Northern Alliance Radio Today

Be sure to tune into the Northern Alliance Radio Network this afternoon from noon to 3 pm CT. We'll talk about the Terry Schiavo case, the faked talking-points memo, Kyrgyzstan, and plenty of other topics. If you can't catch us on AM 1280 The Patriot in the Twin Cities, you can listen to our Internet stream here. Call in and join the discussion at 651-289-4488.

The Laid-Back Revolution

Ian MacWilliam files a personal look at the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan with the BBC this morning which should caution us to the extent by which the Kyrgyz people demand democratization. Mostly, MacWilliam writes, the Kyrgyz people want to be left alone to return to their traditional nomadic culture:

A couple of hundred demonstrators had occupied the governor's office [in Jalal-Abad] for more than a week, but they chatted quite happily to militiamen who were also in the grounds keeping an eye on them.

One middle-aged woman told me what in essence what the whole protest was about.

"I'm a teacher, but I haven't worked for close to 10 years. The government pays teachers next to nothing, only the rich live well here in Kyrgyzstan," she said.

"Once, when we lived as nomads in the mountains, our life was clean, we lived in our yurts and kept our horses and sheep, and there was no corruption then. We want to have a clean life again."

The people of Kyrgyzstan don't actually have a tremendous drive towards any form of government, except that Jeffersonian model of the one that governs least, governs best. The Kyrgyz uprising appears to be a corrective towards decades of statism that has seriously undermined their nomadic culture and forced the Kyrgyz into an industrialization they don't particularly want. In fact, those of us who grew up in the western US will recognize a glimmer of our brand of political conservatism in how MacWilliam describes the political impulse in this Central Asian country:

It is the nomadic sprit perhaps which sets Kyrgyzstan apart from its more authoritarian neighbours.

When you live in a tent in your own mountain valley and can up sticks at will, you develop a sense of personal freedom that even 70 years of communism cannot eradicate.

Of course, it is precisely this freedom that communism hoped to stamp out with agricultural collectives and industrialization. Apparently, Akayev continued this process with only a moderate amount of liberalism thrown in, but the Kyrgyz still don't like the results: widespread corruption, disruption of their traditional culture and freedom, and nagging unemployment. It also explains why the Kyrgyz haven't thronged to Bishkek and remained to occupy the capitol as we have seen in Ukraine and Georgia.

MacWilliam also notes that the security forces which the would-be counterrevolutionary, Keneshbek Dushebayev, ran briefly before Akayev's ouster don't have much loyalty to the outgoing government. That spells failure for his efforts to lead loyalists to Bishkek and retake control of Kyrgyzstan:

A police spokesman told me politely that the protesters had every right to express their views. I could not help feeling that he was on their side really, along with most of the helmeted police men too.

Late last week, when the protest suddenly grew to a crowd of thousands who then decided to occupy the government's office, the policemen simply stood aside and let them in.

Dushebayev apparently inspires little support in the security apparatus he briefly ran. The Kyrgyz have spoken, in the terse manner that befits their national character. How does one say, "Don't Tread On Me" in Kyrgyz, anyway?

The Counterrevolution That Couldn't Demonstrate Straight

Reuters reports some mildly ominous developments in Kyrgyzstan this morning. The ousted interior minister that had just been appointed by ousted president Askar Akayev will lead thousands in demonstration against the so-called Tulip Revolution in Bishkek today, threatening "civil war" if Akayez is not returned to power. I say "mildly ominous", because the people rounded up for this march on Bishkek apparently don't all agree on their opposition to the new interim Kyrgyz government:

Kyrgyzstan's ousted interior minister led thousands of demonstrators toward the capital on Saturday to protest against the coup that overthrew President Askar Akayev, warning there was a risk of civil war. ...

"They may get there today. They may get there tomorrow, but the important thing is they will go there," Keneshbek Dushebayev, appointed interior minister by Akayev just before he was ousted, told Reuters.

Dushebayev, who is leading the protesters whom he predicted could eventually number 10,000, said: "The country is virtually split and everything is in place for a civil war."

But there was confusion over the aims of the protesters, some of whom expressed support for the new leadership.

Some carried posters saying "No to the coup!" and "The people of Kyrgyzstan are one nation!." Other placards read: "We support general Kulov," referring to opposition leader Felix Kulov.

Some of Dushebayev's marchers told Reuters that they don't support Akayev at all, but are demonstrating against the manner of his ouster. It sounds like Dushebayev has a very odd and only mildly motivated coalition on which to build his civil war, and his tenuous (at best) connection to the security forces in Kyrgyzstan probably means he will not inspire much more confidence along the way to Bishkek.

Perhaps Dushebayev should return home and take a roll call among his so-called supporters. If Bakiev holds June elections as promised, it sounds like Dushebayev would lose most of his constituents. That makes him a agitator, not a rebel, and his association with the previous unpopular autocracy won't give him much comfort when Bakiev and especially Felix Kulov come after him.

Rice: Middle East Status Quo Doomed

Condoleezza Rice spoke extensively with the Washington Post on the foreign-policy objectives of George Bush's second term, and unsurprisingly, democratization formed the focus of Rice's interview, especially regarding the Middle East. The Post reports that Rice underscored the move away from the Scowcroftian realpolitik of cutting deals with the dictators and kleptocrats of the region in exchange for supporting stability by pointing out that the idea of a stable status quo in the Middle East has always been incorrect anyway:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday set out ambitious goals for the Bush administration's push for greater democracy overseas over the next four years, including pressing for competitive presidential elections this year in Egypt and women's right to vote in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries.

Rice, in an interview with Washington Post editors and reporters, said she was guided less by a fear that Islamic extremists would replace authoritarian governments than by a "strong certainty that the Middle East was not going to stay stable anyway." Extremism, she said, is rooted in the "absence of other channels for political activity," and so "when you know that the status quo is no longer defensible, then you have to be willing to move in another direction."

That was as far as Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright quoted Rice. However, she went into greater detail, which one can read in the transcript of the interview itself:

Q: So you're not concerned about a rapid rise of Islamic fundamentatalism in many of these countries, particularly Saudi Arabia or even as Iraq that started out?

SECRETARY RICE: Oh sure. Nobody wants to see the rise of greater fundamentalism or greater – let me use extremism. But it is really as opposed to what at this point? It isn't as if the status quo was stable the way that it was. What we really learned on September 11 as you really started to look underneath what was going on there, is that the Middle East is a place that's badly in need of change, that some of these malignancies that are represented by the rise of extremism have their roots in the absence of other channels for political activity or social activity or the desire for change, and when you recognize that – and there are some who recognized it well before we did – but when you recognize that you can say, all right well now I'll try and design the perfect counter to that. Or you can say, the United States is not going to be able to design the perfect counter to that; the only thing the United States can do is to speak out for the values that have been absent, liberty and freedom there, and it will have to take its own course.

And then you have to have some confidence that democratic institutions and people's desire not to live in violence and not to be kind of constantly sending their children off to be suicide bombers, is going to have a moderating effect on the region.

The specific tie to 9/11 somehow gets washed out of the Post's article, but it holds the key to the significant foreign-policy change from that espoused by the Scowcrofts and Kissingers to the democratization that has come directly from George Bush. Later, Rice makes the important point that part of the problem with the United States and its reception in the Middle East came from its hypocritical stance towards that region, obviously favoring the oil trade over its supposed concern over liberty and human rights, and how that hypocrisy also contributed to the extremism that led to 9/11:

I also think there's some argument to be made that America's association with the freedom deficit was a problem for the United States in the region. There are now all kinds of studies of this that people said well, you talk about democracy in Latin America, you talk about democracy in Europe, you talk about democracy in Asia and Africa but you never talk about democracy in the Middle East.

And, of course, they were right because this was the decision that stability trumped everything, and what we were getting was neither stability nor democracy.

Rice and the Post didn't limit talk about democratization to just the Middle East, especially after this week's events in Kyrgyzstan. The Post asked Rice about the potential for all of these events in the former Soviet sphere of influence to lead to a perception of encirclement to Vladimir Putin. The Post wondered about the isolating effects democratization has had on the Russian president-cum-autocrat and the potential for resultant instability:

[T]he fundamental fact is that the space around Russia is changing and changing pretty dramatically, and I've been heartened by the fact that after great difficulties around Ukraine, the relationship seems still to be in very good shape and indeed around Kyrgyzstan we've had very little problem whatsoever.

Nobody is trying to encircle Russia. It's a sort of 19th century concept, encirclement. And in fact that we're trying to promote, we and others, is the democratization and therefore the liberalization and ultimately greater prosperity in the whole space that is the former Soviet Union. And, based on that, you would have greater opportunities for trade and greater opportunities for economic development of the whole region, and in many ways nobody would have a greater interest in a more prosperous, forward-looking space around Russia than Russia would.

So part of this is conceptual, is to start to get Russia to see that, and I think you've seen some movement. It's not going to be a matter of controlling these countries. It's going to be a matter of transparent and healthy relations between them.

First, as I pointed out yesterday, in order to really worry about encirclement one has to see true democratization in Kyrgyzstan first. The outgoing ruler, Akayev, had balanced his foreign policy between Russia and the West, offering military bases to both the US and Putin after 9/11. All indications so far show that Akayev's opposition have a much more Russo-centered policy in mind, which seems to have been confirmed by Putin's quick endorsement of their rule. The most popular of the new group, Felix Kulov, ran their security apparatus since the KGB left Kyrgyzstan and as chief of staff for their military spent a lot of time coordinating with the Russians.

Before we can talk encirclement, we need to see whether Kyrgyzstan actually reverts to another strongman-type rule, replacing Akayev with just another flavor of autocracy, or whether the Bakiev government holds true to its promise of elections in June. Akayev has fled to Moscow, apparently giving up on returning to power despite protestations otherwise. If Putin wanted him back in power in Kyrgyzstan, I doubt he would have taken Akayev in that quickly. Putin's playing for stability, which inspires some healthy skepticism about the aim of Bakiev and Kulov in Kyrgyzstan.

Rice speaks extensively on democratization during the interview; in fact, it intertwines thematically in her answers to nearly every question the Post asks during the interview. Rice shows that she's clearly on board with George Bush and therefore represents him in a way that Colin Powell never quite achieved. People widely assumed Powell had less commitment to this foreign-policy philosophy, although it may have more to do with wishful thinking on the Left and abroad than Powell's actual views. However, no one can mistake Rice's commitment to Bush's policy, nor her erudite and skillful representation of it. Having Rice run State sends the clear message that Bush and the US remain totally committed to democratization as the primary focus of both its foreign policy and national security strategy.

Read the entire interview, and skip the Kessler/Wright report on it.

FT: Iraqi Insurgents Want A Way Out

The Financial Times of London reports that native insurgent leaders in Iraq -- as opposed to the smaller band of foreigners led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- have lost heart and want a face-saving way out of the battle against American and Iraqi forces. They want Iraq to offer some security guarantees in return for their surrender and an ability to join in the political process:

Many of Iraq's predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politician.

Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election. ...

Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.

What they want is a similar deal that the Afghan government has offered to lower-level Taliban fighters with some significant success. In exchange for turning themselves in to Iraqi authority and surrendering their arms, they want a general amnesty and the ability to access the new democratic processes. If the Iraqis can confirm their seriousness, and the dramatic drop in terrorist activity seems to substantiate it, the Iraqis should go for it. It would allow the sectarian divisions to subside and further reduce antidemocratic forces to the margins of Iraqi society. It would also allow Iraqi and American security forces to focus on Zarqawi and his gang of thugs.

This development has been brought to you by George Bush's insistence on holding the elections on time. Not only did the Iraqis and the Americans succeed in securing the vote, but the Iraqis themselves delivered a spirited endorsement of democracy and freedom that has obviously shattered the will of the native insurgency. The transformative power of democracy shows once again its singular ability to marginalize and neutralize the impetus for terror.

How many American newspapers do you think will carry this story tomorrow?

Iraqi Prisoners Attempt Remake Of Stalag 17

The Hill reports that US forces in Iraq caught onto an elaborate escape attempt by thousands of terrorists held in a prison camp in southern Iraq, just ahead of an inspection tour by top military leadership:

U.S. military police Friday thwarted a massive escape attempt by suspected insurgents and terrorists from this southern Iraq Army base that houses more than 6,000 detainees when they uncovered a 600-foot tunnel the detainees had dug under their compound. ...

Within hours of the discovery on the first tunnel, a second tunnel of about 300 feet was detected under an adjoining compound in the camp, which holds 6,049 detainees. The elaborate escape is reminiscent of the 1994 movie, "The Shawshank Redemption," where a prisoner burrows his way out of prison.

The key difference, however, is that not one Iraq prisoner got out.

I think the better reference is to Stalag 17 or maybe Hogan's Heroes, but the Confederate Yankee likes the movie reference in The Hill. (He thinks it also explains why we haven't heard from Tim Robbins lately.)

However much we joke around about this, it's really no laughing matter. The terrorists came within an ace of making a massive break from the camp, which could have created a firestorm of havoc throughout Iraq. I wonder if more sophisticated technology should be used at these bases -- perhaps seismographs or other sensors which could tip off the security forces of tunneling efforts like this. The people we detain in these camps aren't typical POWs, after all. They infiltrate civilian areas and murder Iraqis and Americans alike, without regard to civilian casualties and often desiring civilian casualties.

We have some awfully smart people in our defense services. Let's come up with better protection for our men and women who stand guard over these killers.

UN Report Demonstrates Assad's Motive In Hariri Assassination

The UN report on the assassination of Rafik Hariri has unusually harsh and specific criticism for the pro-Syrian Emile Lahoud and the Lebanese investigation of the carbombing. The Washington Post gives us a few eye-popping details of the way Damascus' First Opthalmologist treated Hariri just prior to his murder:

Syrian President Bashar Assad threatened former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri with "physical harm" last summer if Hariri challenged Assad's dominance over Lebanese political life, contributing to a climate of violence that led to the Feb. 14 slayings of Hariri and 19 others, according to testimony in a report released Thursday by a U.N. fact-finding team.

The report, which calls for an international investigation into Hariri's death, describes an August meeting in Damascus at which Assad ordered the Lebanese billionaire to support amending Lebanon's constitution, according to testimony from "various" sources who discussed the meeting with Hariri. The amendment, approved Sept. 3, allowed Emile Lahoud, the Syrian-backed Lebanese president, to remain in office for three more years.

Assad said that "Lahoud should be viewed as his personal representative" in Lebanon and that "opposing him is tantamount to opposing Assad himself," the report states. Assad then warned that he "would rather break Lebanon over the heads of" Hariri and influential Druze political leader Walid Jumblatt "than see his word in Lebanon broken."

This may not quite amount to a smoking gun, but it certainly shows that Bashar Assad had intended on warning Hariri that he meant business. Given that the Syrian military and intelligence services had complete control of Lebanon, at least until this crude and stupid act, this testimony makes clear that Assad and his minions not only wanted Hariri out of the picture but specifically planned to make it happen. Nor did they stop there. Their Lebanese collaborators made sure that any evidence left over after the blast got cleaned up as soon as possible:

Following the attack, Lebanese authorities failed to properly secure the site and cleared it of key evidence, including the six vehicles in Hariri's convoy, according to the report.

The police failed to shut down a broken water main that flooded the crime scene, washing away important evidence.

