Don't Subscribe to Consumer Reports

A time-wasting experience with a product recommended by Consumer Reports was the last straw. The first straw? It probably landed on my back years ago, but I was too besotted by the idea of an "independent" testing service to pay attention to it.

Over the years, however, I have noticed that CR's advice in areas about which I know something (e.g., retirement planning) is pure pablum. That should have been a tip-off. Another tip-off should have been CR's embrace of "greenness" and other Left-wing causes. But I kept on subscribing. After all, it costs less than $40 a year to receive CR's "wisdom" via print and the web.

Worse, I heeded CR's advice from time to time. Thus the second-to-last straw: CR's ratings of exterior house paints. I bought, at great expense, the highest-rated paint available in my area. A third of a house later my painting contractor informed me that the "liquid gold" I bought is thin gruel. Thanks to my contractor -- and no thanks to CR -- I wasted "only" $600 before switching to a different brand of paint. If my contractor hadn't blown the whistle, I would have wasted about $2,000.

The bottom line: I have canceled my print and web subscriptions to CR. It joins AARP on my long list of phony, worse-than-useless, overrated (pun intended), Left-leaning organizations that enjoy tax-exempt status (at taxpayers' expense).

CR claims to warn consumers against rip-off schemes. Well, it takes one to know one.

I Object

The follies of Thomas Athans, husband of Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), shouldn't be an occasion for gloating by right-wing outlets (e.g., Newsmax.com and Michelle Malkin's eponymous blog). Athans is not a government official. Stabenow, who is an egregious senator in her own right, shouldn't be judged by or held to account for her husband's peccadilloes.

Malkin quite rightly points out, however, that Republicans -- who in the election campaign of 2006 were accused of fomenting a "culture of corruption" -- have no monopoly on corruption. Never did have. Never will have.

Where Left is Right, and Right is Outta Here

Where's that? At the Austin American-Statesman, which today

welcome[s] the comic strip "Prickly City" by Scott Stantis to our lineup. During a trial run last year, "Prickly City" was a hit with many of our readers, and we've had our eye on it ever since. Like "Mallard Fillmore," which it replaces, "Prickly City" is a conservative social and political strip, but with a little more levity.

I grant that Mallard Fillmore is an un-funny, heavy-handed strip. But it was conservative, that is, against political correctness and Leftism. But I do not grant that Prickly City is a conservative strip (though it is somewhat funnier than Mallard).

Today's Prickly City exemplifies paranoic Bush Derangement Syndrome, as do several of the recent strips that are currently available on the Prickly City site. Their common theme: Big Brothers Bush and Cheney are spying on all of us, everywhere. Then there's a strip that buys into "global warming," and a rather lame series about The Huffington Post, which attacks Arianna Huffington (the person) but not the political lunacy that prevails at HuffPo's blog.

This is the Statesman's idea of conservative? It just goes to show you how far to the Left the Statesman is these days. But the Statesman's editors probably consider themselves "moderate," just like this guy.

An Immodest Journalistic Proposal

This one is touted by David Hazinski, an associate professor at the University of Georgia's Grady School of Journalism:

Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend (emphasis added).

The "news industry" (a.k.a. the mainstream media) isn't already a hotbed of "fraud and abuse"? How about Rather-gate? How about anti-war propaganda that's thinly disguised as news? How about the daily contributions to global-warming hysteria? How about the MSM's pervasive anti-Republican, big-government slant? And on, and on.

As Hazinski observes, "without any real standards, anyone has a right to declare himself or herself a journalist." And "anyone" does just that -- every day -- on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC; in the pages of The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek; etc., etc., etc.

Hazinski proposes this:

Journalism schools such as mine at the University of Georgia should create mini-courses to certify citizen journalists in proper ethics and procedures, much as volunteer teachers, paramedics and sheriff's auxiliaries are trained and certified.

How can he say, with a straight face, that J-schools are fit to certify anyone's "proper ethics"? By that standard, Osama bin Laden would be qualified to certify the borders of Israel.

