I agree with Judge Sentelle's observations (as covered by Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy) about applying a First Amendment privilege not to testify to reporters:
Perhaps more to the point today, does the privilege also protect the proprietor of a web log: the stereotypical "blogger" sitting in his pajamas at his personal computer posting on the World Wide Web his best product to inform whoever happens to browse his way? If not, why not? How could one draw a distinction consistent with the court's vision of a broadly granted personal right? If so, then would it not be possible for a government official wishing to engage in the sort of unlawful leaking under investigation in the present controversy to call a trusted friend or a political ally, advise him to set up a web log (which I understand takes about three minutes) and then leak to him under a promise of confidentiality the information which the law forbids the official to disclose?I said something very similar here, thereby earning this blog a #1 spot on Google for the term "mafia dons."
David Brock is one to talk...
'The conservatives seem to be particularly vulnerable [to having "lies" exposed] because the quality of their research is particularly low. There is typically self-interested money behind it and of course they are simply willing to lie,' Brock told a group of interns at a luncheon at the Center for American Progress headquarters in Washington D.C....I buy Brock's books about the conservative movement because the breadth and scope of his inaccurates is so extensive, I find them hilarious.
Even the smallest details -- such as the style and color of clothes a particular conservative might favor -- are not immune to fanciful, if pointless, reinterpretations.
Charity, however, inclines me to believe that "lies" may not be at work. Ignorance and lack of attention to detail are often the culprits in these cases.
Beldar pulls no punches whatsoever writing about Senator Harry Reid, "damned lies" and restoring the constitutional integrity of the judicial nomination process.
I don't know what percentage of the voting public genuinely understands the Senate's advice and consent role with respect to judicial nominees in general. But I'm quite sure that only a tiny fraction of the electorate understands that the total number of senators who have successfully colluded to deny an up-or-down vote to President Bush's nominees could fit comfortably in an average-sized minivan, and would leave the gap between second and third bases empty if they tried to field a baseball team.Do read the whole thing. The issue, important now, will be even more so soon.
Power Line and Daily Standard readers will be familiar with John Hinderaker's work exposing the false accusation that President Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, once told Congress in formal testimony "that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ."
Anyone who repeated this silly story should be embarrassed, not only because it is inaccurate, but obviously so. Had James Watt said anything of the kind in Congressional testimony he would have been pilloried at the time. (Goodness knows he was for seemingly just about everything else.)
Not everyone who repeated/republished this false story seems to be embarrassed about doing so, however.
Catch this "correction" at the Post-Normal Times blog:
...the quote widely attributed to James Watt, that "after the last tree is felled the Lord will return" (used in the text on the page "About the Post-Normal Times") is something he never actually said, at least not in a Senate hearing. [Emphasis added] Grist, the Washington Post, and Bill Moyers have all issued retractions. Bill Moyers also issued a public apology and conceded that he made a mistake because he used it without doing his homework. The Post-Normal Times herewith also retracts the statement, has revised the page and thanks those who take the time to point out errors. While care is needed, it is not possible to fact check every quote we use - but we do indicate our sources. Those trying to create a bandwagon to criticize Bill Moyers over a mistaken quote that has been retracted, should look into coverage of the WMD issue...There's plenty more to this grudging non-apology on their blog, in which the writer of the post tries to use John Hinderaker's research to justify continuing condemnation upon Watt.
The writer of the post, Sylvia Tognetti, says she has been "working in the field of environmental science and policy for over 20 years." Given that, she has been around long enough to know that if Watt hadn't already been pilloried for the comment, the accusation that he had said such a thing in such a public forum just didn't pass the smell test.
Regrettably, many environmentalists find more satisfaction in feeling superior than in reporting the truth. James Watt found that to be true during his career; it is a shame they won't let him retire in peace.
Says Mark Steyn: "When you cede to the state the responsibility for feeding, clothing, housing you, for your parents' retirement and your own health care, it's hardly surprising they can't see what the big deal is about annexing your sex life as well."
This piece is Mark Steyn on steroids, if you can imagine such a thing.
Read it all here.