"Important evidence was either removed or destroyed without record," FitzGerald said.

The report also charges that Lebanese investigators neglected to trace a "suspect" white pickup truck that slowed down at the crime scene in the minutes before the explosion. Nor did they interview potential witnesses, a failure that amounted to "gross negligence."

No witnesses were questioned and valuable evidence got washed away? Yes, it sounds like the Lebanese power structure headed by Lahoud and Omar Karami defintely wanted to get to the bottom of this crime. The Lebanese people should remain concerned that these people have been left in charge for the next two months to continue their cover-up of Hariri's murder and to plot whatever they need to attempt an extension of their rule.

We need to continue the demand for complete Syrian withdrawal immediately, followed by free and fair elections to remove Lahoud and Karami. Until that happens, even the UN agrees that justice will not be possible for the Lebanese people and their representatives.

UPDATE: Of course, the Yemeni Observer has its own sources -- namely, a crackpot named Wayne Madsen:

According to high-level Lebanese intelligence sources—Christian and Muslim—former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was reportedly assassinated in a sophisticated explosion-by-wire bombing authorized by the Bush administration and Ariel Sharon's Likud government in Israel. ...

A number of intelligence sources have reported that assassinations of foreign leaders like Hariri and Hobeika are ultimately authorized by two key White House officials, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot Abrams. In addition, Abrams is the key liaison between the White House and Sharon's office for such covert operations, including political assassinations.

As Power Line notes, this should mark the nadir of the Karl Rove Is The Root Of All Evil meme among the radical Left. I predict, however, that somehow they will find a way to sink lower than this. (via CQ reader Mark Coffey)

Ah, Those Darned "Perceptions"! (Updated!)

The new president of the MPAA met with Christian Toto of the Washington Times to discuss the challenges of replacing the only other man to hold that position, Jack Valenti, in the changed political climate in which Hollywood finds itself. Dan Glickman, former Agriculture Secretary under Bill Clinton, acknowledged that working with two Republican-controlled branches of government would present some difficulties, but it seems the first hurdle for Glickman might be reality instead:

The president of the Motion Picture Association of America says Hollywood must build a bridge to the Republican-controlled Congress in order to deflate perceptions of a liberal bias. ...

"There's no question in the general world there's the perception that the entertainment community is to the left of the country as a whole," Mr. Glickman told editors and reporters at The Washington Times yesterday. "I've got to build bridges with the people who run the show."

The former congressman dismissed the notion that the movie industry acts as one entity, but admitted that's precisely how the public reacts whenever a handful of liberal actors back Democratic candidates.

No sir, that is how the public reacts when it is given a steady diet of films and television entertainment which relentless portrays Republicans as Snidely Whiplash characters and Democrats as the heroes. Watch such highly-regarded fare as West Wing, The American President, and The Contender -- all well-financed and A-list productions -- and tell me that Glickman can't see a trend. Michael Douglas provides the stirring climax at the end of TAP by loudly proclaiming every leftist talking point known to mankind in response to Richard Dreyfuss' one-dimensional portrait of a comic-book Republican attack dog. Gary Oldman -- who later complained that his attempts to moderate his portrayal were edited out of The Contender -- gets to play a creepy, loutish, and hyopcritical GOP leader while Joan Allen portrays a martyred VP nominee and Jeff Bridges plays a courageous, cigar-chomping Democratic president in one of the most politically biased A-list dramas I've ever seen. And those are just the political dramas. Let's not forget last year's The Day After Tomorrow, with its ridiculous disaster-flick treatment of global warming, complete with its own eeeeeevil Dick Cheney clone.

And Glickman ignores completely where the power brokers in Hollywood put their money. We're not talking about a "handful of liberal actors" supporting Democratic candidates. People like Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, and others who have the money and power to get films made put big money into Democratic coffers while Hollywood Republicans have to hide in the shadows to get work. Michael Moore strings together a series of lies and dishonestly edited clips to make his paean to Leni Riefenstahl, Fahrenheit 9/11, and the Hollywood community hails him as a hero, while conservative Mel Gibson makes an apolitical movie about Jesus Christ -- and gets figuratively crucified for it.

Mr. Glickman may also want to review the last few Aacademy Awards presentations to understand the "perception" of liberal bias in Hollywood. Listen to Chris Rock talk about the Gap declaring war on the Banana Republic for two full minutes at the start of this year's show. Also listen to the huge reception he gets for Bush-bashing, and the almost dead silence given to his feeble and brief attempt at balancing the humor with a shot at John Kerry.

Glickman worries about perceptions. He should instead challenge his community to see their biases for what they are, and for how their audience sees straight through it. He gets one cheer for speaking to the more conservative Washington Times, but loses two for trying to spread the propaganda instead of addressing the truth.

UPDATE: Perhaps Dan Glickman can start addressing the "perception" of Hollywood bias by checking out the way money gets spent in Tinseltown for political purposes. Political donations split between the two parties between 2-1 and 3-1 for Democrats the last eight election cycles, with 2004 exactly hitting the average, 69%-31%. In 2002, Hollywood split 78%-22% for Democrats. Over the last 15 years, Hollywood has raised almost $120 million for Democrats, compared to $53 million for Republicans.

The only surprise is how much money actually went to the GOP, as far as I see.

Day By Day Updated Daily At CQ!

Based on the feedback I received earlier from readers, I have finally taken down the Day by Day cartoon which specifically referenced me and the Ted Rall smackdown. Comments and e-mails kindly suggested that I had played that out way past its expiration date -- and while I write what I please, in this case I figured that enough people were telling me that I was drunk and I should sit down, so to speak.

After e-mailing DBD creator Chris Muir, I got permission to have his latest cartoon posted at the top of the context column so that it automatically updates each day (other bloggers have already done so). I think Chris does top-flight work and always find his commentary amusing and fresh, and having it appear here will give everyone an opportunity to keep up with it. I hope you enjoy it, and don't forget to check out Chris' great site, where you can catch up with all the archives and keep abreast of his latest projects.

Governor Bush Must Uphold The Law

Now that the federal court has ruled against the Schindlers again this morning in their fight to save their daughter from death, Terri's supporters have renewed their calls for Governor Jeb Bush to step in and do something -- some say even if he has to break the law to do it:

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney -- a Christian Defense Coalition representative who is frequently on hand across the country for controversial matters of concern to religious conservatives -- called for Gov. Bush to send Florida law enforcement officers to "come in and take Terri."

"A citizen of your state is being brutally murdered," he said. "You need to intervene."

Mahoney was organizing the prayer vigil Friday. "We are here on Good Friday to ask Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene to save the life of Terri Schiavo," he said in a statement. "The governor has it within his power to rescue Terri. Her life is in the governor's hand."

I have argued repeatedly for Congress, the Florida legislature, and the two Bush brothers to do all they can do to save Terri's life. As I have expressed here before, I find the forced death by dehydration of a disabled, non-terminal patient at the insistence of an estranged spouse with no support except for the hearsay of a couple of offhand comments heard by the husband and his relatives abhorrent. It smacks of euthanasia and sets a terrible precedent, apart from the inhumanity of forcing Terri's family to watch her die when they've repeatedly requested to be allowed to care for her. It's sadistic, if not to Terri, then to those who love her.

But we have to draw a line here, and that line is the law.

The governor and the President have done all that they can do within the law. They cannot execute any action not authorized by current law or by action of the legislative branch. Neither can they use the law-enforcement resources at their command to simply overrule a judge's decision. Governor Bush swore an oath to uphold and enforce the law, even those with which he disagrees, and he has done his best to create law to allow him to act in this circumstance. He was not successful.

In our haste to save an innocent life, we cannot demand that our executives turn into dictators for just a few moments. Dictatorships don't work that way, and neither do democracies. Imagine what would happen if Jeb Bush took Reverend Mahoney's advice. Terri's life might be saved -- for a week or two. Snatching Terri illegally from the hospice and holding her somewhere in violation of a court order would result in Bush's impeachment, and likely federal intervention in Florida. The state police probably would refuse the illegal order anyway. If Bush did take Terri, she would be right back to where she was last Friday as soon as the rule of law returned to Florida -- which would mean she would once again start the process of dehydration as soon as that happened.

We cannot allow our passions for Terri and the Schindlers to overload our respect for the law which protects us from an overpowerful executive branch. Reverend Mahoney calls for little less than an armed coup d'etat in Florida, one in which Bush would make both the legislature and the judiciary completely irrelevant by the use of force. I cannot imagine a more dangerous and terrible outcome from this tragedy than that, especially since in the end it will have only the effect of momentarily delaying Terri's torturous death.

It's time to cool the passions and start praying for mercy.

Another Exempt Media Blackout?

Michelle Malkin is all over what appears to be another Exempt Media blackout. Despite every news outlet covering the supposed "GOP Talking Points" on the Schiavo litigation when the story first broke, now that the memo appears to have been fraudulent, suddenly no one wants to talk about it. Howard Kurtz, Michelle notes, has not written a word on it since Power Line first challenged the memo's authenticity in a series of posts. The only newspaper that covered Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg's call for an investigation into the memo's creation was, oddly, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel -- which gave it two lines.

Regardless what one thinks of the Schiavo case, this suspicious memo should be getting some attention, especially since it broke as headline news last weekend in an attempt to discredit the GOP by questioning their motivations. If a GOP staffer wrote it, he or she should be fired for sheer incompetence alone, but it would be good for us to know that. However, it looks more like an amateurish attempt to smear the Republicans -- and the silence of the Exempt Media suggests that they know it, too.

It looks like Eason's Fables all over again, doesn't it?

Hang Onto Those Tulips For A Moment

A few ominous notes have sounded in the triumphal procession of Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution, discordant tones which should prick the ears of those cheering democracy's spread. As Reuters reports this morning, Vladimir Putin has rushed to endorse the interim government of Kurmanbek Bakiev, which sounds a bit out of character for the Russian president who has spent more time consolidating power than encouraging democracy during his term in office:

Kyrgyzstan's opposition, a day after snatching power in a lightning coup in the ex-Soviet state, on Friday named a new acting president and won almost immediate -- and vital -- support from Russia. ...

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow was ready to work with the Kyrgyz opposition and offered refuge in Russia to Akayev, who is thought to have fled abroad, possibly to neighboring Kazakhstan.

"We know these people (the opposition) pretty well and they have done quite a lot to establish good relations between Russia and Kyrgyzstan," Putin told reporters on a visit to Armenia.

One of the leaders that Putin undoubtedly looks forward to engaging is Felix Kulov, the former parliamentarian who has been chosen as interior minister in the new government. Kulov got sprung from prison by opposition protestors yesterday as the capitol of Kyrgyzstan descended into chaos, with widespread looting and low-level violence flaring up. As interior minister, Kulov has the authority and the responsibility to restore order.

And Kulov has some experience with that, as Putin well knows. Kulov ran the National Security Ministry, the Kyrgyz version of the KGB and likely a successor agency with the same personnel in place. He also served as chief of the General Staff for Kyrgyzstan's armed forces, which coordinated closely with the Russian military. Kulov and Putin have likely worked closely in the past, and since Kulov has become a popular figure of the opposition -- some say more popular than Bakiev -- Putin may be working to push Kulov to the top of the heap. That would bring Kyrgyzstan more in line with Russian politics and reduce the Western outreach of the outgoing autocrat Akayev.

Perhaps Putin will allow Kyrgyzstan to develop into a full democracy with free elections and an open foreign policy. After watching Ukraine and Georgia slip through his fingers, though, I'd bet on Kulov eventually ascending to power and simply replacing a Russo-centered autocracy for the previous nonaligned authoritarian rule.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! And for some first-class blogging on Kyrgyzstan, check out Registan.

Inconceivable!

Mike Krempansky at Redstate continues to keep an eagle eye on the FEC while it debates the best way to regulate Internet campaign activity, or the least worst way, depending on the point of view. Mike has attended the initial FEC hearing on the subject and managed to get his hands on an initial draft of proposals from March 10th that, according to Mike, amounted to speech regulation worse than what Brad Smith had predicted the week before its drafting:

To step back a moment, remember – on March 3rd, Commissioner Bradley Smith warned of some real potential problems with the upcoming rulemaking process. In return for ringing the alarm bell, he was dismissed as a crank, a partisan, an ideologue – and most of all, just plain wrong. The FEC would NEVER do something like regulate bloggers – heavens no! It’s inconceivable.

Well, I don’t think that word means what they think it means.

And now, we can prove that 1) Smith was right, and then some, 2) Had Smith not rung that bell, we may well have regretted it, 3) those on the FEC that criticized smith and told bloggers, in effect, to “chill out” weren’t being honest with us and 4) the FEC should be viewed with the highest suspicion throughout this regulatory process.

The real deal-killer here appears to be section 5 of the proposal, which stands earlier protestations that bloggers were safe from regulation on their head:

The proposed definition of "public communication" would also include any third-party content placed on another person's website, unless access to the third party content is password protected and available to only 500 or fewer viewers, or is a communication under 11 CFR 114.3 or 114.7(h) to the restricted class of a corporation or labor organization or to members of a membership organization. Such content could take the form, for example, of paid advertisements, such as banner advertisements or "pop-up" advertisements that appear on a website. Such content could also take the form of blogs that appear on a "host" site, whether or not a blogger pays a fee for the hosting service. Thus, under the proposed rule, a "public communication" would include both a publicly available website and any publicly available content on that website. (Pg 20, line 3)

This could mean a campaign blog. On the other hand, the FEC proposes such loose language here that they could enforce it on any third-party blog with more than 500 readers -- and note that the reader limit doesn't refer to any specific time frame. This could mean 500 a day, a week, a month, or throughout an entire political campaign.

So much for Ellen Weintraub's assurances that the FEC had no interest in regulating bloggers. The commissioner told that to the New York Times and other media on March 4th, and yet six days later, the FEC proposes blog regulation in black and white. Can you imagine that -- an FEC commissioner who doesn't tell the American public the truth about regulating speech? Inconceivable!

Mike has been invited to speak on behalf of bloggers at a panel with Chris Shays' general counsel and FEC chair Scott Thomas next week on Capitol Hill. Let's hope we can show them what coordination looks like, blogosphere-style.

Lesson #1: Don't Rig Elections

Kyrgyzstan has apparently thrown off its authoritarian government after making the same mistake that led to the collapse of other former post-Soviet strongmen rule -- rigging an election:

KYRGYZSTAN’S opposition appeared to have seized control of the central Asian country yesterday, making it set to become the third former Soviet state in two years to see its entrenched leadership fall to popular protest after disputed elections.

Following Ukraine and Georgia, the latest revolution was a swift event that was over almost as soon as it began. However, last night outbreaks of serious looting had broken out in the capital, Bishkek, adding a dark note to the political change and underlining the challenges it presents.

Unrest had been growing since elections last month provoked claims of ballot rigging by the government. Calls for Askar Akayev, the president, to stand down were followed this week by opposition protesters seizing control of government buildings and cities in the south.

In fact, the demonstrators yesterday initially were routed by the police. However, after they regrouped and came back, the police essentially surrendered and allowed them to sack the government building. The electoral shenanigans apparently undermined the Akayev government to such an extent that the security forces felt unwilling to do much more than present a single honorable defense before either surrendering or even switching to the opposition.

