an opinion leader. (Stoller does mention this, but it's not his main thrust). Bloggers are ALSO attacked for being opinion leaders, but the money makes it far more virulent. Talk radio is completely different, due to the simple differences of medium eliminating the fundraising element... even if everything Rush said was documented, he still wouldn't be as easily accessable a source of funds as Kos.

The attacks, and the reaction, also demonstrate the fundamental difference between the left and right that remains to this day. The integration between liberal bloggers and democratic politicians mostly centers around the recognition by the former that Bush needs to go, and by the latter that these "bloggers" are a source of valuable funds. Even while there is recognition by both that "they need to stick together", there is a wide divergence of opinion on a number of issues; bloggers remain fully willing to criticize their chosen pols quite severely, as well as each other.

The money link doesn't seem as prominent on the right, probably due to the remaining influence of the Dean phenomenon and the previous complacency of Bush supporters. The fundamental willingness to do or say anything to keep Bush in power, however, means that they're more than willing to pick up on whatever "outrage of the week" exists and repeat talking points until their fingertips bleed.

The unity of the left can't really be used on the right, outside of the typical uses for which money is employed. The unity on the right, we've discovered, can be used on the left. Now that they know it works, they'll keep on using it from now until November.

So, my advice? Watch yourselves, folks. Rest assured, they'll be watching you.

Kevin's new home

Ok, finally got around to changing Kevin's address. I was flabbergasted (like everybody else) to see that Kevin's blog had become the centerpiece of the new Washington Monthly site, although in retrospect it makes a lot of sense. Synergistic and whatnot.

I'll be posting more later on today. I know it's been quiet here... outside obligations have become more and more of an issue lately. That'll change.

Spainfully Obvious

(title from an old Asterix comic)

This whole controversy over Spain's election is, well, bizarre. I don't give a rat's ass about whether or not Al Qaeda managed to influence the Spanish electorate, the fact remains that significant proportions of the blogosphere are basically giving up the entire concept of democracy. That is, after all, the fundamental message behind "the Spanish should have backed their government in the face of the bombings"... that no matter how much the government has betrayed the trust of the people, those people have no right to change their choice of government, and are "cowards" for doing so. The war is more important than the democracy for which it is fought.

It's perverse. This sort of "securitizing of democracy" was about the #1 reason why the United States played merry hell with Central and South America, and a Marxist variation of this mode of thought was used to justify every Soviet intervention from Lithuania to Afghanistan. It's led to more war crimes than you can shake a bleeding severed leg at, it's about the biggest reason otherwise respectable countries end up with Presidents-for-Life, and is about the only thing that could disrupt the smooth functioning of American democracy.

This sort of behavior is absolutely reprehensible, and it provides a sobering message as to what to expect from Republicans during, and after, this election. Expect "Only Traitors Disagree With The Leader" in a thousand variations.

Good News... Very Good News

Although I'm still deeply troubled by the bombings in Madrid, I've got at least one phrase to keep my spirits up. Take it away, John:

"I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks".

He gets it. I would have never thought this possible even a year ago, but Kerry gets it.

Screw the polling numbers, they don't mean anything. This does. Bush is in far, far more trouble than I thought.

Bush goes negative

Well, that was fast. Honestly, this is silly; there's no way the effects of March anti-Kerry ads are going to be felt by November. Bush is blowing this cash for nothing.

More importantly, though, he's sacrificed the high road. That's just dumb; the best weapon a sitting president has in an election is the aura of being "above the fray" that the role of Head of State grants him; sacrificing that may be necessary when the fall rolls around, but in March? Not only will it weaken a key electoral tool, but it screws with the effectiveness of the presidency as well, as his "bully pulpit" will be even further sullied by an image of vicious partisanship.

I'm not sure which alternative is worse

The Madrid bombing (900 injured, and at least 197 dead as of last count), to be blunt, horrified me. Now, though, the question of "who did it" looms large. Instead of these bombings being being seen as clearly the work of Basque nationalists (as people had thought on Thursday), the question is now open as to who's responsible. It may be ETA (the chemical signature of the explosives corresponds with ETA) but it may well not be (the nature of the attack doesn't fit the ETA's profile).

A group affiliated with Al Qaeda claimed responsibility, but they're not credible; they also claimed responsibility for the blackout last year.