Hazinski acknowledges the argument that "standards could infringe on freedom of the press and journalism shouldn't be regulated. But," he adds, "we have already seen the line between news and entertainment blur enough to destroy significant credibility." Actually, the line between truth and reality has been blurred -- nay, obliterated -- by the MSM.

Citizen journalism is precisely what's needed to push the MSM in the direction of accuracy, honesty, and balance. "Professional journalists" like Hazinski don't want that. They want to keep feeding us their Left-biased distortions and lies -- without fear of contradiction.

UPDATE (12/17/07): There's a related post at The Future of News.

Culture Watch: Whoopi vs. Sherri

Guest post:

One has to be even-handed in passing out the dunce awards to two wannabe pundits: Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd. The media has, predictably, jumped all over Shepherd's historical howlers in a debate with Whoopi Goldberg on The View.

It began with Joy Behard referring to the philosophies of pagan Greece. Shepherd felt obliged to point out that Christians predated the ancient Greeks, and even the Hebrews. Earlier this year she admitted that she didn't know if the world was flat or round (see related story).

I suppose this will "prove" to militant Christian-bashers what idiots believers really are. Actually it proves to me just how unqualified most celebrities are to discuss anything, from foreign policy to ecology. I almost suspect ABC, which hosts the show, of putting up an inept, if well-meaning, dupe to represent the "conservative Christian" perspective. Ann Coulter, she ain't.

Theologically speaking, the incident confirms what I've believed all along—that dumbed-down religion of the Elmer Gantry/tent revival variety is not representative of serious Christian belief. Shepherd's personal conduct and comportment are as frivolous as her metaphysics.

But we shouldn't let Shepherd's sparring partner off the hook either. Just a few weeks earlier on The View, Goldberg made the remarkable observation that America is "not as free as it was when I was a kid" (when segregation was still in effect). Maybe Ms. Goldberg thinks she's reprising her role as the superhuman Guinan of Star Trek: The Next Generation. But, if you ask me, it's just the leftwing equivalent of flat-earthism.

Katie Couric: Post-American

What is a post-American? From Mark Krikorian of NRO, via an earlier post:

Let me be clear [as to] what I mean by a post-American. He's not an enemy of America — not Alger Hiss or Jane Fonda or Louis Farrakhan. He's not necessarily even a Michael Moore or Ted Kennedy. A post-American may actually still like America, but the emotion resembles the attachment one might feel to, say, suburban New Jersey — it can be a pleasant place to live, but you're always open to a better offer. The post-American has a casual relationship with his native country, unlike the patriot, "who more than self his country loves," as Katharine Lee Bates wrote. Put differently, the patriot is married to America; the post-American is just shacking up.

What makes Katie Couric a post-American? This:

“The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying ‘we’ when referring to the United States and, even the ‘shock and awe’ of the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring the ‘Today’ show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, ‘Will anybody put the brakes on this?’ And is this really being properly challenged by the right people? And I think, at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic and it was a very difficult position to be in.” (Quotation from Jonah Goldberg of NRO, via many bloggers.)

Katie, Katie, Katie, how could anyone possibly question your patriotism after reading that?

Actually, one cannot fault the patriotism of a person who questions how the administration pursues the enemy, as long as that person offers a reasonable alternative in good faith. But the loony Left and whacky Right simply assert that "we" are the enemy and "we" had it coming to "us," when they are not peddling the notion that "we" did it to ourselves -- as in "inside job."

But Couric is, by her own admission, unpatriotic. She is more than unpatriotic, however. She is, at best, a dupe for the loony Left and whacky Right. She is, at worst (I think), a witting dupe (to coin an oxymoron).