Now Akayev is on the run, and no one knows for sure where to find him. Delighted opposition activists have freed their leader from prison and the parliament elected an opposition deputy to take charge. Unlike other sudden people-power demonstrations in the former Soviet republics, the Tulip Revolution came so quickly that it had no central personality around which to coalesce, leaving the movement delighted but somewhat rudderless. Ukraine had Viktor Yushchenko to motivate the Orange Revolution, and Georgia's Rose Revolution eventually formed its core with Mikhail Saakashvili. No one knows who will fill the bill for Kyrgyzstan.

As the London Telegraph reports, there may be more parallels to these other revolutions:

Mr Akayev's reluctance to spill blood in defence of his regime was, in many ways, typical of the man, an authoritarian figure but one far removed in character from the despots who hold sway over the rest of the region.

Uniquely among the leaders who came to power in Central Asia after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, he was not a Communist apparatchik and, for many years, he was held up by the West as a shining example of enlightened rule. ...

But under Mr Akayev, Kyrgyzstan was never accused of torturing political prisoners, unlike nearby Uzbekistan. And its leader never encouraged the extravagant personality cults favoured by other neighbours.

Just as in Georgia and Ukraine, the man who inherited the mantle of power in Kyrgyzstan after the collapse of the Soviet empire initially had the respect of the West as we practiced a bit of realpolitik instead of pressing for true democracy. The people eventually tired of waiting for the promise of freedom and instead seized it after watching the charade of a rigged election. Note that the only former Soviet republics to experience this have been those with Western pretenses and relatively moderate autocrats at the helm.

The lesson: if you talk about democracy, you'd better be prepared to deliver it. Otherwise, autocrats should take the Saparmurat Niyazov approach and start building a personality cult forthwith.

Soros Conviction Upheld In France

George Soros, the multi-billionaire financier and one of the primary source of funds behind the far Left in the US, has had a conviction for insider trading upheld in France today. The case originated when Soros received a tip on a buyout of Societe Generale and started scooping up its stock ahead of the announcement. Soros, of course, proclaims his innocence (hat tip: CQ reader M. DuFresne):

Billionaire investor George Soros failed to erase the only legal blemish on a long financial career Thursday, when a French appeals court upheld his three-year-old conviction for insider trading.

Rejecting Soros' bid to clear his name, the Paris Court of Appeal maintained the guilty verdict and 2.2 million euros fine handed down by a lower court — the same amount that Soros made buying and selling Societe Generale shares in 1988 after receiving information about a planned corporate raid on the bank.

Amusingly, Soros acknowledges that he got the tip and that he began to buy the shares a few days later, but denies that one had anything to do with the other. He claims that he executed the stock purchase as part of a broader plan to take advantage of privatization, but the court found that the information was precise and confidential, and Soros acted in direct reaction to its private revelation. How else could the court rule? If they bought Soros' explanation, no one could ever be prosecuted for insider trading.

I find it amusing anyway that the man who funds the anti-globalist, anti-capitalist Left made his money through currency speculation and apparently some more-than-clever stock transactions in the international market. He escaped to the West from Hungary with next to nothing and made billions by manipulating capital on a global basis. However, once he had his fortune secured, he has appeared intent on making sure that no one gets afforded the same chances he had to succeed.

Seeing him get caught cheating only heightens the overwhelming hypocrisy of Soros. The fact that the Left cheerfully takes Soros' money while excoriating people who make a living out of far less exploitative means of the same globalization they decry demonstrates their overwhelming hypocrisy as well.

All Over But The Dying

The Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal of the Schindlers to get food and water restored to Terri Schiavo:

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to order Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted, rejecting a desperate appeal by her parents to keep their severely brain-damaged daughter alive.

The decision, announced in a terse one-page order, marked the end of a dramatic and disheartening four-day dash through the federal court system by Bob and Mary Schindler.

Justices did not explain their decision, which was at least the fifth time they have declined to get involved in the Schiavo case.

I'm not surprised by this action. I always felt that the only hope Terri had of getting relief was at the district court level. Once Judge Whittemore ignored Congress' express desire for a de novo retrial, I knew the effort was doomed.

I'll post more later. I hear that Jeb Bush wants to take physical custody of Terri, a move for which I have serious misgivings, but I don't really have any reasoned arguments for it yet. I need more time to absorb this.

UPDATE: Judge George Greer quashed Bush's motion for a custody transfer this afternoon:

A state judge refused Thursday to hear Gov. Jeb Bush's arguments to take custody of Terri Schiavo, leaving the brain-damaged woman's parents with only the slimmest hopes in their fight to keep her alive.

Bush's request cited new allegations of neglect and challenges the diagnoses that Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state, but Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer wasn't convinced.

Not much surprise there, either, since Greer has been the only finder of fact throughout this entire case. However, I doubt that any other Florida court would have granted this particular motion, certainly not as injunctive relief. Before taking custody of a disabled person under any conditions, the state would have to show a high threshold of proof that state confiscation of a person and the termination of custody rights were warranted. That means a trial, not just a hearing; otherwise, it's a violation of habeas corpus, strictly speaking. Any lower threshold would enable the state (especially the executive) far too much leeway to confine people while the defendants suffered under the burden of proof.

I think this has been part of my misgiving about Jeb Bush's notion of protective custody from the beginning, but also I think I have a deeply-rooted fear of an overpowerful executive regardless. The courts have appellate courts above them, although certainly in this case they've mostly taken the cowardly way out and refused to look at the facts as well as the procedures. Legislatures answer directly to voters and in most cases could face recalls if they abuse their power. The same might be true of executives, but notwithstanding California's example, such a choke on power has proven exceedingly difficult to engineer. The executives have the agencies of law enforcement under their command, with their near-monopoly on legal lethal force. An out-of-control executive is a far greater danger than any of the other branches in the long run.

I'm still conflicted on it. However, practically speaking, it won't happen anyway. We've sentenced a woman to die in a manner which we wouldn't dream of ordering for a dangerous animal or a convicted terrorist, and now we have to watch as the people who supposedly should be protecting her force her to die horribly. I'm praying for Terri and the Schindlers, but I think that's all that's left.

UN Report Whitewashes Sexual Abuse

The UN has released its recommendations for combatting sexual abuse by its peacekeeping troops, but it transfers responsibility from its own ranks to that of the nations which provide the troops. Normally, I would applaud that concept; I don't want to give the UN power to discipline US troops. However, the problem with the UN's troop composition is the countries from which they come. That is compounded by a mind-boggling attitude of "boys will be boys" that completely ignores the nature of the exploitation of women and young girls in the Congo and elsewhere:

A U.N. report on peacekeeper sex abuse released Tuesday describes the U.N. military arm as deeply flawed and recommends withholding salaries of the guilty and requiring nations to pursue legal action against perpetrators.

Those recommendations and several others come after repeated allegations that peacekeepers exploited the very people they were sent to protect. The report described a troubled system where peacekeepers have often "failed to grasp the dangers confronting them, seduced by day-to-day conditions that can be viewed as benign." ...

[S]ometimes troops and civilians fail to understand the complexities of the countries where they deploy. That must be counteracted, the report said.

"There are at least some people in peacekeeping who perceive it as almost a form of camping," Zeid said. "You can forget how wounded and traumatized the people you're working with are. You can make assumptions that you're entering into a normal consensual relationship if you're a civilian staff member and often those assumptions may be misguided."

Excuse me, but raping prepubescent young girls and tricking them out as dollar-a-throw hookers bears no relationship to the fairy-tale romantic take presented by Prince Zeid here. The UN's peacekeepers haven't entered into consensual relationships; they've exploited the women and young girls in their care, extorting sex for basic human needs such as food and water. The failure of the UN's investigator to understand this basic issue completely underscores the corruption and mismanagement of the UN and its aid and peacekeeping missions.

So why does the effort to press the provider nations to discipline their troops seem bound to fail? First, as shown above, the UN doesn't even begin to comprehend the actual havoc these troops wreak on their victims. Second, the UN itself has been complicit in the same crimes, with their own staff setting the example these troops follow. Third, look at the primary contributors of troops to UN peacekeeping missions, part of the so-called non-aligned movement to assert some control over the UN:

In the last several months, Zeid has discussed his proposals with nations that contribute the most troops — such as Pakistan, Morocco, Brazil and Bangladesh — and those that fund missions, like the United States.

None of these countries are known for their commitment to due process or military discipline, although Pakistan may be the best of a bad lot. Does anyone truly believe that Morocco sees the exploitation of Congolese women as a high priority in shaking out its military ranks? The truth is that these troops never should have been deployed to these areas at all, and the bifurcated command structure that the UN demands creates management problems even for the best of troops, let alone poorly disciplined third-world units. Wearing a blue helmet always means serving two masters, usually with widely divergent goals.

The real solution for the problem is a complete housecleaning at Turtle Bay. No one can expect any different result from a UN mission as long as the UN remains a center for corruption and mismanagement. Until that housecleaning comes, the solution for the immediate problems will come not from the provider nations but from the payor nations withholding the cash. That's the only reform that will eventually work.

Media Matters Underscores Judge Greer's Capriciousness

I received an e-mail from Bart M this morning with the following message:

You published a link to a Michelle Malkin article which repeated a slime on Schiavo's husband. I suggest reading the following to appreciate just how scurrilous Ms. Malkin's opportunistic hit piece was[.]

The link was to this Media Matters post, and as you might imagine, I took the reference with a huge, Lot's Wife-sized grain of salt. Sure enough, our friends at Media Matters have the spin cycle going pretty hard trying to discredit the nurses who have brought affadavits forward regarding the behavior of Michael Schiavo during his guardianship of Terri Schiavo. Not only does Media Matters take all the news agencies to task for giving Carla Iyer airtime during this debate, they link to another affadavit from another nurse who corroborates Iyer's testimony, while claiming their testimony is "incredible".

Where do they get that idea? From Judge George Greer himself, of course:

Greer dismissed Iyer's charges, noting that they -- along with a similar affidavit given by Heidi Law, another nurse who formerly took care of Terri Schiavo -- were "incredible to say the least" and that "[n]either in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo."

First, it's important to review both affadavits to see how dumb that argument is. Iyer specifically states in her affadavit that her comments to Terri's chart had been repeatedly removed, and Law says notes she provided the nursing staff routinely went into the trash. Both sworn affadavits corroborate the fact that Michael would not allow nurses to perform any kind of therapy for Terri in the period from 1995 to 1997, and the hostile attitude Michael had towards Terri. When two different people who worked with Terri at two different times give essentially the same testimony, a court should give some consideration to their presentation.

However, Greer dismissed them with little if any consideration, and you can almost feel the contempt he had for their testimony in this curt dismissal:

The remaining affidavits deal exclusively with events which allegedly occurred in the 1995-1997 time frame. The court feels constrained to discuss them. They are incredible to say the least. Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a constant basis. Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges.

Why is that so impossible to believe? Staff comes and goes at hospitals and hospices; it's more than just possible that the Schindlers couldn't remember their names by 2000, it's probably very likely, considering the vast number of nurses and caregivers that the family had encountered the previous nine years. I've dealt with the highly professional and wonder staff at Fairview University Medical Center in Minneapolis for over two years, and I haven't a clue as to the names of the nurses and technicians who have assisted the First Mate during that period. The Schindlers couldn't very well subpoena people whose names they couldn't recall and whose notes had been expunged from the official records. As far as the cover-up including the facility which Michael paid to house Terri, did the judge even consider their financial stake in continuing to receive compensation for Terri's care?

This is why Congress wanted the federal court to take a de novo look at the Terri Schiavo case -- so that Terri's fate could be considered by a finder of fact besides George Greer for the first time. Media Matters for America blunders into the truth of why so many of us have so many problems with Greer's handling of the case, although true to form, MMFA can't recognize the truth with both hands and a flashlight.

Dutch Defend Euthanasia But Hide It From Muslims?

The Washington Times editorial board met with the Dutch ambassador to the US, Boudewijn van Eenennaam, who discussed a wide range of issues with the board. The Times headlines his defense of euthanasia, but van Eenennaam also discusses the problem of assimilation the Dutch now have with their significant Muslim population:

"Almost without us noticing, we had schools in Rotterdam and The Hague that were 80 percent and 90 percent Muslim," he said. Today, in a nation of 16 million, there are 1.6 million Muslims, many of whom are second- and third-generation Dutch citizens whose parents and grandparents were guest workers who arrived to stay.

The mistake, he said, was that the Muslim immigrants had been welcomed to the Netherlands with almost no conditions. There was no requirement that they learn the Dutch language or assimilate into the European culture.

"We were too tolerant. ... There is strong support that Islam in the Netherlands will have to adapt to the Netherlands," he said. The native Dutch must accommodate the newcomers as well. "I do think the Dutch population should be open a little more."

He noted that a government video showing topless women on a beach and homosexuals embraced in a kiss, meant to demonstrate the reality of life in an open and permissive culture, had been edited to avoid offending prospective Muslim immigrants.

The last paragraph in that excerpt brings up a lot of questions about the Netherlands and its approach to immigration. First, it's important to understand why European countries have had to market themselves to immigrants. Their birth rates have declined so steadily that their social programs have reached a breaking point. There aren't enough younger workers to fund the promised benefits their older populations expect to see, and the political calamity that would result from a default will create a complete meltdown of Dutch society. Immigration is one key component to resolving this -- but not the only one, to which I'll return in a moment.

So how do the Dutch attract immigrants, especially those who will work cheap? They create government videos depicting Dutch reality: open homosexuality and nudity, which fairly represents Dutch openness towards sexuality in general. Nothing wrong with that, although I think it's hilarious that a government chooses to promote itself that way. However, when that doesn't get the response needed to keep their economy afloat, what does the Netherlands do? They edit the tape -- and then market themselves to the one group of people that their sexual laissez-faire almost guarantees to offend.

That kind of self-destructive decisionmaking makes me question whether the Dutch really believe in their open society, or if they simply are too lazy to defend any set of beliefs beyond their nanny-state benefits. Euthanasia provides another example of this, because a state that faces increasing pressure to fund the cradle-to-grave socialism that the Dutch (and the rest of Europe) have promised have an swfully big incentive to move the more costly of its citizens towards the end stage of that spectrum as quickly as possible:

In a luncheon interview yesterday with editors and reporters at The Washington Times, Mr. van Eenennaam emphasized that he takes no position on how U.S. courts and medical authorities should deal with Mrs. Schiavo's illness. The disagreement between her husband and her parents, he said, presents unusual difficulties.

Under Dutch euthanasia law, the advice of medical experts in similar cases "weighs very heavily in the final decision."

Critics of the Dutch law have raised alarms over a new drive by Dutch medical authorities to authorize euthanasia in cases in which a patient hasn't given his consent, and in cases of mental suffering not based on physical ailments.

So far, the Dutch have resisted going that far, but who are the government to tell someone who is in such unbearable psychological pain that they can't kill themselves? And why wouldn't the insistence of medical physicians that a patient cannot ever be helped by their care eventually trump that person's irrational insistence on staying alive? As resources become more scarce and more physicians feel comfortable insisting on these changes, don't be surprised to see the Dutch parliament and courts start carving out mechanisms for these in the near future.