So, there are two possibilities here. First, ETA did it, which implies that the old style of attacks is dead. This doesn't necessarily mean that ETA is affiliated with Al Qaeda, although it does imply it; it may be that ETA is consciously attempting to mimic Al Qaeda. The CNN article says that they "have different goals" because the nationalism of ETA doesn't correspond with the Islamic theocratic goals of Al Qaeda, but that is really unimportant; terrorist organizations have made these pragmatic sorts of linkages for a very long time. It may well have been a response to the American War on Terror, too; a sort of "if we don't hang together we will surely hang seperately" logic would be logical in light of the war. It may also have something to do with the Chechnya conflict, as the Chechans have fairly successfully blended together Islamic fundamentalism and nationalism in ways that have (to some extent) eluded even the Arabs.

Second, Al Qaeda did it. This doesn't mean the ETA didn't have some involvement, but that Al Qaeda was the leading party. If that's the case, then the "revenge for aiding the U.S. in Iraq" scenario seems credible. The biggest problem with that scenario is that Al Qaeda didn't really have much to do with Saddam, but that doesn't really matter here, as Al Qaeda is certainly interested in the fate of Iraq now. Besides, I doubt an Al Qaeda attack in Spain would be aimed at Spanish eyes and Spanish ears- it would be aimed at potential allies as proof of Al Qaeda's remaining strength and at potential foes as an object lesson on the price of assisting the U.S. It also will create real tension and conflict in Europe, which I'm sure Osama wants; he's after a world war that Europe (until now) seemed bound and determined not to fight. Europe's significant Muslim minorities could be a powderkeg if Europe is seen as fully signing on to the United States' so-called "crusade"; the Europeans know that, and I'm sure Osama does too.

Right now, the most important job is figuring out who is responsible, so that the Spanish (and the world) know which of these scenarios they're dealing with.

Bush Really is a Uniter

Just look at who he brought together!

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, welcomed Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont who once seemed his chief political roadblock, to his headquarters here on Wednesday with an ovation by scores of staff members. The two men talked for an hour behind closed doors, guarded by a phalanx of Secret Service agents — but not before Mr. Kerry hugged Dr. Dean and shook his hand for the cameras.

Dr. Dean made no official endorsement of Mr. Kerry but Democrats close to both men said they expect it to come before the end of the month, quashing any concerns in the party that Dr. Dean would not help the ticket.

"During the campaign, we often focused on what divided us, but the truth is we have much more in common, beginning with our fervent desire to send George Bush back to Crawford, Tex., in November," Dr. Dean said in a statement after the session. "I will work closely with John Kerry to make sure we beat George Bush in November and turn our country around."

It's good to hear this... really, really good. I had been worried about Dean deciding to "take his football and go home", but in retrospect I probably shouldn't have been. Both Dean and Kerry know that the paramount concern is unseating Bush, and I think Dean can take (and undoubtedly will) take a lot of credit for energizing the party base, effectively marshalling Internet Democrats, and showing that vigorous partisanship can be both effective and financially rewarding. There's been a lot of carping about how Kerry is "sailing through" the primaries, but I think the reason he's sailing through is largely because he learned the lesson that Dean was teaching. Having learned that lesson, he's overcome the chief flaw in his old electoral strategy- his former unwillingness to take a stand against Bush.

Plus, Dean will no doubt remember that he was the candidate of choice for a lot of Democrats, and that he probably would have been the candidate had taking Bush down not been seen as so vitally important. Assuming that he'd get a plum post, as Oliver speculates, the good Doctor will have done quite nicely for himself.

It's too bad that we'll never know how he would have fared, though.

Calpundit's going pro!

Congrats, Kevin. The Washington Monthly will only benefit from your contribution.

Welcome Back to the Cold War

Or, at least, the American attitudes characterized by it. It would appear, at least according to this piece in the Toronto Star, that the United States is reverting to type in the Americas.

The United States, aided and abetted by Canada, has just sponsored a coup in Haiti. That's what the supporters of ousted president Jean-Bertrand Aristide say. "Coup" is also the word that Jamaica's government uses to describe the weekend events in Port-au-Prince.