Related post: Depressing But True (and the links at the end)

The "Jewell Effect" and Larry Craig

UPDATED THRICE, BELOW

Remember Richard Jewell, who died yesterday? Jewell, as The Washington Post's headline says, was "wrongly linked to Olympic bombing":

On July 27, 1996, [Jewell] spotted a crudely made pipe bomb inside a green knapsack near a concert stage [at Atlanta's Centennial Olympic Park].

At first, he was praised for his decisive handling of the situation. He hurried people away and called for backup. His actions were credited with reducing casualties; one woman died, and 111 people were injured at the scene.

Within three days, Mr. Jewell's status as a hero was challenged after the Atlanta Journal-Constitution called him "the focus" of the FBI investigation into the bombing. The FBI neither arrested nor formally charged Mr. Jewell, but the scrutiny that descended on him was invasive and crude....

In October 1996, the FBI cleared Mr. Jewell. In a news conference, he called his 88 days under suspicion a nightmare for him and his mother, with whom he lived near the Olympic park.

"In its rush to show the world how quickly it could get its man, the FBI trampled on my rights as a citizen," he said. "In its rush for the headline that the hero was the bomber, the media cared nothing for my feelings as a human being. In their mad rush to fulfill their own personal agendas, the FBI and the media almost destroyed me and my mother."

The matter of Larry Craig may seem different (after all, he pled guilty to something), but the rush to judge and punish Craig for something he didn't plead guilty to (soliciting a homosexual act) is Jewell-like. Rick Moran, writing at The American Thinker Blog, describes the cynical reaction of Craig's Senate "colleagues":

The humiliation of Senator Larry Craig continues as party leaders in the Senate have stripped him of his status as ranking Republican on the Veterans Affairs Committee as well as an Appropriations subcommittee.

In addition, several prominent Senators have called on Craig to resign immediately - a sure sign that the party is nervous about holding on to as many seats as they can after next year's election....

Senator [Norm] Coleman [R-MN] said that Craig was guilty of "conduct unbecoming a Senator" and should resign. Other Republican Senators have privately expressed deep concern that in an election cycle where they must defend 21 seats, Craig's Idaho constituency - among the most reliably Republican in the country - might opt for a Democrat if the stain of the scandal can't be wiped away.

I should note, however, that Moran's reaction is equally cynical:

GOP Senators should probably do an intervention on Craig's behalf and lay out the facts for him in umistakable terms. His effort to overturn his guilty plea will not change anyone's mind about him one iota and only keeps the scandal in front of the voters where both the voters and the party will be constantly reminded of it.

Best he resign and just fade away. [More of the same here: ED.]

Thus effectively conceding a fact that he denies, namely, that he is a homosexual. But who cares about that when there are Senate seats at stake?

UPDATE (08/30/07): The newly released audio tape of Craig's questioning by the cop who arrested him proves absolutely nothing, except that the cop's interrogation technique is as subtle as toilet seat. (I couldn't resist using that rather obscure simile, given the subject.) Either Craig is lying through his teeth (to switch from simile to metaphor in mid-stream) or the cop "saw" what he expected, no, hoped to see: signals of solicitation. The cop was involved in a sting operation, after all.

UPDATE (08/31/07): Relevant commentary here.

UPDATE (09/01/07): Well, Senator Craig has resigned. Here's my take:

Craig has been plagued for decades by accusations that he is homosexual. He chose to plead to disorderly conduct in the hope that the mens' room incident would "go away." It didn't. Now he has chosen to resign his Senate seat in the hope that the furore about his so-called misconduct will go away. The two choices are consistent with what I have seen of Craig (as a public figure): a principled conservative who is articulate about his principles but not combative.

Thus endeth a distinguished career. Let us hope that Craig's successor (probably Idaho's lieutenant governor, Jim Risch, is as conservative as Craig.

Pornography: A Definition and an Example

The proprietor of Imlac's Journal observes that

the candid news photograph of a person grieving over a tragedy is as pornographic as a blue movie. It is because the individual has become another object of lurid interest to the voyeur, stripped naked physically or emotionally.