Interestingly, the one group that will probably object to euthanasia at all will be the Muslims the Dutch imported to solve their worker crises. The Netherlands will rightly but incompletely blame this on a failure of assimilation, one they started the first time they edited their videos to attract workers antagonistic to Western culture. The complete truth will be that the expansion of euthanasia shows the decadent nature of European socialism, one which the Muslims oppose and which they will use to eventually overtake Western culture on the Continent unless Europe wakes up from its socialist slumber and starts retooling their economy for dynamic capitalism. Once it does that, the need for cheap Muslim labor will drop and the Muslim incursion will marginalize itself.

Perhaps then, the Dutch will quit focusing their medical efforts on how to kill people as kindly as possible and start focusing on how best to preserve life.

FEC Asks Interesting (And Chilling) Questions

Mike Krempansky at Redstate has the FEC proposal for public review of their upcoming regulation of political activity on the Internet, posted in HTML format for easy review. I've been reading through this on the eve of their first public hearing. While some may find this rather tame, compared to the mischief the FEC could have wrought, the questions the document asks still gives me some trepidation about where the FEC will go in following the court's mandate.

For instance, when talking about the issue of defining public communications in terms of regulation, the FEC proposal includes this:

The Commission invites comment on whether announcements placed for a fee on another entity’s website should be considered “general public political advertising,” and therefore, a “public communication” under 11 CFR 100.26. Is this approach consistent with BCRA’s definition of “public communication” to include broadcast, cable or satellite communications, newspaper, magazines and outdoor advertising facilities, all of which typically charge fees to those who run political advertisements?

If a mode of communication does not cost any money, can it be “general public political advertising” and therefore a “public communication” within the meaning of the statute? For example, a person might appear in a public square and give a campaign speech before 500 or more people. If such a public speech does not cost any money to undertake, is it outside the scope of “general public political advertising” under the statute and therefore not a “public communication”? Likewise, is such a public speech outside the scope of an “expenditure” or “contribution” under the statute? Also, should “general public political advertising” include Internet advertisements where a the advertising space was provided for something of value other than a monetary payment, for example through an exchange of comparable advertising? Although the Commission rule excludes iInternet activity that is not placed for a fee, should the Commission amend its regulation to explicitly state that it is not including “bloggers” in the definition of “public communication”?

In the first paragraph, the FEC has made it unclear whether they would consider a paid advertisement an issue for the payor or the payee, or both. Choosing the latter could have implications for bloggers with ad strips. I received a few ads from political campaigns, although not as many as I had anticipated; I think most campaigns missed the boat on blogads last year. Does the FEC mean to hold the blogger responsible as well as the campaign for that "public communication"?

In the second paragraph, I see even more potential for trouble. First, the example used shows a lack of understanding of the First Amendment. Someone giving a speech on behalf of a candidate should neither be considered advertising or a contribution -- it's political speech. This is the danger of the BCRA. It claims that money isn't speech, but then it turns around and tries to consider speech as equivalent to money.

The second question gets closer to the blogosphere. What it appears to ask is if a blogger agrees to post campaign material for a link or an spot on the campaign site, can the FEC regulate the speech on the blog as an in-kind campaign contribution? This gets back to turning the FEC into a thought police, where such an event could simply be an agreement with the principles of the blogger, and the campaign wanting to highlight those who support the candidate. It presumes coordination where none may exist.

To answer their last question, I'd certainly say that if their legislation intends on addressing the questions they've asked, then bloggers will need explicit exclusion from it. Otherwise, we'd all be at risk, based on our normal practices. But the other questions asked show that the true issue isn't bloggers per se, but the overall effect of the BCRA.

To underscore that concern, this pops up a little further along:

News reports indicate that in the 2004 elections some individual bloggers received significant fees from the campaign committees of at least one presidential candidate and one Senate candidate to promote the candidates’ campaigns on their blogs.[19] For example, the operator of the ninth most “linked” blog on the Internet, which received as many as one million visits daily, reportedly received $12,000 over a four-month period from one presidential candidate.[20] The news reports further indicate that not all of the bloggers disclosed the payments to the blogs’ readers.

The Commission notes that its current rules require a political committee to disclose this type of disbursement on its publicly available reports filed with the Commission. The Commission does not therefore propose to change the disclaimer regulation in 11 CFR 110.11(a) to require bloggers to disclose payments from a candidate, a campaign, or a political committee. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Should bloggers be required to disclose such payments? Should a blogger be required to disclose payments only if the blogger expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or solicits a contribution? Would a payment by a political committee to a blogger for promotional content on the blog constitute “general public political advertising” within the meaning of 100.26?

Should bloggers disclose financial arrangements with people about whom they write, especially political candidates? Yes, for sound ethical reasons. Is it the government's business to force them to do it? Absolutely not. The candidate must eventually disclose their expenditures, but a blogger shouldn't come under the FEC's thumb. Remember, in the scenario they paint, the blogger isn't a contributor to the campaign, he's an employee of it.

The mischief this will cause may be hard to see, but such a rule will open the door for swarms of partisan-minded complaints intended on nagging bloggers to shut down, even if they don't actually receive a dime. My friends at Power Line have been accused -- wrongfully -- of being on the GOP payroll. One of the Brookings panelists yesterday made an offhand comment that the credentialed bloggers to the Republican convention had been paid to be there, a lazy allegation that I immediately refuted. Imagine if the FEC had the power to fine bloggers who failed to disclose payments, and if a blogger urged his readers to all file complaints against a politically opposed blogger.

Much of the language in the FEC's proposal pays homage to bloggers. However, I think that those paeans may serve only as Trojan horses in order to give us a false sense of security. I would urge the attendees at tomorrow's meeting to make the FEC commissioners account for every jot and tittle in this document.

Democrat Conspiracy To Buy Votes Grows Wider

ABC News reports that five Democrats have been indicted on federal charges of vote-buying in last year's presidential election:

Five East St. Louis Democrats were charged in a scheme to buy votes in November's election in a federal indictment unsealed Wednesday.

An undetermined number of voters were paid $5 or $10 to cast a Democratic ballot in the Nov. 2 election, court records said. The money allegedly came from the St. Clair County Democratic Committee, though there was no indication the county committee knew how the funds would be used.

Federal prosecutors charged four Democratic committeemen and one precinct worker, a day after three other committeemen and a precinct worker pleaded guilty to related vote-buying charges in federal court.

It sounds like their co-conspirators cut a deal in order to reduced their jail time, which means they're looking to find bigger fish to fry. The seven committee members fit that bill, but it wouldn't surprise me if the investigation doesn't stop there. Stay tuned.

Britain Stakes Further Claim For Speech Jurisdiction

Earlier, I wrote about Sheikh Mahfouz and his libel case in Britain against Rachel Ehrenfeld for a book she never published outside the United States. Mahfouz won a default judgment against Ehrenfeld when she refused to acknowledge English jurisdiction for the case. Now British courts have laid claim to the entire Internet for libel and slander cases and Arnold Schwarzenegger has become their first target:

Schwarzenegger, who is now governor of California, had challenged a ruling by a senior High Court official giving Anna Richardson permission to serve proceedings on him out of the jurisdiction.

The decision today, by Mr Justice Eady, has cleared the way for a libel trial in London sometime this year.

Miss Richardson alleges she was libelled by Schwarzenegger and two campaign workers in an October 2003 article in The Los Angeles Times, which also appeared on the internet.

The article ran in the Los Angeles Times, which publishes within the United States, about a political race that involved the state of California and covered political topics. The LAT does not publish in the United Kingdom and only is available through the Internet to British readers. However, the plaintiff filed her case in Britain because defendants bear the burden of proof in the UK, not the plaintiffs, and it becomes much easier to win large judgments against media outlets.

Before people begin discounting this development with the attitude that the Times deserves a spanking over its atrocious recall-election coverage, consider what British courts have done. They now claim that anything which appears on the internet falls within their jurisdiction and can be adjudicated by British courts using British legal standards. That will apply to bloggers as well. If we start criticizing Tony Blair, for instance, he may well be able to file suit against us in London instead of the United States. That means our own due process will evaporate, as well as our First Amendment protections and the presumption of innocence we take for granted.

Not only does this bode ominously for free speech, it constitutes an unacceptable assault on American sovereignty. Had the LA Times published specifically in Britain -- say, with a paper version disseminated in London -- then they have to assume the liabilities that involves. However, simply making their editions available on the Internet does not give the UK the right to override their right to free speech and the protections of American legal code and custom.

While I'm no fan of the LA Times, in this case we'd better start speaking out against this encroachment before it (a) discourages media outlets from publishing to the Internet, and (b) starts getting applied to bloggers. The State Department should send a strong message to the United Kingdom explaining that America will not tolerate an infringement on our sovereignty and our open speech.

Kojo's Take From UNSCAM: $300,000

The Financial Times reports that Kojo Annan, the son of the UN Secretary-General, received over $300,000 in payments from Cotecna, half of which went through channels designed to hide the payments (via Instapundit):

Kojo Annan, son of Kofi Annan, United Nations secretary-general, received at least $300,000 from Cotecna, a Swiss inspection company awarded a contract ultimately worth about $60m under the Iraqi oil-for-food contract.

The amount was almost double the sum previously disclosed, but payments were arranged in ways that obscured where the money came from or whom it went to.

This shows that Cotecna knew perfectly well that their relationship with Kojo Annan would be viewed as inappropriate. Hiding payments demonstrates a knowledge of impropriety, which flies in the face of Cotecna's denials in the past. Cotecna made $60 million from the management of oil deals with Iraq based on the OFF program, which means Kojo by himself accounted for 0.5% of all revenue from the contract -- a rather amazing amount.

Of course, Cotecna claims that Kojo had nothing to do with the OFF contract. However, as FT reports, that disclaimer may run into the wall of reality rather quickly:

[Cotecna] insists his work had nothing to do with the UN contract and that it never took advantage of Kojo's access to the secretary-general.

But the FT/Il Sole investigation reveals that senior executives from Cotecna met Kofi Annan on various occasions, once at his UN office. A UN spokesman said the meetings had nothing to do with a contract awarded under the oil-for-food programme. Kojo Annan declined to comment.

What else would Cotecna need to discuss in Kofi Annan's office, other than the OFF program? The weather at Turtle Bay? The reason for the denials, which have worn threadbare by now, is that the meetings tie Kofi himself through Kojo personally to the corruption in the OFF program. If Kofi is to be believed, he let Benon Sevan run the entire program and he had nothing to do with it except supervising Sevan's work. He has consistently claimed that he did nothing operational with OFF. Now we have one of the prime contractors for the program meeting with Annan and paying his son wads of money through covert channels at the same time. That may not be enough to convict Kofi for a RICO indictment, but it's getting pretty close to it.

In other words, the stink has risen all the way to the top. Kofi Annan needs to explain why Cotecna met with him on "various occasions", what topics were discussed, and who arranged the meetings. Cotecna executives should be subpoenaed by Congress to testify under oath about their contacts with Kofi and these surreptitious payments to Kojo in order to ensure that the full story comes out.

Questioning My Editorial Policy

One of the privileges and responsibilities of maintaining a blog is complete editorial control over its content. That means I write about topics which interest, inspire, and infuriate me, and hopefully the same topics and my essays on them interest a large readership. Once I have attracted a large readership -- which is now the case -- what responsibility do I have to become responsive to their desires in terms of coverage and tone?

I'm not asking this question lightly, because I take the views of my readers seriously. Earlier today, a CQ reader sent this thoughtful and critical e-mail to me:

You HAVE been one of the more refreshing sources of a viewpoint on the Net and have been my favorite blog to read. Your blog is quickly becoming, however, something that I no longer wish to read on a regular basis. I've been coming back hoping you were just going through a time. What I liked so much about your blog is that you used to give a very balanced opinion on the issues we see every day. I guess where I really saw where you lost it was with what you called Easongate (sorry very bad English). It's not that I didn't agree with a lot of your views, but it's like you were throwing a blog tantrum insisting on getting your way. Another thing that bothers me os that every time I come into your blog I have to look at the fool cartoon you have re-published. Alright, already! You got recognized by a national cartoonist. But, for crying out loud, Ed, that's old news now. It just makes it looks like your full of yourself. Now the latest item that you're jumping on is the Schiavo case. I know this is your blog and you can say whatever you like. But, you've lost your balanced approach. I wish you would take the approach of Glenn on this one - not to have a written opinion. I do not like how many people have been throwing accusations around treating them as fact, when in fact none of us have the full story, nor will we ever. This issue has been handled over and over again in the courts and I get nervous that when courts issue rulings that is not liked by a certain group it suddenly becomes tyranny. Please, step back from where you are and really assess whether you like where your blog has headed. As for me, if your type of writing doesn't change, I will remove your website from my bookmarks and just stop reading you. That would be a shame.

Let's not debate the Schiavo case specifically here -- we have plenty of that going on in the posts I've written on the case already. I'd like feedback from CQ readers about what you see as my responsibility to you, and the limits of editorial control. I'm not going to comment on it myself until I read your feedback in the comments section.

For the record, my editorial policy is fair game for criticism, as far as I'm concerned.

Note: I didn't identify the reader because (a) I don't feel it's germane to the point, and (b) he didn't post this in comments and it would be unfair of me to identify him without his permission.

UPDATE 21:55 -- Many, many thanks to all of you who have written in reply to this question, both in comments and in e-mail. I have read every response and appreciate it all, both the criticism and the encouragement.

My response to the reader who originally wrote -- and who, by the way, graciously wrote back during the day thanking me for taking him seriously -- falls along the lines of the overwhelming majority of your responses. I write about what interests and inspires me, for better or worse. I don't pretend to be a news service, although sometimes I believe I do provide original reporting. CQ readers should check my references and my assumptions, one of the reasons I try to provide links for all such support. If I'm wrong -- well, that's why I leave the comments open.

Sometimes I will blog once on a story and find that I got it out of my system. Other times, I feel obligated to post on updated information. In the case of Eason Jordan, I kept posting in order to highlight the lack of coverage the issue received from the Exempt Media. For Terri Schiavo, it comes from a frustration at the impotence and limitation of blogging, frankly; I see a non-terminal woman being slowly killed by dehydration in front of family members who want nothing more than to care for her, and I can hardly believe that this can happen in America. Other causes may come later, and I may choose to cover them extensively. Hopefully I will write in an engaging and thought-provoking manner and keep everyone interested in the topic.

At any rate, I plan on being myself and writing passionately, and I hope you keep reading. You have all been such a great audience, however, that I wanted to make sure I took the time and had the courtesy to ask for your feedback. Thank you for taking the time to provide it.

Second Bombing In Lebanon Kills Three

The second bombing in Lebanon this week has people pointing towards Damascus again, believing that Bashar Assad may want to destabilize Lebanon in order to build a pretense for a re-occupation of their country:

A bomb killed three people in a Christian commercial center early Wednesday, the second attack in an anti-Syrian stronghold in five days, raising fears that agitators were trying to show a need for Syria's military presence in Lebanon.

A major opposition group, Qornet Shehwan, accused the pro-Damascus authorities of seeking to "terrorize" the people through the blasts. The local member of parliament called on his constituents to resist attempts to draw them into sectarian strife.

Meanwhile, the magistrate investigating the Feb. 14 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which brought Syria's long domination of the country into the spotlight, has asked to step down, the Justice Ministry said Wednesday. The move comes ahead of a report by U.N. investigators reportedly accusing authorities of negligence and tampering with evidence in the aftermath of the blast that killed Hariri and 17 other people in central Beirut.