I was filled with warm fuzzies when I read that Baby 81 is getting reunited with his Mommy and Daddy, until I read what Mommy plans to do to celebrate:
Jenita Jeyarajah said the first things she'll do when she gets custody of the baby will be to fulfill vows to smash 100 coconuts at a temple of the elephant-headed Hindu god, Ganesh, offer sweet rice to the warrior god, Murugan, and kill a rooster for the goddess Kali.And yet, Mom believes in DNA tests.
An E-Mail in response...
There is nothing inconsistent about reverence for Ganesh and "believing" in DNA. You show an unfair and ill-considered bias.Addendum (2/20/05): Wizbang and Michelle Malkin are reporting that much of the "Baby 81" story is just plain made up.
...I arrived at your blog pursuing the misquote of James Watt's...stick to the facts as you did there and all will be well.
If arguments about climate change bore you to sleepiness, this is a week to drink a lot of coffee, because the Kyoto global warming treaty goes into affect Wednesday (for industrialized nations other than the USA, Australia, Liechenstein and Monaco).
So, in between the far-more important news about who-wears-what and who-sits-where at the Michael Jackson trial's jury-selection circus, expect to see news clips blaming the United States of America for what we are told the weather will be 95 years from now.
Some of the news coverage will be nonsense, so in the interest of balance, here is something more reliable, courtesy of the Cato Institute's Patrick J. Michaels:
Kyoto is absurd because it does absolutely nothing measurable within the foreseeable future about planetary temperature, while one nation - the United States - bears almost all the cost. Kyoto is an economic weapon, not a climatic instrument, pointed at America. Europeans, allies or not, know this full well. That is why, for several years, not only did the French and Germans demand the U.S. implement it but do so in the way that would do us the most financial harm.Lift a glass of bubbly on Wednesday, folks, because America has gotten away unscathed.
Congratulations to the bloggers who held CNN's chief news executive to the same standard to which the news media often holds others.
Michelle Malkin has the run-down on who did what.
Prediction: Time magazine's Man/Person/Thing/Planet of the Year in 2005 will be Bloggers.
Pretty much every loyal American, from the White House on down, scoffed at U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland when he said the U.S. was cheap.
I've been critical of AP writer Charles P. Hanley for following the Sierra Club line in his environmental reporting.
Here's a news report in which the two of them get together. Egeland says some moronic things about global warming and weather-related disasters such as hurricanes, while Hanley elevates his musings into an international story.
Notice as you read this story, taken here from the San Diego Union-Tribune, that Hanley provides no counterbalance to Egeland's and the left's thesis that modern science has proven human beings are causing global warming and that this will cause more natural disasters.
U.S. seeks to scuttle conference text linking climate change to disastersFor those interested, here are a few places where the link, or lack thereof, between global warming and various disasters is discussed:
By Charles J. Hanley
January 19, 2005
KOBE, Japan - The U.S. delegation to a global conference on disasters wants to purge a U.N. action plan of its references to climate change as a potential cause of future natural calamities.
The U.S. stand reflects the opposition of the Bush administration to treating global warming as a priority problem.
"It's well known that there's controversy" about the consequences of climate change, deputy U.S. delegation head Mark Lagon told reporters Wednesday at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction. "It's our desire that this controversy not distract this conference."
The chief U.N. official here had a different view.
"I hope there will be a global recognition of climate change causing more natural disasters," said Jan Egeland, U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-organized network of scientists, said in its latest major assessment of climate science that the planet is warming and that this is expected to cause more extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and droughts, as the century wears on.
A broad scientific consensus attributes much of the warming to the accumulation of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel-burning. The Kyoto Protocol, which takes effect Feb. 16, mandates cutbacks in such emissions, but the United States, the biggest emitter, has rejected that international pact.
In its preamble, the "framework for action" drafted for adoption at the Kobe conference on Saturday says climate change is one factor pointing toward "a future where disasters could increasingly threaten the world's economy, and its population." Other passages call for strengthening research into global warming and for clear identification of "climate-related disaster risks."
