It was Andrew Lloyd Webber week on American Idol (cynics can click away now), and the judges’ consensus choice for best performance of the week was Carly Smithson:

So, naturally, she got voted off this week. To generally amazed reactions.

I don’t know why people are surprised. The moment I heard that she’d chosen this song - before I even heard her perform - I knew she was gone. She picked the most hated song of the most hated Broadway musical of millions of right-wing Christians. By singing “Superstar” she made an enemy of everyone between Idaho and West Virginia, because for some goddamn reason, people hate Jesus Christ Superstar.

I’m actually kind of surprised more people aren’t talking about that. The worst part is that Sir Andrew himself encouraged Smithson to sing the song, and what are you going to do? Refuse to sing a song Andrew Lloyd Webber wants - oh, that’s right, he basically sucks. Still, he really shafted her on this one.

One can only hope that this is satire. However, after the public ex-gay therapy madness of Richard Cohen (discredited even by his peers), this video about a “service” to help recloset gay men is easily plausible.

“The WorkOUT is a unique program that helps a man who is dealing with homosexual issues to go deep and understand that below the homosexual issues lies a lack of his own inherent masculinity and manhood.

The Workout offers a man three main things…the first thing it offers him is a Lifecoach. A mentoring relationship for each man. The second thing is it offers him a series of accomplished tasks whereby a man can feel his own sense of increasing manhood.

The third thing is what I call the 911 calls whereby a man can call anytime, day or night, to his mentor, in case he needs to talk to him for a few minutes if he is having a particular problem or challenge.

I love helping other men BE MEN. I feel great when I help another man really understand himself — and really help him see that change is absolutely possible…IF he’s willing to go through the tasks, and the accomplishments and the relationships he needs to go to, mainly with himself, to move into his own manhood.”

Start the journey today…

After facing and resolving these issues in his own life, David created The WorkOUT for men who want to change their sexual orientation by securing their full manly identity. David has made The WorkOUT available to all men wherever they live in the world no matter what their personal or spiritual belief systems may be. The WorkOUT exists to help men to feel their sense of masculinity and manhood so they can move more fully into heterosexuality.

OK, folks. You can have fun reading between the lines of this one…

H/t, G-A-Y.

According to emailer ChrisR, on page 7 of the transcript of today’s OBL magnum opus, the grand wizard says, “There are no taxes, but rather there is a limited alms totaling only 2.5%.” Which I guess means he’s calling for a flat tax.

So Steve Forbes isn’t off the hook, either.

Haven’t looked at the referral page in awhile:

4 Google: “italian cock sucker” 1 /2006/06/15/snitchens-rhapsodizes-on-his 7:10

Yup, it’s working like a charm.

Update: Consider this an open thread for centralizing comments about layout, readability, plug-ins (to which the answer is probably no), etc.

I confess that I can’t really figure out how to post these youtube things without fucking up the page.  But here’s the link.  I’m amazed that two things that I hate with such passion, George W. Bush and U2, could be combined to form something so compelling.

I don’t imagine this will be one of my more popular posts, and I may be in over my head a bit on this one.
Erik Loomis writes:

I have said before and will continue to say that I have no problem if people choose to eat meat, but they should have to witness the killing of the animals they are eating. We should all be forced to take field trips to meat processing plants. Or at the minimum, go to the farms where animals are grown, under whatever kind of humane conditions, and watch an animal die. Nothing would reduce meat consumption as effectively as this.

I’ve never liked this argument about how if everyone actually killed what they ate, we’d all be vegetarians. If I grew up killing animals for meat, dealing with the blood and the gore, the bone and the skin, I wouldn’t be squeamish about doing it today. In fact, if I started butchering animals tomorrow, I bet I’d become accustomed to the task surprisingly quickly. Most anyone would. But the thing is, thanks to the benefits of division of labor in this wonderfully modern society of ours, I’ve never had to kill the animals I’ve consumed. Someone else does that while I do some other menial job, and thanks to some law of economics or other, everyone gets more stuff than if we all produced our own necessities and luxuries ourselves. Hooray! So what’s the difference if I’d be squeamish about it in this context? And is squeamishness the equivalent of morality now? I’d be squeamish about performing heart surgery too.

I do not know how morality enters this conversation anyway. Killing animals and eating them seems to me to be a perfectly amoral thing. I’d go so far as to say that not eating animals is not morally better than eating them. I can’t figure out how it can be. Not without taking some kind of leap of faith about the existence of an august and objective moral code discernible by reason or otherwise.