Unfortunately, this type of action was all too predictable. Those who benefit from the Syrian occupation understand that their position post-withdrawal may quickly become untenable, as the Lebanese react to the presence of collaborators among them. Historically, those who have enabled foreign oppressors have short life spans after the foreigners leave, and therefore they have strong motivations to do whatever they can to either get out or keep the foreigners in.

The most likely suspects will either be Hezbollah, which will face demands to disarm after Syria leaves, or the Syrian intelligence forces that want to remain within Lebanon, covertly or overtly. Probably the bombings are a combination of both. The two factions would like nothing better than to restart the civil war that Syria used as a pretense for a three-decade occupation of its wealthier neighbor, mostly for its economic exploitation.

France and the US must remain firm on complete and verifiable withdrawal of all Syrian forces from Lebanon, especially in the Bekaa valley. Even if Syria didn't store Saddam's WMD there, it provides too strategic a position to allow the Syrian military to remain there, supporting Hezbollah in the south and staging a force that could recapture Beirut before anyone could intervene. Now is not the time to value the stability of dictatorship and oppression over the dynamics of liberty, no matter how many bombs Assad drops in his wake.

ABC News Channeling Mary Mapes?

The talking-points memo that ABC News reported this weekend that supposedly encouraged Republicans in Congress to support the emergency bill for Terri Schiavo looks fishier all the time. As Power Line noted last night, the memo itself has finally been scanned to PDF and placed on the Internet, although not by ABC. The memo has some odd characteristics, as Rocket Man points out:

The memo is not only "unsigned," as it was described by the Washington Post; it is not on House or Senate letterhead, nor is there any indication of source or authenticity. It is a memo that anyone could have typed and distributed[.]

Not only that, but unlike regular TP memos, the arguments appear amateurish and poorly written. They also do not descend in order of impact, as most do in order to allow quick scanning by Congressmen and Senators. But most damning of all is the header of the memo, which reads, "S. 529, The Incapacitated Persons Legal Protection Act." Senate bill 529 was in fact a proposal to establish a federal anti-doping agency. The bill in question was S. 539, a mistake that a staffer would be highly unlikely to make.

This, combined with the ABC push polling this weekend, calls into question the entire editorial process at ABC. This appears to be a coordinated effort to misrepresent the news by ABC, using misleading poll questions and a memo of highly questionable authenticity to cast Republicans in the worst possible light over the Schiavo issue. It smells of another Exempt Media ideologically-based attack, just as the Killian memos formed one during the final weeks of a presidential campaign. However, in this case, a young woman's life is at stake -- apparently a fact that ABC news missed in its zeal to discredit the GOP.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin's new column talks more about the bias at ABC News:

ABC News did not see fit to inform either the poll takers or its viewers of the truth. Instead, it misled them -- and the result was a poll response that produced -- voila! -- "broad public disapproval" for any government intervention to spare Terri from slowly starving to death. ...

Imagine how the poll results might have turned out if ABC News had made clear to participants that Terri is not terminally ill. Not in excruciating pain. Capable of saying "Mommy" and "Help me." And of "getting the feeling she's falling" or getting "excited," in her husband's own testimony, when her head is not held properly.

Imagine how the poll results might have turned out if ABC News had informed participants that in a sworn affidavit, registered nurse Carla Sauer Iyer, who worked at the Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center in Largo, Fla., while Terri Schiavo was a patient there, testified: "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?'"

Now, if you were in this situation, would you want to be kept alive, or not?

Imagine a major news agency that actually reports objectively on political issue. Unfortunately contradicting John Lennon, it's not easy even if you try.

UPDATE: This meme has almost completely fallen apart, as Power Line and In the Agora have now found:

ABC News, the original source of the story on the alleged "GOP talking points" memo now appears to be backing off the story. Blogger Josh Clayborn has been talking to ABC representatives, both on and off the record, and they are now telling him that they never meant to imply that the "talking points" memo originated with the Republicans--only that it was given to some Republican Senators. ...

ABC's current position, as reported by Josh, makes little sense, as their coverage certainly did say that this was a Republican memo. (ABC's website described the memo as containing "GOP talking points.") But the fact that they are now backing off suggests that in reality, they have no idea where the memo came from.

Power Line has more; keep scrolling.

Appeal Denied

Terri Schiavo's parents have lost their emergency appeal to the Eleventh Circuit to get their daughter food and water, leaving them with only a Supreme Court emergency appeal to stop her death by dehydration:

In a 2-1 ruling early Wednesday, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said the parents "failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims" that Terri's feeding tube should be reinserted immediately.

"There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo," the ruling said. "We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law."

In his dissent, Judge Charles R. Wilson said Schiavo's "imminent" death would end the case before it could be fully considered. "In fact, I fail to see any harm in reinserting the feeding tube," he wrote.

The failure of the federal courts to acknowledge the demand from Congress for a de novo consideration of the case will result in the killing of a non-terminal disabled person who left no instructions on her care other than a offhand comment after a movie remembered suddenly years later by her husband. A de novo order means that the federal court should have started from scratch in the case, ordering new testimony and medical tests. It would have had the effect of removing Judge George Greer as Terri's guardian ad litem, a role he assumed inappropriately as the only finder of fact in the entire Florida process. It might have meant that Carla Iyer, one of Terri's nurses, could have presented her affadvit and her testimony as to Terri's capabilities during her supposed PVS state:

Carla Sauer Iyer, a registered nurse who provided care to Terri Schiavo from 1995 to 1996 at a convalescence home in Largo, Fla., told FOX News in an interview Tuesday that her patient would interact with staff, was alert and aware and could talk.

"Her cognitive abilities including laughing, talking, letting you know she was in pain," Iyer told FOX News, adding that Terri Schiavo could say words like "mommy," "help me," "hi" and "pain."

She also said Schiavo had accurate reflexes on demand. Nurses also were able, at times, to feed Terri thickened liquids such as pudding and Jell-O with a baby bottle.

Iyer also claims that one time when she put a washcloth in Terri's hand to test her reflexes, Michael Schiavo would get upset and say, "that's therapy — take that washcloth out."

Iyer claimed in a Fox News interview yesterday that she had been fired by the health facility after filing a police report about her suspicions that Michael Schiavo had injected his wife with insulin in 1996, which she counteracted with glucose to keep Terri from a diabetic coma. She claims to have found needle marks under her breast and arm. As far as I know, that has not been heard as testimony in court, although she has recently filed an affadavit with that included. If a police report exists from that period, then it would corroborate the testimony, although I have heard nothing about whether one exists.

The federal court has instead decided to disregard the clear language and intent of the emergency bill passed by Congress and abstain from a new process of finding fact in Terri's case. In doing so, they will allow a non-terminal, disabled woman to die a slow death on the word of an estranged husband and his years-long repressed memory. It will be the first federal endorsement of euthanasia, a precedent setting case that will allow for the disposal of many such disabled people in the future.

Iraqi Victims Of UNSCAM Pay For Benon Sevan's Lawyers

The United Nations has paid the attorney's fees for Benon Sevan, who headed up the corrupt Oil-For-Food program that stuffed billions into the pockets of Saddam Hussein at the expense of the Iraqi citizens Sevan was supposed to help. In fact, as the UN itself acknowledges, the money for Sevan's fees came from the UN management percentage of the oil deals themselves:

The United Nations agreed to reimburse Benon Sevan, the suspended head of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, for legal fees he incurred during an investigation into allegations of fraud in the operation, a U.N. official said Tuesday.

Payment for Sevan's legal fees was to come out of the account containing the 2.2 percent of Iraqi oil revenues from the $64 billion program earmarked for its administration, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said.

Sevan's fees are to be reimbursed with Iraqi oil funds set aside to help administer the program. That means Iraq oil money would essentially pay for Sevan to defend himself against charges that he bilked the program.

Does anyone at Turtle Bay ever consider the fact that the Iraqis might not appreciate the money from their oil paying to defend the man who pocketed their money and allowed Saddam to starve them? We aren't talking about ordinary graft here. UNSCAM's sheer unbelievable scope allowed Saddam to retain an iron grip on power by redirecting the funds that should have bought food and medicine to Saddam and the men who supported him. Instead of weakening Saddam, the massive corruption solidified his power base and made him unassailable from within.

Benon Sevan and the OFF acted as Saddam's underwriter in the final decade of his tyranny. Now Iraqi oil money pays for his defense. It's outrageous, but it's hardly surprising from the tone-deaf Kofi Annan regime at the UN.

Tragedy At Red Lake

Once again in Minnesota, we're confronted by the spectre of a teenager on a killing spree, this time in the economically challenged community of Red Lake near the Canadian border. Jeffery Weise, a Native American who incongruously bought into the madness of neo-Naziism, killed nine people and wounded several others at his school before turning his weapon on himself.

No doubt this story will get all sorts of play in the national and local media, and I really don't have much to add to the facts already known. The strange connection between Weise and the nihilistic philosophy of National Socialism strikes me as so predictable for an isolated sociopath and so odd for a Native America as to defy belief. However, based on the information reported so far, it appears to be true.

One of the greatest mistakes made in the past twenty years or so has been the dimunition of the evil of Nazis in our political discourse. While the use of the Nazis to score cheap political points has occurred on both fringes of the political spectrum, the hyperbolic comparisons of normal political opposition to the jackbooted, genocidal thugs of last century wind up legitimizing Naziism by proxy. It diminishes the horror that the real Nazis wreaked on civilization and the ethnic minorities unlucky enough to stand in their way. It also allows an entire generation to believe that being a Nazi merely means the opposition of mainstream thought, which increases its appeal to disaffected loners like Weise.

Perhaps people can remember that when they're tempted to compare their political opponents to Himmler, Goebbels, or Hitler. Diminishing the true evil they represent to mere political posturing almost guarantees that they will inspire more and more immature and ignorant loners to pick up their banner.

LA Times Changes Leadership

The CEO of the Los Angeles Times, John Puerner, will leave his post on June 1st in order to pursue a "well-deserved career break", according to LA Observed:

TO: Times Employees FROM: Scott Smith, President, Tribune Publishing

Today we are announcing an important management transition at the Los Angeles Times. On June 1, Jeff Johnson will succeed John Puerner as president, publisher and CEO. As you'll read in John's note that follows, he is planning a well-deserved career break. Having worked closely with John throughout his 26-year career, I am deeply grateful for his strong and wise leadership in each of his important roles with our company.

For the past five years, John has successfully guided the Los Angeles Times transition to Tribune ownership. Over this period, the Times has made excellent progress in many ways including advancing editorial quality, improving operating efficiency and investing to better serve readers and advertisers.

Note that the Tribune Co. did not make room for Puerner, either at his request or theirs. Puerner will go off on a "career break" after a tumultuous five-year reign at the top of the LAT, presiding over a decline in readership and sharper critical attacks than at any time of its existence. The nadir probably came two weeks ago, when the paper ran what essentially amounted to the republication of North Korean propaganda.

Perhaps a new CEO will address the drift of the leading West Coast daily towards increasing irrelevance. If so, the first decision will have to address managing editor John Carroll, whose erratic stewardship has demolished the LAT's credibility, especially since the recall election of October 2003 and their incredibly slanted coverage of Arnold Schwarzenegger. With the single exception of hiring Michael Kinsley as their editorial-page editor, Carroll has done nothing but run the paper further into the ground. Jeff Johnson will have his hands full no matter what he does.

Honor Killings Rising In Europe

Police across Europe report that Muslim honor killings have increased significantly on the Continent, and only now do they recognize the phenomenon. AFP reports that Britain has provided leadership on this issue and that the killings may be more numerous than any of the nations presume:

Known cases of murder and rape committed to protect a family's honour are on the rise across Europe, forcing police to explore the reasons behind such crimes and how to stop them.

At a two-day conference in London, British police have been spearheading a campaign to fight so-called honour-based violence, typically committed against women to protect a family's reputation.

The problem is greatest in Islamic communities in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa, but it has spread as families migrate, bringing their traditional values with them. ... British authorities have started to properly recognise honour crimes over the past three years, but it is a problem that affected countries throughout Europe, where police are only just becoming aware, according to Richards.

Where Muslim communities have been allowed to remain insular through political correctness, like in Germany as I posted earlier, they have brought with them their customs and traditions. Among the less noble of these are the chattel laws that reduce women to commodities in Islamist communities. Their families force them into marriages at young ages, and when they resist, the women wind up beaten, raped, or worse. In some cases, women become the vessel through which clans receive punishment, like Mukhtar Mai's gang-rape in Pakistan.

When Europe experienced Muslim migration in asnwer to its chronic shortage of cheap labor as well as the inevitable result of its colonial history, the scolds of the left warned against efforts to get the new migrants to assimilate into Western culture. The result, especially in the most leftist of these countries, are Muslim communities with little loyalty to their countries and almost no connection to the laws and norms of traditional European society and justice. European leadership has remained so clueless that they can't even know for sure that honor killings and rapes have increased -- just that they have learned to distinguish them better.

This should provide an object lesson for countries like the US and other Western nations that take in large amounts of immigrants. Allowing segregated societies to flourish especially by providing services in multiple languages as the norm only creates interest groups with less connection to the central society. In the extreme, it means that the governments cannot conduct their basic raison d'etre -- the protection of its citizens. Assimilation should always be the goal, not undue accommodation.

Brookings Briefing Live Blog!

8:58 AM CT - I'm setting up for the Brookings Briefing and getting my live-blog post set up. I'm cheating a bit -- I'm using my desktop to watch the event and my laptop to blog it. So far, the stream works perfectly. I believe I see Ana Marie Cox sitting off to the left as they get set up.

I'll be checking my comments as we go along, so don't be shy about chiming in.

9:06 - I'm listening to someone talking by the microphone, and a woman says that with Andrew retiring and Ana taking a break, blogging is over. Well, that was a short conference!

9:07 - OK, we're under way. BTW, I really like EJ's tie.

9:11 - EJ refers to there being no true liberal bloggers on the panel. I'd also add that there are no true conservative bloggers on the panel, either. What we have are the "establishment" bloggers, the ones who usually get featured on programs like this. The difference is the live-bloggers invited, which does have a good representative spectrum.

9:14 - I'm not seeing any live-blogging in the lower frame of the webcast -- will that happen?

9:15 - Bloggers getting something wrong, for Ana. Her answer relates to our position as opiners, not fact-seekers. However, she misses the point that the Exempt Media often gets facts wrong. When we run a correction, however, we run it on our "front page".

9:19 - The difference between CBS and Sinclair was that CBS presented fake documents as fact, while Sinclair was open about the editorial nature of the documentary they were going to run.

9:20 - EJ, you're welcome. Looks like the live blog works.

9:22 - Bloggers as parasites and the Internet as a drag on revenue: Jodie Allen postulates that the Internet publication will further erode resources for wide coverage, especially for print journalists. The journalism of assertion vs. verification -- that's what we, as consumers, have seen for years. If the journalists had hewn to the facts all along, the blogosphere would still be a hobby-driven enterprise.

9:29 - The effectiveness of conservatives in connecting to talk radio: Ellen notes that liberals have more representation in the blogosphere. However, I think EJ may be correct, not so much because of the blogosphere, but because liberal talk radio hasn't really developed much of an audience. Why? Because the MSM's editorial policies allow for so much of a microphone that liberal talk radio becomes redundant.