The U.S. delegation, supported by Australia and Canada, has called for all references to climate change to be deleted from the main document. The move is opposed by the 25-nation European Union - a strong supporter of the Kyoto Protocol - and by poorer nations potentially imperiled by the intensified storms, rising ocean waters and other effects of climate change.
The Bush administration has held fast to its rejection of mandatory curbs on greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming, although Environmental Protection Agency administrator Mike Leavitt says that climate change is not an issue the White House dismisses. In December 2003, the administration said it was planning a five-year program to research climate change.
With global warming, millions more Bangladeshis could be displaced from low-lying coastal regions when oceans expand and rise as they receive runoff from melting ice.
"We feel there will be more calamities unless there is some action on climate change. The number of natural hazards will increase," said Siddiqur Choudhury, a delegate from Bangladesh, where a half-million or more people were killed by cyclones in 1970 and 1991.
Egeland, the U.N. emergency coordinator overseeing the relief effort for the Indian Ocean earthquake-tsunami, which killed more than 160,000 people last month, said the world has seen "a dramatic increase in hurricanes, storm surges and climate-caused natural disasters."
In an Associated Press interview, he noted that he hasn't been involved in the floor debate over document language. But, he said, "there is climate change. That is not really controversial. What is controversial is what causes climate change" - a reference to dissenters who contend the role of greenhouse gases may be overstated.
John Horekens, the U.N. conference coordinator, said he saw room for compromise on the language: Inclusion of a brief reference to climate change in the action plan, and additional references in a less significant annex.
Cato Institute: Tsunami of the Absurd by Patrick J. Michaels January 10, 2005
Washington Post: Apocalypse Soon? by Patrick J. Michaels May 16, 2004
The Commons Blog: Tsunami and Global Warming by Jane Shaw, 1/19/05
National Center for Public Policy Research: Don't Like the Weather? Don't Blame it on Global Warming by David Ridenour, August 1998
Spiked-Risk: Extreme Weather? It's the Norm by Brendan O'Neill, August 17, 2004
Mark Tapscott of Tapcott's Copy Desk has taken that idea for a "grassroots government' reform and added two new ideas to it.
I don't want to give the ideas away when folks can easily get the full scoop from Mark, but I will tell you that one idea has to with "grassroots government" reforms relating to judges ruling on Constitutional law questions and the other has to do with regulations on business.
Basically, Mark thinks the Internet can be put to use in creative ways to increase public scutiny of, and control over, the government that serves us.
I agree. In fact, I'd like to add two ideas to Mark's "grassroots government" collection, in the area of criminal justice:
* The resolution of criminal cases should be posted on the Internet by District Attorneys' offices (and their equivalents). Information should include the charges made against a defendant and the resolution, including any plea bargains agreed to, dropped charges, verdicts and sentencing. The public has a right to know how often cases are plea bargained and what really happens when someone is arrested for car theft in their neighborhood.Not every "grassroots government" idea can work, and most would require modifications and limitations to work in the real world (victims' privacy concerns would have to be addressed for my ideas to work, for instance). But as the Internet makes it possible to transmit large amounts of information at very low cost, couldn't we use it more than we presently do as a tool to make government more accountable?
* Announcements of pending parole hearings should be posted on the Internet, along with information about the offense(s) for which the inmate was convicted and time served, and the address for writing the parole board. The public would then have the ability to attend parole hearings and testify when warranted. Furthermore, parole hearings should be simulcast on the Internet. The parole board's decision should be posted as well.