Also pornographic, in my view, is the non-sexual movie that appeals to the "lurid interest" of the rabid partisan. A good example of such a movie is what James Pinkerton calls "that new Bush snuff movie," Death of a President. Pinkerton continues:

Some might say that "snuff movie" is too strong a term -- but how else to describe a movie that clearly revels in the prospect of George W. Bush's being assassinated?

How else, indeed, except to say that it is pornographic?

Conspiracy Theories

Wikipedia offers a thorough discussion of conspiricism and a long, annotated catalog of conspiracy theories that have been popular at one time or another. The final theory in the catalog goes a long way toward explaining the present state of affairs. It also justifies the use of the somewhat controversial term "Islamic fascists." Here it is:

Islamic-Fascist Axis

Radio talk show host David Emory claims that Nazi leader Martin Bormann never died and has built a global empire involving, among many others, the Bush family, Hassan al Banna, Grover Norquist, Meyer Lansky, and Michael Chertoff. This may have sprung from the factual World War Two alliance between Nazi Germany and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a religious and political leader of the area then known as Palestine.

There's a conspiracy theory for you: a Nazi, the Bushes, an Arab-Muslim extremist, an anti-tax conservative, a Jewish gangster, and a Jewish lawyer-prosecutor-cabinet secretary.

I can't wait for the movie.

P.S. On a serious note, check out this piece about the "9/11 "Truth" movement.

P.P.S. In the same vein, there's this at RightWingNutHouse.

Conspiracy Theorists' Cousins

The nut-cases who believe that 9/11 was an "inside job" won't be deterred or converted by facts and logic, but perhaps their paranoia will not spread too far if Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up To The Facts is well publicized. Austin Bay writes about Debunking at TCS Daily:

[It] expands to book-length a collection of articles Popular Mechanics published in March 2005. The book contains new appendices and updated analyses. . . .

[T]he book follows a "Claim" and "Fact" format. Here are excerpts from the section entitled "Melted Steel":

"Claim: ... 'We have been lied to,' announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. 'The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.' The posting is entitled 'Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC.' ..."

"FACT: ... Jet fuel burns at 1,100 to 1,200 degrees Celsius ... significantly less than the 1,510 degrees Celsius typically required to melt steel. . . . However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength -- and that required exposure to much less heat..."

The "Fact" section includes analysis from structural engineers, a professor of metallurgy and explosives experts.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories have overt and covert promoters. Some are more nuisance than threat. Howard Dean verbally toyed with 9/11 conspiracy theories when he was playing primary election footsie with hard-left constituencies. . . .

[Popular Mechanics editor-in-chief James] Meigs analyzes eight 9/11 conspiracy-spinner techniques. I'll mention two:

1. Attempts to "marginalize opposing views." Meigs says thousands of eyewitness 9/11 accounts and the analyses of numerous universities and professional organizations (including Underwriters Labs and the American Society of Civil Engineers) are dismissed as "the government version."

2. Circular reasoning. Meigs writes that " ... among 9/11 theorists, the presence of evidence supporting the mainstream view is also taken as proof of conspiracy." He concludes: "Like doctrinaire Marxists or certain religious extremists, conspiracists enjoy a world view that is immune to refutation."

Meigs' analyses of "demonization" and the "paranoid style" are particularly crisp and compelling.

That should be that, but . . .

Bay's mention of Howard Dean's pandering to "hard-left constituencies" leads me to the conspiracy-theorists' cousins:

• First, there are the Leftists, who will seize on any excuse to bash a Republican administration. Such Leftists are not true conspiracy-theorists; they would not countenance an "inside job" theory were Al Gore or John Kerry in the White House. They are merely unprincipled, and unhinged in their own way. (See this and this, for example.)

• Then there are the radical libertarians, who do not subscribe to "inside job" theories. No, their conspiracy theory runs on a parallel track: The undeniably evil state is interested only in power, and it seizes on every opportunity to accrue more power. Thus it overblows the threat of terrorism and takes away our liberties, a slice at a time. (See this, for one example.)