Certainly, it's hard to argue against this analysis. Aristide was a democratically elected president — one of only two in Haiti's 100-year history. According to Larry Birns of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Aristide's Lavalas party would almost certainly have won free parliamentary elections if the opposition had allowed the elections to take place.

This, incidentally, is one of the weirder elements of the Haiti story. Aristide wanted legislative elections. It was the opposition that blocked him.

It's not weird in the slightest. Both the Soviet Union and the United States were perfectly willing to set aside elections, or support non-elected vs. elected groups, as long as the supported group was closer to their side. After the fall of the Soviet Union, of course, things were supposed to have changed: the U.S. only engaged in anti-democratic practices because of the Cold War against an implacable foe of democracy was supposed to have made it necessary, but that foe is long gone, right?

Well, maybe the "foe" isn't the same one we thought it was. Meet the face of evil:

It's also hard to understand why Washington found Aristide so loathsome. True, he spoke for, and was supported by, the poor, a characteristic that U.S. regimes always find disturbing.

Indeed, a populist leader may easily become a demagogue, particularly if the civil rights the middle classes hold so dear — the right of property, the right to criticize government — interfere with the economic rights the poor demand, such as the right to eat.

This makes sense, and seems to be the concern that is animating American opposition to Hugo Chavez, as well, as this particular charade shows that it's obviously not Chavez' contempt for democracy that is the problem. (Aristide has his problems with democracy too- witness the 2000 elections- but armed insurrection goes just a little farther than that.)

I guess the real question is, then, whether or not Guy Phillipe got a wink from a U.S. official before starting the violence.

Schroeder and Bush

Is anybody else suspicious that the weak electoral showings for the SDF in Germany will increase German/U.S. tension? After all, if American-bashing worked the first time....

U.N. Sends Peacekeepers to Haiti

According to CNN, it looks like with Aristide's departure the U.N. is going to send peacekeepers into Haiti. Fortunately, it may not be necessary; the rebel leader has said that with Aristide gone, they "don't intend to fight anymore... the only problem we had was with Aristide". I'm not going to bet money on complete stability with Aristide's ouster, especially considering that "pro-Aristide gangs" have been causing trouble in the capital, but without American support, he's ready to have that proverbial fork stuck in him.

Regardless of that, I fervently hope that Phillipe was being honest. I've been worried about Haiti for a while, and any outcome that doesn't end up with Haiti in flames is much more positive than what I've been expecting.

Political Change and Reinvigoration

Very nice piece by Stirling Newberry on Daily Kos about internet politics post-Dean.

As someone who has decided to put aside private life to pursue work in the public sector, I will tell you why: because there is nothing that we can do, here and now, that will make our lives better, our children's lives better and our nation better - than politics. For a long time politics was gridlock, say little and do less.

That's ending - with the events of the last 5 years, it is clear that action is better than inaction. What is also clear to the people on the inside - is that the old donor base is, well, old. To get a new one, they are also realizing that they have to change, as institutions, as people, as a party.....

....Right now projects are forming that will change the Democratic party at its core. We are working to draw message, ideas, energy - the high value work that Democrats have proven they are capable of - and bring them to the inside. The corresponding task for those of us who are "outside" is to learn the political system, learn the rules, the language, the restrictions, so we can begin targetting our force on issues and elections of importance. Kos is way out in front doing it - others are doing so as well.

But to make them work, it will require work. What the inside listens to is proof - we've proven we can push issues, get coverage, raise money. We have to learn what an international football player would call "finishing" - putting the ball in the net. To get a chance to do that, we have to build candidates, build coalitions, take seats on Democratic Committees. This will begin openning up the process.

With an open process creates an avenue for new ideas, and new ways of implementing old programs. It brings new faces, and new connections, a fountain of youth to restore to vibrancy the party as a progressive party.

I agree with much of this; I still think the "old school" view of politics has legitimacy, and there ARE lessons about "new politics" to be drawn from the Dean campaign.

The core idea of change and renewal, however, is the key insight here. I've been saying for a while that the Dean campaign is, in many respects, the Democratic equivalent of the Goldwater campaign for the Republicans; what I hadn't anticipated is that it will probably be 2003- not 2004- that is seen as the watershed year, because that was the year that non-traditional networks (whether grassroots or online) made their presence and importance known. One need only look at the ads on Eschaton, Calpundit or Daily Kos to see that politicians are taking these networks seriously.