9:33 - Andrew: Blogs allow you to write what you want. However, as Andrew discovered, blogs represent a market, and when you write what they don't like, people quit contributing to your tip jar. That's the free market ... so what's the problem? It's one of the reasons I don't do blegs. If you want to maintain your independence, doing fund-raising drives tends to undermine that.

9:38 - I do have some friends in mainstream media, but I met them through my blog. If they passed off something that I felt was untrue or misleading, I'd still write about it, and I think they know it. I met Chris Suellentrop a couple of times at the RNC, and he seemed like a great guy -- I'm sure he is -- but I had no problem heavily criticizing his coverage.

9:41 - Ana says that Eason Jordan got nailed because we didn't know him personally. I'd reverse that; he didn't get criticized despite making his repeated and unsubstantiated allegations because he was one of the gang.

9:42 - No, we weren't paid to be at the RNC!!!

9:43 - I paid my own way to NYC, my readers donated to my travel fund, one of them picked up a significant portion of my hotel bill, but I never received a thin dime from the GOP or any candidate. I'd like that to be made clear.

9:46 - Jodie makes the argument that bloggers need to be policed to make sure they're not getting paid by candidates. Of course, Pew has thrown a huge effort at reducing free political speech, as Ryan Sager has documented.

9:53 - Network went down briefly -- sorry!

9:54 - The NYT publishes 4,000 corrections per year, but the nature of those corrections tend to be all over the place. Newspaper corrections (not just the NYT) get run in a small section, whereas the stories that ran with factual errors got a much higher profile. On blogs, when we correct something, we post to the original article and/or put the correction on our front page.

9:58 - Blogs as slander machines: this meme has been beaten to death. The blogosphere has been around for more than a couple of years, and what people fail to understand that it's a credibility market. If you pass along nasty gossip, people quit reading you eventually.

10:02 - Comments sections: I like my comments section, but it's a personal choice. I have to do a little management of it from time to time, but if I write seriously, I tend to get serious debate. I'm not a "control freak" as Ana says she is, and I rarely even defend myself in my own comments section. I want my readers to have their forum.

10:10 - Talk radio does tend to polarize, but so does "Crossfire" and other television shows like that. Bloggers, I think, actually cool the climate through more clear rhetoric and essaying rather than rapid-fire exchanges.

10:12 - How does Ellen stand working at Talk Right? Well, how does David Brooks like working at the New York Times?

10:14 - Not everything I write is journalism; most of it is punditry. Some of what I have written is journalism. But why do we talk about the "freedom" of journalists? Why aren't bloggers just as free to write what they want as those who work for the Washington Post?

10:18 - Andrew nails the journalism meme to the wall. Well said. Of course, I'm 42, so I'm out of luck.

10:22 - Oh, Lord, a WMD nut. The truth is that every Western intelligence agency believed that Saddam had WMD, the Clinton administration believed it to be true, and Congress acted in 1998 and 2002 on the same intelligence. Sit down.

10:23 - Jack Shafer gave a good answer, but what did this question have to do with blogs and their impact on the media? In the blogosphere, we'd call this guy a troll -- someone who hijacks a thread on someone else's blog in order to start his own argument.

10:25 - Andrew makes a good point about the decentralization of the blogosphere and its power to collect vast amounts of data to a few central points.

10:27 - Andrew scores again. Look, we're the media's best customers! We get people interested in the articles we critique. We read the papers voraciously and devour many different sources on a daily basis. What's more, we point people for better or worse to these sources. Why see us as enemies? Just because we hold the Exempt Media accountable?

10:31 - Pew's funding for campaign finance comes up!

10:32 - The problem with Sean Treglia and Eason Jordan wasn't that they made off-the-cuff remarks -- it's that they revealed the truth about themselves and their motives. Jordan had a vast media empire at his fingertips, and yet only published his unsubstantiated allegations of American servicemen murdering journalists in foreign media forums (more than once!). Treglia revealed that Pew basically fooled Congress into thinking that a huge demand for curtailing political speech existed and they spent a lot of money carrying off that effort.

10:37 - EJ, spending a hundred million dollars to take the money out of politics threatens the wall between reality and satire. That's the difference. Outside of that, I actually agree with you -- which is why I believe the only solution is complete and immediate disclosure and removal of all the artificial limits on contributions and speech.

10:43 - I suppose I'm a "zealot" blog now, but the reason why I oppose pulling out anyone's feeding tube when they're not dying is because I oppose euthanasia. Terri Schiavo isn't dying and isn't brain dead. She's not on life support, and she didn't start dying until Friday afternoon. Protecting life is a central tenet of conservativism. The Catholic position is that one cannot stop food and water to someone who isn't in the last hours of life.

10:46 - Diversity in the blogosphere still seems to be a silly question. The blogosphere has no thresholds for entry. Anyone can blog, and anyone can blog about whatever they want. You can start a blog for free. What's the issue?

10:49 - One audience member talks about blogs as being a more active experience, as compared to talk radio and especially talking-head television. Can blogs educate? Sure -- as long as you check our references and links. Don't take my word as gospel, just like you shouldn't take Dan Rather or even Jack Shafer at his (although I know which of the two I'd prefer).

11:01 - Blogging has peaked? I doubt it. I agree with Jack -- I think we're going to eventually see a co-optation of blogs, but starting their own blogs probably won't do it. They need to affiliate with existing bloggers in order to truly co-opt them. Media-owned blogs won't have the necessary credibility to gather much power. Of course, affiliations may also reduce our own credibility.

Thanks to Brookings and the panel for an enjoyable morning!

11:13 - Final thoughts ...

I think the panel allowed the subject to drift too much away from its intended purpose, and in this instance Ana is correct in hoping that we have no further symposiums on the essence of blogging. At times the central question of the blogosphere's effects on the mainstream media were directly addressed, but mostly it seemed a secondary issue to explaining blogs for the umpteenth time. Still, I know I enjoyed the debate and my participation in it. I hope those of you along for the ride did as well.

Egypt Picks Its Opposition Candidate

In a move which almost guarantees that Hosni Mubarak's opposition will rally around Ayman Nour, the Egyption government pressed its forgery accusations against the dissident and likely presidential candidate, despite an earlier international outcry against his arrest:

Prosecutors charged Egyptian opposition presidential candidate Ayman Nour on Tuesday with forging signatures to secure approval for his political party, referring to trial a case that has drawn international criticism and created friction between Cairo and Washington.

The 40-year-old populist politician, who has long called for multi-candidate elections, was ordered to stand trial along with six defendants from his Al-Ghad, or Tomorrow Party. After 42 days in prison without charges, Nour — who has declared his intent to run for president in Egypt's first multicandidate presidential elections this fall — was released on bail March 12.

Prosecutor-General Maher Abdel Wahed announced the charges and referral for trial at a news conference Tuesday, but a trial date has not yet been set.

Nour's lawyer, Amir Salem, said the trial would not stop Nour's presidential bid. "This (the trial) was expected," said Salem. "They will not arrest him, he will be able to carry on with nominating himself as long as the verdict is not issued."

Nour first came to international attention when Condoleezza Rice refused to meet with Mubarak after Egyptian security forces arrested Nour last month. The unexpected and humiliating snub prompted Mubarak to propose a constitutional change in Egypt allowing for multiparty elections of the president, an office for which he intends to run again for re-election. At the time, Egyptians praised Mubarak for his turn towards democracy.

Now, however, he has apparently decided to improve the odds by using the courts rather than his security forces to repress dissent. I suspect the move will backfire on Mubarak in the end. After decades of strongman rule, dissident groups in Egypt have been poorly organized and fractured into hostile factions. With Mubarak targeting Nour so openly, he risks creating a central figure around which this fractured dissent will coalesce. Nour's persecution may well unite the Egyptian opposition, creating both a martyr and a rallying figure while remaining in the race against his oppressor.

It appears that Mubarak still fails to understand the tidal wave of demand for democratization and freedom swelling throughout the Middle East. He may have tried to get ahead of it by paying it lip service, but it will swallow him whole if he doesn't quit using tired and discredited authoritarian tactics such as trumped-up forgery charges. Instead of ending his career as a champion of liberty, he will wind up as one of its leading victims.

The Ayatollah Says, Get To Work

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has expressed his frustration with the political impasse between Shi'ites and Kurds in the new Iraqi assembly, and the influential cleric hopes a few well-chosen words will push both sides towards finally forming a coalition government:

The most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq called late Sunday for quick agreement on a new government, expressing displeasure with the weeks of drawn-out haggling, which has begun to stir unrest in the Iraqi public.

The cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, appeared to be putting pressure on Kurdish politicians in talks on forming a governing coalition.

Even though he has no constituency in the mostly Sunni Kurdish territory, the ayatollah has proved to be the most influential authority in the new Iraq. He brought together the largest and most successful Shiite bloc in the elections, and he has been able to call up huge street protests and get voters to the polls.

A leading Shiite politician, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, told reporters that the ayatollah felt "discontent" over the delay and was calling for speed in forming a government "on the basis of maintaining equality for everyone." Mr. Hakim made his remarks in Najaf after meeting there Sunday evening with Ayatollah Sistani.

Sistani as much as anyone helped create the momentum for the brave turnout at the polls for the Iraqi people. Now, however, they're experiencing the more mundane and frustrating aspects of parliamentary democracy -- forming governing partnerships. Thanks to the two-thirds supermajority required to form the executive -- implemented to keep the Shi'a from completely dominating Iraq -- no one faction can dictate terms. Normally enough horse trading occurs to form coalitions rather quickly, but after decades and centuries of oppression, neither the Shi'a nor the Kurds appear very flexible in negotiations.

This has proved very frustrating for those with purple fingers, who risked their lives to elect these officials and have the right to see some sort of progress for their courageous action. Popular support for the democratic process threatens to wane unless the resultant representative bodies start taking some concrete action on behalf of their constituents. They want the water and electricity restored and the sewage lines rebuilt, not a ringside seat at gridlock. Sistani sees where further delays will lead: demand for a strongman to cut through the red tape and get things accomplished. Iraqi parliamentarians should take heed of Sistani's advice and make a deal quickly.

Whittemore Refuses To Order Tube Restoral

CNN reports that federal Judge James Whittemore has refused to issue a temporary injunction to restore Terri Schiavo's feeding tube:

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that he will not order a feeding tube reinserted to Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman who is the center of a national legal battle over her life.

The case likely will be appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia.

Presumably, the interpretation here on Whittemore's part is that a de novo look at the evidence has little likelihood of a winning argument for Terri's parents. However, it almost sounds like Whittemore treated this as an appeal rather than the square-one approach called for by the law Congress passed. Whittemore should have treated this case as a fresh filing, and therefore should have restored nutrition and hydration to Terri while both sides presented evidence and testimony, not just 30 minutes each of legal briefs and argument.

The Schindlers can now appeal this decision through the federal courts, but the appellate route appears more bleak. First, it's time-consuming, and Terri may die of dehydration at any time. Second, Michael Schiavo's lawyers will certainly challenge the Constitutionality of the Congressional action at the same time in answer to any appeal, and the appellate courts may not be unsympathetic to that argument.

I'll keep praying, but I'm not optimistic, nor am I surprised. If an order to restart nutrition and hydration would have been forthcoming, it would have come yesterday afternoon.

CQ Invited To Brookings Institute Briefing

Captain's Quarters has been invited to participate in the Brookings Institute forum tomorrow morning on "The Impact of the New Media", which will be webcast live from 10:00 am ET while the event simultaneously will display the live commentary from six leading bloggers:

At this Brookings briefing, members of the "new" and "old" media will weigh in on the ever-evolving role of the press and the future of journalism. The discussion will focus on new mediums and practices in journalism and what impact these have had—and will continue to have—on the role and credibility of the traditional American media. In keeping with the spirit of this event, the discussion will be webcast and will be "live-blogged" by several prominent bloggers. Panelists will take questions from the audience and via e-mail following their remarks.

The panel itself will be moderated by E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post and comprises Ana Marie Cox (Wonkette), Andrew Sullivan, Jack Shafer of Slate, White House correspondent Ellen Ratner, and Jodie Allen of the Pew Research Center. The live-blog commentary will run simultaneous on both the webcast and at the event itself on screens behind the panel -- which may be a bit daunting for both the panel and the bloggers themselves. The participating bloggers include Juan Cole, Daniel Drezner, Laura Rozen, Ruy Texeira, Josh Trevino, and yours truly.

Be sure to check it all out at the Brookings link at 10 am ET Tuesday!

Kennedy's Folly Coming Back To Haunt US Speech?

When Justice Anthony Kennedy relied on international legal practices to justify his decision to strike down death penalty sentences for minors, he may have inadvertently opened up a new front in the assault on American political speech. Now with the Supreme Court relying on foreign courts for precedent, the ability of people to rely on the high threshold for establishing libel and slander in American courts may no longer apply, as plaintiffs might simply venue-shop internationally for their complaints instead.

Skeptical? You may want to read Thomas Lipscomb's latest article in Editor & Publisher, which describes exactly how such cases have already been filed. This example involves Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, whose book on terrorist financing, Funding Evil, has provoked legal action from one of the people she names as a terror financier:

Sheik Khalid Salim a bin Mahfouz has allegedly endowed and arranged financing for a number of Islamic charity organizations that have been accused of funding terrorism. According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Muwafaq Foundation “transferred millions to Mr. bin Laden.” According to Ehrenfeld, “There are currently over 10 lawsuits outstanding by numerous plaintiffs in the United States claiming billions of dollars in damages from Mahfouz's alleged involvement in financing the 9/11 attack of the World Trade Center."

On his Web site, Mahfouz says he is "increasingly angered" over accusations such as Ehrenfeld's. "There is no truth to these reports," reads the statement. "We condemn terrorism in all of its forms and manifestations."

In an attempt to circumvent the First Amendment protection of American writers like Ehrenfeld, Mahfouz has successfully sued or settled with over 30 publications and authors for defamation and libel in British courts for years. "That many legal actions brought in a plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction evidences a consistent campaign by Mahfouz to silence any author, journalist, or publication who attempt to analyze or document any role he may have had in funneling the money of the Saudi royal family or wealthy Saudi families to terrorist activities," Korenstein points out.

The British laws against libel place the burden of proof on the defendant, not the plaintiff, to prove the absolute truth of whatever they have printed. Before people start cheering, that significant difference turns centuries of American jurisprudence on its head, which requires in both criminal and civil complaints that a presumption of innocence on behalf of a defendant must be overcome. Normally a plaintiff has to show not only untruth in libel cases, but has to show malice and damage as well. In Britain, the defendant has to prove truth, a lack of malice, and/or a lack of real damage.

Small wonder, then, that those who publish in Britain tend to settle these cases out of court, usually in favor of the plaintiff. Mahfouz has a long string of such settlements with media sources such as the Washington Post. The only difference in Ehrenfeld's case is that Funding Evil has never been published in Britain -- only 30 copies are known to have gone there, sold over the Internet to individual buyers. Still, British courts have entered a summary judgment against Ehrenfeld nonetheless. As she put it while filing a countersuit against Mahfouz in the US:

As an American citizen, Ehrenfeld has ignored the Mahfouz British action and default judgment."If American authors can be silenced by actions of foreign courts in their own home jurisdiction in the United States, what use are the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech?" she said. "To establish that protection for myself and other writers, I have sued Mahfouz in the United States Federal Court in the Southern District of New York in December."