Radical libertarians would be a greater threat to liberty than conspiracy nuts and Leftists, were there more than enough rad-libs to fill a high-school football stadium. Why? Because they seem more plausible than conspiracy nuts and Leftists; that is, they do not foam at the mouth.

Rad-libs are quick to assign evil motives to the state, without examining the evil motives of our enemies or acknowledging the necessity of state action against those enemies (given that we do not live in the stateless nirvana to which rad-libs aspire). Rad-libs are quick to minimize the dangers of terrorism by comparing the risk of being killed by terrorism to such risks as dying in an auto accident or falling off a ladder -- as if one could nullify terrorism by driving or climbing ladders more often.

Finally, rad-libs fail to acknowledge the likelihood that the low risk of being killed by terrorism is owed to those very actions that rad-libs assail as inimical to liberty (e.g., NSA surveillance, "sneak and peak" warrants). They prefer death in a pure state of liberty, which is not liberty at all.

Leni Riefenstahl Redux

Mike Wallace does for Iran's Ahmadinejad what Leni Riefenstahl did for Hitler.

More Takes on the New York Times

Michael Barone asks -- and answers -- the question "Whose side are they on?"

Ann Coulter opens with this question: "When is the New York Times going to get around to uncovering an al-Qaida secret program?"

The Wages of Publicity

From the Devil's handmaidens at The New York Times:

Group Tries to Block Program Giving Data to U.S.

By DAN BILEFSKY, International Herald Tribune Published: June 27, 2006

BRUSSELS, June 27 — A human rights group in London said today that it had lodged formal complaints in 32 countries against the Brussels-based banking consortium known as Swift, contending that it violated European and Asian data protection rules by providing the United States with confidential information about international money transfers.

It speaks for itself.

The New York Times: A Hot-Bed of Post-Americanism

Proof, if any were needed, that The New York Times's publication of details of classified defense programs is politically motivated:

The New York Times, 9/24/01

by Hugh Hewitt

The New York Times, editorializing a long time ago, when the Trade Center ruins were still burning:

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies....If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.

(HT: LegalXXX who posted this in June, 2004, and to e-mailer Mary Beth S. who pinged me as to the existence of the editorial, which she found on this FreeRepublic thread.)

Permalink

What has changed since September 24, 2001? Only this: The New York Times has become ever more partisan -- so much so that the Times feels compelled to oppose and undermine the war on terror simply because Bush is commander-in-chief. How post-American.

ADDENDUM: From WorldwideStandard.com:

Courtesy of The New York Times

From the International Herald Tribune:

BRUSSELS Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium has asked the Justice Ministry to investigate whether a banking consortium here broke the law when it aided the U.S. government's anti-terrorism activities by providing it with confidential information about international money transfers.

The group, known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, or Swift, has come under scrutiny following a report last week by The New York Times….

Heather MacDonald and Gabriel Schoenfeld explain the recklessness of the New York Times here and here.

Posted by Daniel McKivergan on June 27, 2006 12:10 PM | Permalink

But why worry, if you're a post-American? The terrorists surely will spare the Times. Hah!

Post-Americans and Their Progeny

What are post-Americans? Mark Krikorian, writing at NRO, explains:

Let me be clear what I mean by a post-American. He's not an enemy of America — not Alger Hiss or Jane Fonda or Louis Farrakhan. He's not necessarily even a Michael Moore or Ted Kennedy. A post-American may actually still like America, but the emotion resembles the attachment one might feel to, say, suburban New Jersey — it can be a pleasant place to live, but you're always open to a better offer. The post-American has a casual relationship with his native country, unlike the patriot, "who more than self his country loves," as Katharine Lee Bates wrote. Put differently, the patriot is married to America; the post-American is just shacking up.