Yes, Kerry is pretty much guaranteed to be the nominee. There's no doubt about that now. In most respects, though, that's what's so great about this. The Democrats don't have to lose a general election in order to be re-invigorated for a later one, like with the Goldwater and Reagan campaigns. the invigoration has already taken place, and the lessons of the Dean campaign can be applied to Kerry in the general election. Although I'm still not an enormous fan of primaries, if this is the result, then this primary may have been the best thing to happen to the Democrats since FDR.

"Junk Science"

Nice takedown of Steve Milloy and his tendentious war on "junk" (read: perfectly legitimate but conservatively incorrect) science by Tim Lambert. Lambert's done an incredible amount of excellent work debunking true junk science, particularly the work of John Lott. He's turned his gaze on Milloy, and it's withering.

Most of the critiques don't surprise me- I've looked at Milloy's work before and found it wanting. What surprised me was this revelation about Milloy and real Astroturfing:

Given all of the above, it should come as no surprise that junkscience.com is another astroturf operation. As part of the Tobacco Settlement Agreement Philip Morris agreed to release millions of documents about their operations. These detail how TASSC (The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition) was a front secretly created and funded by a PR firm acting for Philip Morris. Here is the key document (with annotations by Stewart Fist). TASSC and junkscience.com shared the same address and were both run by Milloy. Studies that find harmful effects from tobacco smoke seem to attract particularly venomous attacks from junkscience.com. PR Watch has the full story of Milloy’s history.

Ugh. The deeper you delve into the sort of thing, the worse it gets. I always have believed and always will believe that it's not the arguer but the argument that is important. Even if Milloy works for Phillip Morris, he may have a point. Still, this sort of willful misrepresentation bothers me a lot. At least with a pseudonym, you have to build your reputation honestly.

Mmmm... Delicious Astroturf

Looks like the rolling re-election squad has a new member, and he's desperately trying to protect Bush's credibility on the National Guard issue. Unfortunately, he doesn't do a very good job of it, as Hesiod ably points out: at the very least he was misleading and extraodinarily inept, but it's more likely that this letter is an out-and-out lie.

The results are predictable. The right-winger advocates and bloggers will use it to "prove" that there was nothing wrong with what Bush did. Problem is, while that might work against other bloggers, the mainstream media has their teeth in this, and they don't get distracted by something this poor. (They get distracted by Janet Jackson's nipple shield.)

(By the way...What strikes me about Bush's defenders isn't the dishonesty and duplicity. To use a more appropriate "d" word, what strikes me is the desperation. Any astroturfing campaign should at the very least try to remember that Nixon was president in 71, not Johnson. They'll accept anything nowadays.)

Harlan's War: Not So Quixotic After All?

Harlan Ellison, for those who aren't familiar with his work, is one of the greatest living science fiction writers, receiving countless awards and distinctions. He's also renowned as one of the most ideosyncratic, contrarian, yet brilliant commentators in the field; his "introductions" in the Dangerous Visions books were arguably as interesting as the material itself, and his commentary work (including the infamous "Glass Teat" column on television) is definitely an excellent read.

The thing is, Harlan is also a staunch backer of copyright law and author's rights, and no great fan of the Internet. Thus, when discovering that his books were being distributed on the newsgroup "alt.binaries.e-book" and over the Gnutella network, he decided to sue RemarQ (a newsgroup provider) and AOL (the owner of the original developers of Gnutella's client software) for "contributory copyright liability". Most commentators on this case had thought it a case of tilting at windmills, with Harlan's lawsuit being fit for little more than entertaining stories at SF conventions. I was one of these.

Apparently, we were all wrong. The Ninth Circuit Court decided to back Harlan and allow the suit to take place, reversing an earlier decision against him. This means that he will indeed be able to sue AOL and RemarQ, despite their very slight connection to the infringement. (The original infringer, one Stephen Robinson, has long settled with Mr. Ellison and his lawyers).

Honestly, I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. I admire Mr. Ellison more than almost any living author, both for his brilliant writing and outspoken (yet usually accurate) commentary. His loathing of the Internet, however, has always bothered me, and I think that partially motivates this. I don't think I like what his suit stands for, because it robs Internet service providers of the same rights granted other common carriers, such as phone companies.