Ehrenfeld ignores the lawsuit at some peril, especially after Kennedy's precedent-setting legal opinion in the death-penalty case. Kennedy essentially conceded that American law had to acknowledge international standards, and that language will certainly find use with Mahfouz' American attorneys who will attempt to collect the judgment in the US. Kennedy's folly in surrendering American sovereignty over our own jurisprudence may have pleased the internationalists but will echo into all sorts of mischievous areas of our legal and political system. The fact that the first battleground may be the First Amendment, one of our primary enumerated distinctions between American politics and that of most other nations, is somehow both ironic and oddly predictable. When Ehrenfeld and/or Mahfouz eventually appeal the case to SCOTUS, I eagerly and with great trepidation await Kennedy's opinion about how the Constitution and its greatest guarantee of liberty survives his very own global test.

He'd Swear To Uphold The Constitution He's Emasculated?

The Chicago Tribune profiled a Democrat yesterday as a potential candidate for the presidency in 2008, a name that has not yet come up in the national crystal ball, but one whose main political accomplishment should disqualify him for the office. Meet Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin progressive who teamed up with the maverick Arizona Republican John McCain and a hundred million dollars in far-left money to strike a blow against free political speech:

Largely overlooked by national political pundits in the aftermath of the November election was the impressive re-election victory by the John McCain of the Democratic Party. As usual, Feingold campaigned as a straight-talking, risk-taking reformer, and his convincing victory should make him highly appealing to Democrats longing for somebody who not only has a winning track record, but who unabashedly stands for progressive Democratic Party values. This is no wimpy liberal who trims his message to fit supposedly conservative times.

In Wisconsin, while John Kerry barely eked out a win in one of the most hotly contested battleground states, voters were giving Feingold a near-landslide victory, electing him to a third term with 55 percent of the vote. Unlike Kerry, who tried to play it safe from start to finish, Feingold won big after voting against the Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts, and having cast the lone vote in the Senate against the Patriot Act. ...

What Feingold is proving in the politically critical heartland is that there is a market for the old-fashioned politics of reform.

Feingold is something of a throwback within the Democratic Party, according to veteran Washington observer and campaign finance reform guru Fred Wertheimer, who worked with Feingold on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. "There used to be a much more powerful stream in the Democratic Party when members of Congress supported liberal ideas for the common good when they were not constrained by big corporate campaign contributions," Wertheimer said. Feingold, he said, still acts that way.

Oh, does he? Ryan Sager's exposé of the big bucks behind the Pew Center's con game on campaign-finance reform obviously has not crossed Sanford Horwitt's desk at the ChiTrib. Feingold may not have personally benefitted at the same levels that McCain did from the moneymen behind the BCRA, but he nevertheless sponsored the broadest restrictions on political speech since the Sedition Act. Thanks to Senator Feingold, we now have restrictions placed on interest groups that disallow them from speaking their minds about political issues depending on the calendar while exempting the candidates themselves and the mainstream media. Thanks to Feingold's allies in the House, Shays and Meehan, the courts have now forced the FEC to regulate speech on the Internet itself, with possible limitations for bloggers coming our way.

I wonder how many of the left-leaning bloggers in the Online Coalition will welcome a Feingold candidacy?

Besides, Horwitt oversells Feingold. Feingold beat his Republican challenger by twelve points, but Tim Michels had never run for political office before, which hardly made him a formidable candidate against a two-term Senate incumbent with over 20 years in Wisconsin politics. Half of that gap came from Milwaukee County, where the largest city had a voting scandal that has prompted an independent investigation with the state attorney's office and the FBI. Almost all of the rest of the difference came from Dane County, home of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. It's true that Feingold did better than John Kerry, but outside of the two main urban centers of the state, Feingold barely came up even against a political novice -- hardly a stellar example of political momentum, even in Wisconsin, let alone anything on which to build a national campaign.

Horwitt, however, can be excused his enthusiasm for Feingold. Despite his record of lackluster victories and attacking free speech, he may still have more appeal than John Kerry and less baggage than Hillary Clinton. What the three do have in common is almost no chance of winning a general election.

ABC Conducts Push Poll For Euthanasia

ABC News conducted a poll over the weekend about the Terri Schiavo case which purports to show that the American public strongly opposes any intervention in the Schiavo case, and support for Michael Schiavo's right to cut off Terri's food and water. Gary Langer writes the following analysis of the poll:

The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today.

That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more -- 70 percent -- call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.

That amounts to a stunning level of support for Michael Schiavo, if the data is to be believed. However, a look at the questionnaire shows that ABC News completely misrepresented Terri's medical condition, which undoubtedly impacted the responses given. Question 2, which asks the central question, claims that Terri is on life support:

2. Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday.

What’s your opinion on this case - do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube? Do you support/oppose it strongly or somewhat?

Terri has never been on life support. The only medical treatment Terri received for the past five years has been food and water through a feeding tube, which is nothing at all like artificial life support. Artificial life support consists of ventilation for people unable to breathe on their own. The question sets up a strawman argument that so completely contradicts reality that the entire poll must be considered invalid.

Either ABC is completely incompetent in conducting research, or they have attempted to fool their viewers and readership with false polling that essentially lies about the case in question. Since when does ABC conduct push polling for euthanasia?

FEC May Still Target Bloggers: WaPo

For those who worry about the possibility of the Federal Election Commission encroaching on the freedom of political bloggers, today's article in the Washington Post will not provide much comfort. Brian Faler notes that the FEC has now been ordered by the courts to regulate political spending on the Internet, and Faler points out the various connections by which independent bloggers might fall afoul of the FEC:

"We are almost certainly going to move from an environment in which the Internet was per se not regulated to where it is going to be regulated in some part," said FEC Commissioner David M. Mason, a Republican. "That shift has huge significance because it means that people who are conducting political activity on the Internet are suddenly going to have to worry about or at least be conscious of certain legal distinctions and lines they didn't used to have to worry about."

Which people, what activities and where those lines should be drawn, though, have yet to be determined. ...

Should bloggers who work for political campaigns, for example, be required to disclose that relationship? Should their writings include a disclaimer indicating that they were paid for by a campaign? What if a campaign supporter links his Web site to a candidate's home page? Is that considered a campaign contribution subject to government regulation? What if an independent blogger endorses a candidate? Or posts a campaign's news release? Are those contributions?

One of the problems we've seen from these questions are the tepid denials of the other FEC commissioners. Rather than simply say outright, "We won't regulate blogging," we get answers like this:

Four commissioners -- Democrats Scott E. Thomas and Ellen L. Weintraub, along with Toner and Mason -- said in interviews that they oppose regulating independent bloggers.

"I really see no appetite at the agency for regulating bloggers," Weintraub said. "I would be very, very surprised if that was the result." ...

"We regulate campaign finance. We don't regulate speech in the abstract. We only regulate when money is spent," she said. "One of the great things about the Internet is that it's really cheap, and if people are not spending money, then it's really none of our business. Most of the time when people are sitting at their home computers, blogging, e-mailing -- whatever they're doing -- there really isn't any money being spent."

Allow me to blow a few holes through the "trust us" scenarios Weintraub paints here. First, although bloggers may not make significant money now, that may well change in the next two or four years. (I know, I know ... wishful thinking.) If campaigns start spending heavy money on buying ads on blogs such as CQ, will they start accusing me of coordination when I link back to their sites in my posts? What happens if a national campaign hires me as a political analyst? Of course, I would immediately disclose that on my blog, but I would want to use CQ without affiliation, meaning that I would likely post on a variety of topics without involving a specific candidate. Does my right to free speech suddenly get diminished because I work for a candidate? (This scenario doesn't just apply to the Internet, for that matter.)

Here's another scenario that comes from my real-life experience from the last election. I cross-posted many of my essays at Blogs For Bush, without a doubt a site dedicated to promoting one particular candidate. If I participate on B4B by cross-posting my CQ posts, and B4B winds up being considered a campaign site for the purpose of regulation, how does that affect CQ?

The overall effect of such power to regulate the medium, even if the power remains sheathed, is to intimidate people into withdrawing their participation. Weintraub may not have the appetite to draw up these kinds of regulations -- for now -- but the next set of FEC commissioners might, especially if Congressional incumbents see bloggers as a threat. The only long-term solution is the repeal of the BCRA and the erosion of First Amendment freedoms it imposes on political speech in America.

UPDATE: Guess who's having a closed-door meeting to discuss their upcoming regulatory efforts tomorrow? The FEC will have an open meeting on Thursday, March 24th at 10:00 AM ET as well to discuss Proposed Rulemaking on the Internet: Definitions of "Public Communication" and "Generic Campaign Activity" and Disclaimers. (thanks to CQ reader Demosthenes)

EU Changes The Rules For France And Germany

The European Union pushed through a change in their economic policy that will allow France and Germany to escape punishment for outspending EU limits on debt. Both countries have long defied the EU deficit limits, and instead of enforcing the limits and prompting some reform of the cradle-to-grave social spending that the limits required, the EU simply threw in the towel:

European finance ministers agreed late on Sunday to ease the Growth and Stability Pact rules which eurozone members must abide by.

The new rules will make it easier for eurozone countries to keep their deficits within 3% of national income. ... Under the deal, Germany can exclude its reunification costs and France will leave out military and aid spending.

Reunification costs? German reunified fifteen years ago. I've heard of long-term depreciation, but this sounds ridiculous to me. It's a license to cook the books, as the bond markets have already discovered this morning. The BBC included a reference to its own analyst warning that this deal could cause an increase in interest rates and a decline in bonds, two events that an investment-hungry EU can ill afford, but as the Financial Times reports, that's exactly what they will get:

Eurozone government bond prices fell on Monday and yields rose as the market reacted to an agreement reached over the weekend to rewrite the European Union's stability and growth pact.

The EU fancies itself as an economic powerhouse that will rival the US for growth and prosperity. However, until they create a stable environment for investors and resolve their deep problems with funding their creaky social systems, the EU will simply drag its members to the economic bottom by tying the albatross of Franco-German economics around their necks. So far, they haven't shown any capacity to address that meaningfully.

UPDATE: My good friend and brilliant economist King Banaian explains this much better than I do. Thank goodness he agrees with me, or I'd have to buy him breakfast the next time we meet before the Northern Alliance Radio show. Be sure to read all of King's instructive post, and if you don't already have SCSU Scholars blogrolled -- especially for economic commentary and first-hand analysis of Eastern European developments -- don't hesitate do so now.

Kofi's Dollar Girls

Today's Washington Post reviews the Congolese sex scandal that demonstrates the utter collapse of UN credibility and command/management functions at Turtle Bay. Pre-teens have been trandsformed into cheap hookers by blue-helmeted rapists, who then use them for sex with dollar-per-encounter transactions -- if the girl is lucky:

She's known in the community as a "one-dollar U.N. girl." At night, she sleeps on the cracked pavement outside a storefront. In the mornings, she sashays through the dusty streets, clutching a frayed parasol against the blinding sun.

Yvette and her friends are also called kidogo usharatis, Swahili for small prostitutes. They loiter outside the camps of U.N. peacekeepers, hoping to sell their bodies for a mug of milk, a cold soda or -- best of all -- a single dollar.

"I'm sad about it. But I needed the dollars. I can't go farm because of the militias. Who will feed me?" asked Yvette. At 14, she has a round face with wide eyes beneath a cap of neatly shorn hair, and her hands rest on her hips in an older girl's pose.

When Yvette was 10, a militiaman raped her, leaving her without clothes, she recalled. She cried a lot, wrapped her body in rags and then got up. She sought counseling at a women's organization, where she was told that she had done nothing wrong but that the theft of her virginity made her worthless as a bride. She should understand, the counselors said, that now no man would marry her.

Sometimes when newspapers highlight a single person like Yvette, they run the risk of blowing an issue out of proportion. That doesn't apply in this case, as the UN itself currently investigates over 150 such incidents in the Congo alone, and now faces similar substantiated accusations in several more of their peacekeeping operations, primarily but not exclusively in Africa. The UN has only fired one person in their Congo mission for the sexual exploitation of little girls despite the fact that these issues came to light almost a year ago, with a May 2004 report in the British newspaper The Independent (available for purchase only now).

The pandemic of rape and pimping that UN peacekeeping missions bring with them should convince everyone, especially the Muslim societies that both provided most of the peacekeepers and most of the victims, that the UN should stop pretending to be competent at managing military units. Armies need discipline in order to prevent going wild, and the blue helmets appear to provide license for disciplinary breakdowns as a rule rather than an exception. And the troops aren't entirely to blame; their civilian leadership certainly has been implicated in the exploitation of little girls as well.

The UN peacekeeping missions wind up destroying lives and disrupting societies while the pedophiles within their ranks indulge themselves. In the meantime, their primary mission of keeping peace usually only lasts until the first bullet rings out, at which time these troops abandon the people they've exploited to the warring factions that the blue-helmeted presence was supposed to separate. In the past ten years of UN peacekeeping, no single engagement has shown any political progress; the best result the UN can achieve is an interminable stalemate.

Why do we let the UN continue to perform these functions?

NYT Misrepresents Schiavo Case In News Article

Carl Hulse and David Kirkpatrick report on the Congressional action taken yesterday to allow Terri Schiavo's parents access to the federal courts for a new trial. Unfortunately but predictably, this "news" report contains half-truths, loaded language, and a flat-out falsehood, all of which reveal the biases of the reporters. Consider the lack of context for this passage:

With just a few senators on hand for an emergency session on a rainy Sunday, the Senate quickly approved the legislation. Its authors hope the measure leads to a federal court order to resume providing nutrition to Ms. Schiavo over the objections of her husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo. A series of state court decisions have sided with him.

It might be somewhat accurate that a series of state court decisions have sided with Michael Schiavo, but all of those involving finding of fact have been decided by one man, George Greer, the judge who has presided over Terri's fate from the beginning. The other court decisions have been appellate decisions, which do not permit arguments on findings of fact, or at least have not in this case. The appelate courts merely find on procedure. In fact, Terri has not had another venue in which to argue for her own interests at all.

Hulse and Kirkpatrick then use this loaded language:

Ms. Schiavo's mother, meanwhile, issued a national appeal for parents to call their Congressional representatives and pressure them to vote for the bill to prolong her daughter's life.

Terri's life isn't being "prolonged" by her feeding tube any more than mine was when my wife cooked my breakfast this morning. The verb prolong gives a clear innuendo that her treatment somehow artificially extends Terri's life, and that she would die without extraordinary treatment. However, that simply isn't the case. Terri Schiavo is not terminally ill, and wasn't dying until Judge Greer ordered her feeding tube removed. She isn't even in a coma. She is profoundly disabled, no question, but so are thousands of other Americans who require feeding tubes to stay alive.

The Paper of Record then manages to completely whiff on the facts of the case:

Ms. Schiavo, who is 41, suffered extensive brain damage 15 years ago when her heart stopped briefly, probably because of a potassium deficiency. Since then, she has remained in what doctors have described as a "persistent vegetative state."

That statement is flat-out untrue. Terri wasn't diagnosed as PVS until well after her heart attack. In fact, one of the components of Michael Schiavo's malpractice suit was a fund to provide Terri with therapy, as it had shown promise and improved her condition. Not until years later did anyone claim Terri was PVS (I believe it was 1998, but you can check here for a timeline).