Ed Haislmaier has some thoughts about the civil wedding bells that soon will be ringing in Britain:
Hearing the news that Prince Charles has publicly announced his intention to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles, I immediately remembered that the best take I'd ever seen on the subject was the following from Florence King's "The Misanthrope's Corner " column in the February 12, 1996 issue of National Review:At Ed's suggestion, I read Florence King's column and have to say I was struck by a completely different section of her column -- her hilarious memories of arguments about the British aristocracy between her parents, one of whom was British; the other, American.Currently, I side with Prince Charles and think he deserves a feminist award. Most men ditch their dear old Dutch for a trophy wife but he ditched the trophy wife for his dear old Dutch. No one gives him credit for preferring time-ravaged Lady Camilla Parker-Bowles to firm-fleshed Di, or realizes her ladyship's value to the state. Plebeianized England needs Queen Camilla: any woman can ride a horse but it takes a true aristocrat to look like one.That is still, for my money, one of the wittiest comments ever from a very witty writer. But on a more sober note, King was writing during the "Chuck and Di Split" period, and re-read today, in the light of Diana's subsequent death, her next two paragraph's seem prophetic:Charles is regarded as an odd duck because his hobbies of architecture and the cello fall outside the Pale du jour. Diana, on the other hand, is considered normal because her hobbies -- throwing up, hurling herself into glass cabinets, hating her husband -- conform to acceptable feminist standards of assertiveness and self-expression.
Actually she's one diamond short of a full tiara. Not like those royals of yore called the Mad and the Simple; full-bore insanity with its connotations of blue blood would offend our anti-elitist age. Democracy demands neurosis and Diana delivers. So far she has indulged in common-garden masochism, but falling through glass eventually loses its charm. Needing bigger and better crashes, she is courting self-destruction by assaulting what she dimly realizes is her only identity: the monarchy itself.
But then, I have an American spouse. Ed's is English.
Among the mail to our post about Ryan Balis's letter on "smart growth" in the Washington Post:
I enjoyed Ryan Balis' letter in the Washington Post yesterday and I agree completely with him.
Many of the policy makers in local government know that what Ryan has pointed out is true but they look at this as a positive benefit of their efforts to control sprawl. In fact, for many of them the goal of limiting sprawl is really about protecting and enhancing their local tax base, keeping their local governments costs down and enhancing the value of their constituents' property. Protecting the environment is often a facade for land use policies that push lower income families into neighboring jurisdictions and schools and significantly raise real estate values.
One of the reasons for the proliferation of such methods is the absence of renters and lower income citizens at the polls in local elections. In many jurisdictions, local governments behave more like homeowners associations than like governments of all the people. I've had enough experience here in Charlottesville/Albemarle to firmly believe that a not so hidden agenda of exclusion is really the foundation of many local governments anti-sprawl land use policies...
Among the mail received regarding my criticism of the AP's environmental reporting was this:
Who provides funding for your operation. It wouldn't be from large corporations would it? Ones involved in the fossil fuel industry? Gee , I wonder if you are just paid hacks and spin doctors? No,no that would be unthinkable. You are just interested in correcting errors in the media reporting on global warming.Yes,yes that is it. I will always be thankful that we have such right thinking organizations protecting us from big lies and fabrications. You make us feel warm all over.Minus the typos, this is the sort of question we get pretty much everytime we discuss environmental issues on talk radio.
Here's how we answer: Yes, The National Center does receive support from the fossil fuel industry -- equal to eight-tenths-of-one-percent of our total annual funding.
However, even if we got 100 percent of our funding from the fossil fuel industry, the AP's reporting would still be biased.
Regarding the Wal-Mart in Quebec that is closing because demands made by union workers made the store unprofitable, talk show host Neal Boortz says:
There are many things I would like to do or would have liked to have done in my life. Go into space, for instance, or travel to Everest base camp. Also on that list is to form a company, hire about 200 people, treat them well, sit back and watch them form a union, and then fire them all and close down.And I thought I was anti-union...
The Associated Press seems determined to spin global warming, even at the cost of its own reputation.
Elsewhere on this website, I have analyzed several recent AP wire stories on global warming, all of which are breathtakingly biased in favor of the theory that human beings are causing global warming -- warming that, theory advocates say, eventually will prove catastrophic.
Bias, however, is standard fare for global warming reporting. What is striking is that objective facts are missreported in the service of that bias. (Dan Rather, call your office).
For example, readers are told that "greenhouse gases" are in the atmosphere "mostly from fossil-fuel burning."
Actually, the major greenhouse gas is water vapor, but in the interest of charity, we'll put that aside and focus on carbon dioxide. "Most" of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from burning fossil fuels -- only about 14 percent of it does. Furthermore, carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.