If he succeeds in suing over copyright, he's also opened the door for lawsuits over content. All of a sudden the entire Internet would be subject to the content restrictions of the most repressive and regressive parts of the United States, if not the world. That's not what this place is supposed to be about, and it's one of the big problems with the DMCA; even if the DMCA is not about content, it sets a precedent that can easily be turned to content.

So I have good reason to oppose his suit. I just wish that I didn't have to disagree so deeply with someone I respect so much.

Yet Another Pseudonymity Rant

Christopher Farah is yet another in a long line of conventional journalists pissing and moaning about pseudonymity. He calls it "anonyblogging", but neologisms for ideas that already have names Just Isn't Cool, kiddies, so I'll avoid that myself.

The arguments aren't new, or remotely interesting- it's the same blend of "people don't trust pseudonymous writers" nonsense that we've all read before, usually from other bloggers desperate to try to leverage their name into some sort of credibility. (Instapundit, anyone?)

What IS interesting is that Farah's repeating the "why do they have to be so mad about it" bit. He doesn't appear to hate pseudonyms per se, but that the pseudonymous writers are criticizing mainstream writers, giving the example of Atrios' labelling of Nick Kristof as "human scum" as an example of Atrios going over the line. As commentators on Digby's blog have pointed out, though, that this is a mischaracterization- Atrios was angry with Kristof for misrepresenting liberal advocate groups' positions on prostitution, but Farah implied that it was for the story itself.

This is THE key reason why people like Atrios exist. Being a "legitimate" journalist means that you have vested interests in the field- you have interests in maintaining good relations with sources and fellow journalists, and you have interests in maintaining the good name of the field itself. You can't be as savage a critic as someone like Atrios because there's simply too much at stake- too loud a critic will find himself out in the cold. Yet at the same time, "outsiders" tend to get ignored- their non-journalistic backgrounds are used to discredit them, and their employers (who have no interest in journalistic ethics, but simply good or bad P.R.) may tell them to "lay off or get laid off".

With pseudonymity, though, one can be as critical as necessary. If the criticism is valid, then either it gets out there and the journalist changes his actions or it remains present for others to employ later when evaluating his work. If it isn't valid, it gets quickly rebutted. In neither case is the identity of the critic used as a response, which is the way it should be, because the focus should be on the validity of the original story, not the identity of the critic. It doesn't MATTER who Atrios is, because by definition he cannot employ his real-world credibility on the issue, which is the only reason why one would need to criticize the source.

(Note that none of this applies to right-wing opinion journalism, because they have no need to cultivate mainstream support, an air of objectivity, and a variety of mainstream contacts. They're operatives, not journalists, and as long as they've got their own networks they can function perfectly well within them.)

Farah and the other critics, then, is doing what anybody would do when their livelihood and friends are threatened. He's circling the wagons. He needs to eat, same as anybody else, so more power to him. There's no reason, however, why we need to pay attention to a word of it. Considering Atrios' popularity, it's pretty clear that people aren't.

By the way, as to why I haven't been posting recently... it's some level of burnout on politics, to be honest. While it's somewhat gratifying to see the truth kinda-sorta coming out on Iraqi WMDs, the way in which it's being massaged to protect the Bush Administration is nauseating, and the fact that he's almost certainly going to get away with it even more so. I still think the Democratic primaries are pretty much over and done with, with the only real question being who Kerry picks for his VP nominee and the shape of the debate.

The 9/11-centered shape of the upcoming race that Digby laid out seems perfectly understandable, if endlessly frustrating. It's the one issue on which Bush retains an advantage and all efforts are going to go towards maintaining it. The Republicans will frighten and intimidate the American public just enough (through fearmongering and leveraging of "patriotic correctness") to get a small number of independents in each battleground state to come over to their side, and in an environment of massive polarization, that'll be enough.

And, of course, once Bush no longer has to worry about re-election, the REAL fun will begin. The only thing keeping him from enacting a massively conservative agenda is November. Once he's in his second term, it's all about the "legacy".

And yet we still have Dean supporters who are declaring that they'll switch to Nader if their man doesn't win.

Is it any wonder I'm starting to get sick of the whole damned thing?