The Gray Lady claims itself as the leading journalistic resource for the United States. However, their writing leaves much to be desired, and it should come as no surprise to their dwindling readership that their biases come through shiningly clear in what supposedly should be the objective news section. Even their research comes up short. Remind me again how the Exempt Media has the advantage due to the layers of editors and fact-checkers employed to screen out exactly what we see in this article.

Debate In House Coming To End, Vote Pending

The debate in Congress over the bill to extend federal jurisdiction to the parents of Terri Schiavo in their efforts to save her life. I've bounced in and out of the debate, mostly amused to hear some of the arguments opposing the bill. For instance, I've heard at least one representative try to inject race into the argument, claiming that Terri only gets this attention because she's white. Another got up and claimed that the bill offered Terri "all of the Medicare" she wanted while Congress spent their time denying it to others. Yet another objected, in the one minute accorded her, being yanked out of her place of worship to suffer the indignity of being forced back to Washington.

Most, however, debated sensibly about the effect of the particulars of the bill and the case at hand. As I write this, at 11:15 PM CT, the Democratic whip makes the case for federalism that most Democrats have. I've missed most of the GOP arguments, unfortunately, just out of luck as I've caught the debate at the moments when they spoke. Tom DeLay now has the floor, and he spoke stirringly. "A young woman in Florida is being dehydrated and starved to death," he said. "For fifty-eight long hours, her mouth has been parched and her hunger pains have been throbbing. If we do not act, she will die of thirst. However helpless, Mr. Speaker, she is alive. She is still one of us, and this cannot stand."

DeLay demanded the vote, and Hastert called the vote. Barney Frank, acting in charge of the opposition, called for a individual vote. They have 12 minutes left, and the ayes lead 121-36 so far.

UPDATE: 9 minutes left, and 23 of 60 Democratic votes cast have supported the bill, an important point. Let's be careful about making this sound too partisan. 133-41 to pass so far.

UPDATE II 11:36 PM CT: 200-55 for passage, and Democrats split 46-52 for the bill. Only three Republicans voted against it. The bill needs to get printed by the Senate and taken to the White House, where Bush will immediately sign it, perhaps in the next one to two hours. A federal court has remained alerted to a possible emergency application for injunctive relief, which may mean by the time we wake up tomorrow, an order for resumption of nutrition and hydration will have been executed.

UPDATE III: Official count was 203-58, with five Republicans voting nay.

UPDATE IV: AP reports the vote here:

While Terri Schiavo lay in her hospice bed early Monday, the U.S. Congress gave a boost to the hopes of the brain-damaged woman's parents that her feeding tube would be reinserted. ...

An attorney for Schiavo's parents filed a request for an emergency injunction with a federal appellate court to have her feeding tube reinserted once the bill passed. He also planned to make a similar request with the federal district court in Tampa.

It shouldn't take long to see how the federal courts will receive this.

UPDATE V: Bush signed the bill early this morning, and the Schindlers filed a lawsuit in federal court with a request for an emergency order restoring Terri's feeding tube.

Kerry To Sign The 180?

Mickey Kaus and Instapundit both point to a Philadelphia Inquirer analysis of John Kerry's political activities since his loss in last year's elections, which suggests that the Senator may request the complete release of his military records at last:

For Kerry, indignities abound. He trails Hillary Rodham Clinton in every 2008 survey. The other day, he was assailed by Clinton aide Ann Lewis for running "an inconsistent campaign." Indeed, in focus groups conducted this winter by Democratic strategists, he was still seen as indecisive; one participant said, "He's the guy that holds up the line at McDonald's."

And he's been dogged by bloggers who want him to authorize the release of all his military records, to clear up questions raised in 2004. He told NBC on Jan. 30 that he would sign military form SF-180 to do so, but he hasn't yet. Most of the heat has come from conservatives, but Democratic blogger Mickey Kaus also is on the case, urging party brethren to "remove this increasingly pathetic figure from our national stage." (The word in Washington is that Kerry will sign the form soon.)

Mickey asks what will happen if nothing interesting develops from the release, but that would wind up outraging his supporters even further. Just as his leftover $15 million left them wondering if that money could have made the difference in Ohio, a release of squeaky-clean records will cause Democrats to wonder why Kerry blocked their release throughout his entire campaign and caused such controversy over their contents.

No, this is a smart move by Kerry, one of the few he's made. He will sign off on the release three years ahead of the start of the primary season, plenty of time for whatever bad news in the file to be assimilated and then discounted by the true believers. The problem with releasing them a year ago was the proximity of a release to the primary vote, and then after that to the general election. It wouldn't have been an issue at all, of course, if Terry McAuliffe hadn't made the mistake of accusing George Bush of desertion during his service and continuing to use that smear for months afterward. That made a complete release by Kerry impossible.

My best analysis, furthered by sources which I cannot name, is that Kerry's file contains a less-than-honorable discharge from the 1971-72 period that his later 1978 discharge overrode. With three years between a revelation such as that and any voting, Kerry could eventually sell voters on the idea that the times in which that discharge occurred reflected the deep divisions in America, etc etc. If he runs to Hillary Clinton's left, which appears inevitable unless he changes his name to Joe Lieberman, that could convince the International ANSWER/MoveOn crowd of his viability -- but they'll be the only ones. They might well get him either to the top of the ticket, but if he couldn't beat Bush, there's no way in Hell he could beat any other Republican candidate in 2008.

Assuming, of course, that Kerry really signs the 180 and isn't just trying to blow the issue off again.

Democrats Block Voice Vote In House

House Democrats blocked attempts to hold an approval by acclamation of the compromise legislation that would allow the Schindlers to take the case of Terri Schiavo into federal court, forcing the bipartisan coalition of Congressment to round up at least 218 members for a session that would begin at one minute after midnight tomorrow morning:

House Republicans, seeing Congress as a last hope for brain-damaged Terri Schiavo, failed during an extraordinary Palm Sunday session to pass legislation aimed at prolonging the Florida woman's life.

Once Democrats refused to allow the measure to go ahead without objection, Republicans began scrambling to bring lawmakers, who had just started their Easter recess, back to Washington.

Majority Republicans called a recess after the four-minute session and said they planned to meet as early as one minute after midnight on Monday — if they get at least 218 of the 435-member House to attend.

Will they get them there by that time? Bush had returned to Washington to sign off on the bill this evening, but he's traveling tomorrow. However, the trip is for political rallies on Social Security reform, and those could certaily be rescheduled if necessary. It will be more difficult to round up enough members for a quorum, and then to have enough votes to pass the bill.

It seems that some Democrats -- not all, as some had agreed to support this bill -- have come squarely down on the side of euthanasia. Because we need to be clear on this point: Terri wasn't dying until they pulled her feeding tube out. She spent the last five years in a hospice, not a hospital. Hospices take care of terminally-ill patients and do not provide extraordinary life support functions that hospitals do, especially in Terri's case. Terri could easily live another 20-30 years with her disability, even without therapy.

If the situation doesn't change, Terri will die of starvation and dehydration and nothing else. If someone killed their dog the same way, even if it was in pain, they'd be arrested for inhumane treatment. Something is terribly wrong with that dichotomy.

UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy writes on the issue in an NRO piece today:

If a person is brain dead — meaning, in layman's terms (which are the only terms on which I understand the concept), for all intents and purposes dead but still respirating by artificial means — there would seem to be little doubt that a judge is empowered to discontinue the artificial means. In such an instance, the judge (and whoever pulls the plug) is not intentionally causing death or pain. Instead, death has already occurred, and it is merely the artificially supported functions that are being terminated. But, as noted above, that is not the Terri Schiavo case. She is alive; someone has to do something affirmative and intentional to snuff out that life and cause her death. That affirmative act began Friday afternoon.

But by what right? Where does it say, under Florida law, that a judge has the power to authorize the commission of felony violations of the law? A judge manifestly had no power to tell Michael Schiavo and the hospice that they could feel free to shoot or hang or over-medicate Terri to death. Why in the world to we think he had the cognate power to permit a torture?

If a federal judge told the CIA: You should feel to starve and dehydrate Khalid Sheikh Mohammed until he tells you everything he knows about the 9/11 plot, would anyone contend that that was a lawful order? Would anyone claim that the judge had the authority to override U.S. anti-torture laws? Of course not — the streets would be rife with angry protesters and the editorial pages with stinging condemnation. So why are we acting as if we must simply abide a similar order from a state judge in Florida that has no purpose other than to cause enduring pain and eventual death?

By all means, I'd love to see the same people who claim that the federal government has no right to intervene in this act explain their opposition to torture when interrogating Islamofascist terrorists (which I do oppose, just to make clear). Since all dehydration does is cause someone to fall gently asleep, might I presume we'll be adding that to the list of approved interrogation methods at Guantanamo Bay?

Hello? Hello?

UPDATE: The National Ledger weighs in on brain death, while Muzzy looks at the so-called Christian influence on the Schiavo case. It looks like many sects have abstained from comment.

Taliban Claiming Amnesty

As I noted a month ago, the Afghan government and the American military leadership in Afghanistan have begun to pursue an amnesty program to entice lower-level Taliban fighters to give up and join the democractic process. Hamid Karzai has employed well-known Taliban leaders who have pledged loyalty to the new Afghani government to assure these worn-out remnants of Mullah Omar's militia that they will receive fair treatment if they pledge allegiance to the new democracy. As Cori Dauber points out, the New York Times finally reports on this phenomenon, only after waiting weeks between reprinting a Reuters prediction that Omar would mount a major spring offensive in early March:

Although many senior officials in the frontline provinces were initially skeptical last year when Mr. Karzai spoke of an amnesty for all except the Taliban senior leadership, many of them now voice support for the policy. In the absence of the federal program, some provincial and even national law enforcement officials around the country have been welcoming the former Taliban officials and fighters home if they promise to eschew violence and support the government.

Afghan soldiers in Kandahar in the south who have fought the Taliban for the last three years said recently that reconciliation was the only way to end the insurgency and bring peace. In Khost, villagers and local officials said it was necessary and humane to allow Taliban supporters to return, except for the 30 to 50 senior Taliban members who, the Americans and top Afghan officials agree, should face trial.

I'm not surprised that the program appears to work. After all, the Taliban never really had that much popular support and relied on al-Qaeda for much of its ability to keep the Afghanis oppressed and terrorized. Many of these fighters have spent the last three years or more hiding in the mountains, waiting for the advent of Omar's offensive that simply has never materialized. Meanwhile, their families have returned to a more normal life, and their country has withstood the pressures of tribal politics to garner more and more stability and popular support.

Omar may still launch an attack out of the mountains. However, unlike what Reuters predicted, his forces have drained off so badly that the only option he has will be to use up his commanders in suicide missions on a prepared American defense. Its only effect will be to save us the trouble of a trial.

Fighting To Rescue All Women From Islamist Oppression

Newsweek profiles a courageous Pakistani woman who Ron Moreau and Zahid Hussain compare to Rosa Parks, one who wants to transform a horrific and brutal gang-rape into a passage for freedom for Muslim women throughout Islam. Three years ago, a village council used Mukhtar Mai in order to punish her clan for the supposed adultery of her teenage brother and sent 14 men to rape her, making Mai so undesirable in the eyes of her society that she had little choice except exile or suicide. Mai had other ideas:

The local Mastoi clan, which dominates the village council, expected her to keep her mouth shut or simply disappear. Her own Gujar clan refused to support her. "My choice was either to commit suicide or to fight back," Mai recalled last week. "I decided to fight back." ...

Using government compensation and contributions from supporters, Mai built the first school for girls in her village, as well as a school for boys. She plans to use a $33,000 grant from the Canadian government to add a library and a playground, and to set up a cattle-breeding project for poor village women. On land Mai recently inherited, she envisions building a children's hospital.

Mai also has become a model for Pakistani women pressing for more rights. She's been a guest speaker at women's forums across the country, and has even taken her message to Spain and India. By broadcasting her case, she has embarrassed authorities. The Pakistani government, aiming to show its support, has paved the dirt road leading into Mai's village and is now connecting local homes to the electricity grid. "The U.S. civil-rights campaign had Rosa Parks, who helped to spark an entire movement," says Sherry Rehman, a Pakistani activist and opposition member of Parliament. "We have Mukhtar Mai."

Unfortunately, Pakistani power structures have not been as supportive as the people. The courts have freed the rapists that were identified and convicted (only six of the fourteen), although Musharraf's government ordered them re-arrested. A shari'a court -- which may not have any jurisdiction -- nullified the verdicts altogether, which has a chilling effect on Mai's efforts. Nonetheless, the women of her village have begun to support Mai, gathering at her compound and demanding their rights and the end of chattel laws of the kind that led to Mai's attack.

Mukhtar Mai may signal a fresh wave of modernization in Islam, and she may well become a Ghandi-like symbol of peaceful protest and an agent for change. For the sake of women suffering from Islamist rule everywhere, we can only hope she succeeds.

Steele Vs. Mfume In 2006?

With the retirement of Paul Sarbanes from the Senate next year, the Democrats now have to defend a Senate seat that they hoped would be a slam dunk for re-election. Only Kweisi Mfume, a former Congressman and the departing head of the NAACP, has announced his bid for Sarbanes' seat in the Democratic primary. If he wins the nomination, he would be the first African-American candidate for Senate in Maryland's history, an anomalous difference among Southern states thanks to Maryland's refusal to join the Confederacy during the Civil War and the avoidance of Reconstruction.

However, Mfume may wind up sharing that long-overdue distinction if Lt. Governor Michael Steele decides to throw his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination. The Washington Times reports that Steele has not ruled out running for Sarbanes' seat:

Mr. Steele said yesterday that he has not decided whether he will run.

"I'll be saying a little bit more over the next few weeks," he said on WBAL Radio. "I'm seriously thinking about it."

Mr. Steele said he will base the decision on a number of factors, including the wishes of his wife, how a Senate campaign would affect Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s administration and Mr. Ehrlich's re-election bid.

"We'll go through that drill-down, and we'll see what happens," Mr. Steele said.

Mr. Mfume, who last week announced his bid to succeed Mr. Sarbanes, a Democrat and the longest-serving senator in state history, thinks Mr. Steele will not run. His theory is that Mr. Steele is looking beyond the Senate seat and will keep his job with Mr. Ehrlich so they can run for re-election in 2006, which would set up Mr. Steele to become governor in 2010.

I first noticed Michael Steele at the Republican National Convention, when he spoke in a prime-time gig on the second day. He spoke impressively, which didn't surprise me as he has extensive media experience as well as in electoral politics. His personal story will resonate with Maryland voters, and his work in the NAACP may well erode some support from Mfume.

Mfume sounded upbeat about facing Steele, comparing the battle to Hank Aaron squaring off against a steroid-free Barry Bonds, although Mfume humorously refused to say which home-run hitter best represented which candidate. But Mfume thinks that Steele won't actually run for the Senate, preferring to run again as lieutenant governor in preparation for a gubernatorial run in 2010.

I don't think Mfume will get off that easily. Steele obviously has too much talent to play in the minor leagues any longer, to stretch Mfume's own analogy to its breaking point. The Republicans need a star to hit clean-up in Maryland to gain more traction in the Senate for the final session of Congress in Bush's term. Steele would be a perfect candidate for the Republicans in a moderate Southern state -- passionate, erudite, charming, and reliably conservative while not being radically so. The GOP should work overtime to convince Steele to step up to the plate.