A year ago, I wrote a similar piece about the AP's global warming coverage, correcting the same errors and several others. It looks like the AP couldn't be bothered with fact-checkers a year ago and it still can't.
In addition to these AP wire stories, I also criticized a different AP wire story that gave the world the impression that a panel of qualified experts had just - stop the presses! - determined that the world has only a short time left to act on global warming, as the world is "approaching the critical point of no return, after which widespread drought, crop failure and rising sea-levels would be irreversible."
But the experts turned out to be led by politicians, not climate scientists, and the groups that assembled them turned out to be former Clinton Administration Chief-of-Staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress and two self-described liberal activist outfits located abroad.
National Center Policy Analyst Ryan Balis has a letter in the Washington Post today on the cost of containing sprawl.
As per usual with environmentalist schemes, the cost of "smart growth" anti-sprawl initiatives tends to be borne by those who can least afford it.
As Ryan says in his letter:
The Feb. 3 Metro story on plans by the District and other area officials to control "suburban sprawl" with ever-denser development ["Building Strategies to Map Out Growth"] did not address the policy's effect on rising home prices.The National Center has published an econometrics study examining the impact of so-called "smart growth" policies. Based on an examination of the record of the policy in practice in Portland, Oregon, the study revealed that smart growth housing restrictions disproportionately penalize minorities, the poor, urban families and the young.
Suppressing housing development as demand for it grows will cause prices to skyrocket. This is evident in Portland, Ore., long considered a model for "smart growth" planning. There, fewer than half the homes in 2002 were affordable to median-income earners. The city plunged from the 55th-most-affordable city in the country in 1991 to 163rd place in those rankings in 2002.
Is the Washington area going to follow in forcing out thousands of low- and middle-income residents?
National Center for Public Policy Research
What's more, the policies fail to generate the expected environmental benefits, actually increasing suburbanization rates while failing to reduce vehicle miles traveled or congestion.
Our study asked this question: If cities nationwide had adopted Portland's smart growth policies in 1992, how would America's most disadvantaged populations been affected by 2002? We learned:
1) 260,000 minority homeowners circa 2002 would not have been able to become homeowners;We dubbed our report "Smart Growth and Its Effects on Housing Markets: The New Segregation" -- so named because smart growth policies deter minorities from home ownership at disproportionate rates.
2) One million homeowners of all races circa 2002 would not have been able to afford their homes by that year;
3) The average home price in 2002 would have been $10,000 more expensive;
4) The average cost of renting a home or apartment in 2002 would have increased six percent over its actual price.
The study is available for download (PDF file) here.
...global warming theory advocates seek their vaunted "scientific consensus" that their theories are right and the data will catch up eventually...
Illarionov Criticizes Censorship Bias at Climatic ConferenceAddendum: I suppose I should have pointed out that Andrei Illarionov is an aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, not to President Bush, as not everyone will know.
LONDON, February 2 (RIA Novosti's Alexander Smotrov) - Presidential economic aide Andrei Illarionov criticizes the policy of censorship practiced at the British Climate Change Conference.
The scientific conference of G8 experts is held in Exeter in the south of Britain on February 1 through 3.
"Its organizers have not accepted reports from many participants whose views are different from that of the organizers,'" Mr. Illarionov told RIA Novosti in the interview.
Asked by the RIA Novosti correspondent why his name is not in the list of speakers, Mr. Illarionov said: "Making a report here is impossible because organizers practice a policy of censorship against people having different points of view."
Mr. Illarionov is against the Kyoto Protocol, which intends the cutting of greenhouse gas emissions.
He draws a parallel between the refusal of organizers of the British conference to allow a number of reports to be made to the similar situation prevailing on eve of the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. "The situation is the same here as well as in Davos and in the organization called the IPCC (Interparliamentary Panel on Climate Change)," the presidential economic aide said.
Last week he refused to participate in the Davos forum because he was not allowed to speak up at the sessions on climate change...
-From the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti, February 2, 2005