Now, there are two kinds of post-American. David Frum, in his "Unpatriotic Conservatives" article for NR last year, highlighted what I think is the less important kind: Those who focus on something less than America, whether white nationalists or neo-Confederates, etc. The second, more consequential and problematic kind are those who have moved beyond America, "citizens of the world," as the cliché goes — in other words citizens (at least in the emotional sense) of nowhere in particular.

What does post-Americanism lead to? Among other things -- such as The New York Times's deliberate efforts to sabotage the war on terror) -- it breeds home-grown al Qaeda wannabes. Consider this, by Jim Wooten (ThinkingRight):

So who’s surprised, then, that we see the emergence of the well-fed, well-clothed, no-worry wannabes, bored and “angry,” willing to join al-Qaida in worldwide revolution? “They were persons who for whatever reason came to view their home country as the enemy,” said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in announcing the seven arrests.

We live in a country where immigrants are invited to have dual loyalties, where a liberal’s “highest form of patriotism” is trashing the President and the nation’s military efforts in Iraq, where being “worldly” is granting no favoritism, nor making any distinction, between dictators and democracies, or considering a room that’s too warm and terrorist butchery to be equally-condemable forms of “torture.” All the recordable anger of the Left is directed inward, not at themselves, but at this country.

That's because the post-American Left is just waiting for a better offer. But it will never come. We "buried" Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Krushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Ulbricht, Jaruzelski, Ceauşescu, Saddam, etc., and we will "bury" Castro, Putin, the Chinese cabal, Kim jong-il, Osama and his supporters -- and all the rest of Hitler and Stalin's spiritual heirs -- as long as we do not succumb to post-Americanism.

Related posts:
Getting It Wrong: Civil Libertarians and the War on Terror (A Case Study) (05/18/04)
The Illogic of Knee-Jerk Privacy Adocates (10/06/04)
Treasonous Blogging? (03/05/05)
I Dare Call It Treason (05/31/05)
Shall We All Hang Separately? (08/13/05)
Foxhole Rats (08/14/05)
Treasonous Speech? (08/18/05)
Foxhole Rats, Redux (08/22/05)
The Faces of Appeasement (11/19/05)
We Have Met the Enemy . . . (12/13/05)
More Foxhole Rats (01/24/06)
Calling a Nazi a Nazi (03/12/06)
What If We Lose? (03/22/06)< A Political Compass (03/24/06)
Moussaoui and "White Guilt" (05/03/06)
In Which I Reply to the Executive Editor of The New York Times (06/25/06)

In Which I Reply to the Executive Editor of the New York Times

UPDATED THROUGHOUT, 06/26/06

From The New York Times, Sunday, June 25, 2006. Reproduced in its entirety. My comments in brackets and italic boldface. The underlying story is here.

June 25, 2006

Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report

The following is a letter Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, has sent to readers who have written him about The Times's publication of information about the government's examination of international banking records:

I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands, but our story about the government's surveillance of international banking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I'd like to offer a personal response.

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) [Because, you idiot, you've already let the cat out of the bag. The damage is done.] Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror. [A public debate that divulges the details of a classified anti-terror program that has been effective? Anyway, you forgot to mention the Lefties -- yourself and your staff included -- who simply want to shut down the war on terror because it offends your sensibilities.]

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish. [But it is neither wise nor patriotic to undermine the government's lawful efforts to prosecute a war, and that is precisely what the Times and other publications have done.]

The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. [But you have done just that in your zeal to sell newspapers, win Pulitzer prizes, and push your writers' books.] The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor. [Because your "agonizing" always seems to lead to the same conclusion (publish), I doubt that it's really agonizing at all.]

The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. [Why should that be, unless you place the Times's interests -- don't give me that baloney about "pubic interest" -- above the nation's.] The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest. [Strawman alert!] For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy. Editors start from the premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected officials. Our default position — our job — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. [Irrelevant. Kennedy was second-guessing his failure of nerve. He was responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.] Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so. [This entire paragraph is off the point. What the government might have liked -- or not liked -- in various cases isn't in question. What is in question is why the Times and other media outlets have chosen to divulge very real, very secret, and probably very effective measures, such as the surveillance of international communications and the tracking of financial transactions.]

Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements. [In other words, those who are enraged by the Times's actions are nothing more than right-wing hotheads.]

Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. [The government has acted in accordance with already existing legislation.] Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. [So, the Times favors disgruntled leakers over national security. Well we knew that, and the reasons for it, namely, the Times's zeal to sell newspapers, win Pulitzer prizes, and push its writers' books.] We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them. [Actually, your purpose -- among others not so lofty -- was to discredit a Republican administration by running scare headlines.]

Our decision to publish the story of the Administration's penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporters who wrote the story but senior editors, including me. We listened patiently and attentively. We discussed the matter extensively within the paper. We spoke to others — national security experts not serving in the Administration — for their counsel. [Yeah, but you knew all along what you were going to do, didn't you?] It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places — New York and the Washington area — that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us. [Oh, play that violin! New York and Washington aren't the only potential targets, you narcissistic jerk. By your words and actions you have revealed that the question of preventing terror is abstract to you.]

The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal, that there are safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable in deterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk.

It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it. [If they don't know about it, it's for a very good reason: Loose lips sink ships. Wars aren't won by discussing battle plans in town meetings.]

We weighed most heavily the Administration's concern that describing this program would endanger it. The central argument we heard from officials at senior levels was that international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don't know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authority of a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as the Administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it. The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere. And while it is too early to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating a banker backlash against the program. [No, but it does give the bad guys -- and potential bad guys -- better information about how to avoid the tracking of their banking transactions.]

By the way, we heard similar arguments against publishing last year's reporting on the NSA eavesdropping program. We were told then that our article would mean the death of that program. We were told that telecommunications companies would — if the public knew what they were doing — withdraw their cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened. While our coverage has led to much public debate and new congressional oversight, to the best of our knowledge the eavesdropping program continues to operate much as it did before. Members of Congress have proposed to amend the law to put the eavesdropping program on a firm legal footing. And the man who presided over it and defended it was handily confirmed for promotion as the head of the CIA. [Off the point again. You fail to mention the bad guys and how your stories helped them avoid detection. Or don't you care about them?]

A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. [Who says? Are you into reading body language?] It has been widely reported — indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. [But not precisely how.] Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. [How do you know that? How can anyone know that? All one can do is track what can be tracked, but you've probably told terrorists more than they knew about how their money is tracked.] But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash. [Though they may use it less than before, or in more devious ways, thanks to you.]

I can appreciate that other conscientious people could have gone through the process I've outlined above and come to a different conclusion. But nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues. [Regardless of your smug justifications, you did come to the conclusion that it was your right and responsibility to endanger American lives by exposing programs that help track terrorists. The First Amendment gives you the right to publish; it doesn't say that you must publish. Use your head, if you can retrieve it from the orifice at the other end of your torso.]

Thanks for writing.

Regards,
Bill Keller

[P.S. I pay the President to defend the country, not you. If you want the job, run for it. Until you've been elected and inaugurated, keep your mitts off the war effort. You're on a par with a drunk who aspires to direct traffic, and about as qualified for the job.]

ADDENDUM: See this excellent fisking of Keller's letter by Hugh Hewitt.

ADDENDUM 2: See this "indictment" by Mark Henry Holzer of the Times and the leakers who have been passing classified information to the Times since 9/11.

ADDENDUM 3: Michelle Malkin has a roundup of blogospheric reactions.

ADDENDUM 4: Michael Barone asks (about those gentle folk of the Times) why do they hate us?

ADDENDUM 5: The American Spectator Blog reports that Keller has been caught lying about the amount of contact the NYT had with the White House and the vehemence of the government's objections to the story.

ADDENDUM 6: Treasury secretary John Snow piles on (in effect repeating some of what I say above).

Hang Her High

UPDATED BELOW

(If she's guilty, of course.)

CIA Officer Fired for Leaking Classified Info to Media

P.S. to Bush-bashers: A leak is an unauthorized disclosure of information. The head of the executive branch is authorized to authorize disclosures.

P.P.S. (from Wizbang!):

[T]he CIA officer's name is Mary McCarthy. She worked at the Inspector General's office and testified in front of the 9/11 Commission.

Intelligence sources tell NBC News the accused officer, Mary McCarthy, worked in the CIA's inspector general's office and had worked for the National Security Council under the Clinton and and George W. Bush administrations.

The leak pertained to stories on the CIA's rumored secret prisons in Eastern Europe, sources told NBC. The information was allegedly provided to Dana Priest of the Washington Post, who wrote about CIA prisons in November and was awarded a Pulitzer Prize on Monday for her reporting.

Sources said the CIA believes McCarthy had more than a dozen unauthorized contacts with Priest. Information about subjects other than the prisons may have been leaked as well.

Update II: The Jawa Report says that McCarthy gave $2,000 to Kerry's 2004 campaign [emphasis mine, all mine].

MY UPDATE (04/22, 1:15 PM):

McCarthy may have been a serial leaker, and -- hah! -- she may have been caught in a sting operation.

A Black Bigot Speaks

If anything exemplifies Leftists' condescenscion to blacks it's this op-ed piece* in the L.A. Times by Erin Aubry Kaplan (right). The op-ed is about former White House staffer (and black Republican) Claude Allen, who recently was charged with theft. The most telling bits:

I don't support conservatism in its current iteration, and I support black conservatives even less . . . .

Here is a man who, like most black conservatives, has had to do an awful lot of personal and political rationalizing to pay dues . . . .

In so many words, Allen and other black conservatives are too "dumb" to know that conservatism is bad for them. And/or they're just power-seeking Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas who suck up to powerful whites in return for access to power and the perks of high office. Kaplan (like her compatriots on the Left) is unwilling to credit Allen and other black conservatives with having a principled attachment to conservatism.

Kaplan's own blackness doesn't excuse her profound bigotry. It merely underscores her status as a "house black" at the Left-wing L.A. Times, where she spouts the party line in the hope of keeping blacks "in line" -- that is, voting for Democrats in order to perpetuate the regulatory-welfare state that has done so much, for so long, to undermine black families and stifle the initiative of young blacks.
__________
* Free registration required. Try latimes@fastchevy.com as a username and password as a password.

The Media . . . in the Beginning

AP/Reuters/NY Times News Service/Washington Post New Service/etc., etc.

SOMEWHERE IN SPACE-TIME - A massive explosion rocked the Universe earlier today. Gaseous matter, carried by intense shock waves, promptly began moving outward from the source of the explosion, quickly reaching the speed of light. This unparalleled phenomenon threatens to fill the void with mysterious and probably poisonous pollutants. Experts say that in a matter of days the Universe will be transformed unless the government takes immediate steps to locate those responsible for the explosion and negotiate a peaceful settlement of their grievances. A clamp-down on Big Bang emissions is also being considered.

Misdiagnosing the Problem

The usually clear-thinking Michael Barone goes astray:

Here is a map showing the location of riots protesting the Danish cartoons. And here's a link to Thomas Barnett's "nonintegrated gap." Notice the similarity? Barnett, as faithful readers of this blog will know, argues that the major task before us in the "functioning core" (North America, much of South America, Europe, India, Japan, and East Asia) is to integrate the "nonintegrated gap" (the Muslim world from the Maghreb to Pakistan, Indonesia, as well as the Philippines and part of Andean Latin America) into the free-market, rule-of-law core. The riots occurring largely in the gap (and in Muslim communities in Europe) are just the latest symptoms of the problem.

How has a problem that's endemic to the cultures of the "nonintegrated gap" become our problem? We don't force their culture (and the resulting ignorance and poverty) on them, they do it to themselves. For more, read this.