I don’t believe in such a thing. I cannot understand the basis for extending even the concept of morality to animals. This is because morality, such as I can understand it, is derived from social contract. There is no meaning to the concepts of right and wrong beyond the humans that create them. It goes without saying that animals cannot be a party to a social contract, though I would extend it to animals or beings intelligent enough to be a theoretical party to the social contract (that is you can assume a social contract with a being intelligent enough to enter one, even if practically speaking it cannot do so). And since animals cannot be party to the social contract, we owe them no moral obligations. Since we owe them no moral obligations, it cannot be immoral to eat them.  Granted one can choose to refrain from eating animals, even based on one’s own conscience.  But that does not make that choice more moral.
I can see the objections. All sadism and cruelty to animals are therefore amoral acts under this reasoning? Well, I guess so. I accept the discomfort of this position at its absurd extremes. As one always must. But I don’t have a problem with extending a personal morality to animals either, based on intuition. That includes a personal belief that eating animals is wrong. I don’t share that particular intuition. And I would characterize it as a charitable impulse, not a moral one.  There are other objections I know.  But I’m not up to them at the moment.
Feel free to tee off.  It’s the only way I’ll ever learn.

Lieberman announces that if he doesn’t win the Democratic primary, he’ll run as an independant, and has begun gathering signatures to do so.

Someone with a more intimate knowledge of Connecticut politics will have to let us know what the practical effects of a Lieberman independant run might be.  Lamont is obviously doing well enough to scare Lieberman, but if the odds that upset occurring weren’t still in Lieberman’s favor, I’d have been surprised.  Lieberman might have just changed that.

In a three way race, I have to wonder how many Republicans will vote for Lieberman as opposed to their own nominee who has a better shot at winning in a three way race, and for that matter how many Democrats will stick with Lieberman if he doesn’t have the party backing?  Obviously enough primary-voting Democrats have jumped ship to give Lieberman pause, but how many general election voting Democrats are equally as pissed at him?  How many of those primary voters who intend to vote for Lieberman in the primary will stick with him as an independant?  And how many independants are in Connecticut relative to Dems and Reps and are they inclined to vote for Lieberman?
Somebody answer these questions.

Another post from John at Ezra’s, provocatively advocating that we forget WWII, forget the Holocaust.

The problem is that the actual utility in remembering the Holocaust is basically zero at this point. “Never again”, as more than one commenter has put it, has become “again and again” when it comes to allowing genocides in the post-WWII environment. We have fundamentally failed in any obligation to protect endangered minorities across the planet.

(As one wit put it, “never again” seems to have only meant “never again will we let the National Socialist Party of 1930s Germany organize an industrial slaughter of European Jews.”)

If we aren’t going to put memory to use, what the hell’s the point?

Meanwhile, World War II and the memory of the Holocaust have positively deleterious effects on American foreign policy, both in rhetoric and the views of America’s leaders.

He goes on to make a pretty solid case from there. And, I’m sympathetic to his views, but ultimately, I may have to disagree, at least on the Holocaust one. I understand the WWII mythos could use some deflating. And it’s frustrating to have the powers that be make invoke a crude holocaust comparision to set the war-mongering in motion. But I don’t believe that forgetting the holocaust would, in any way, impede anyone’s desire to go to war, ever, under any circumstances. WWII and the holocaust have a convenient rhetorical power, and they’re often sufficient justifications for some, but not necessary ones. The warmongers would need only find a new rationale. And they would.

Clearly the reverence with which we hold the soldiers who fought for a great cause, and the “great leaders” who saw us through such difficult times, causes those who never outgrew playing little war games as kids, to want to recreate such a moment. They want that heroic thrill of saying I stood up against evil, or blah blah whatever, when most of them… you know, they’re not exactly imprisoned Ezra Pounds, if you know what I mean. But they want imagine they’re George Orwell or somesuch craziness. Would like to have lived through the bombings of London so they too could show off their stiff upper lips. I’d pity them if they weren’t so dangerous.
But, and, I don’t want to take John’s point too literally, but he himself in recognizing that we have fundamentally failed to protect endangered minorities in a post WWII environment, I think concedes that there is something many of us have yet to learn about the Holocaust. I don’t think forgetting the Holocaust accomplishes anything, and we still have at least the potential to learn something from it.

Obviously, the lesson most of us have taken away from WWII is that America kicks ass for righteousness, and so the warmonger need only sell that thin veneer of righteousness to get the political system into kick ass mode, and I think there’s a lot of mythology built into this WWII business; we’ve been blowing quite a bit of smoke up our own asses over it. But forgetting this bit of history is wrong. What we need is more critical thinking. We need more people who are able to look at facts today and not look at them through the prism of WWII. We need to forget the adage that “if you don’t learn from history, you’re doomed to repeat it” as if that were some kind of fixed rule, a law of the universe. Because quite often we seem to overlearn those lessons. History is not iterative.

Interesting post from John of Dyxmaxion World over at Ezra’s over the weekend about the effect of the events in Seattle in 1999 on the debate over global trade, and the success Cambodia has had with, “the inclusion of human welfare concerns as part of the calculus of capitalist investment,” showing that “improved working conditions can boost exports.”  Anyway John says about Seattle:

Of course, this isn’t the criticism we heard from the major media.  Instead, we were told that the anti-globalization movement was, in Thomas Friedman’s words, “The Coalition to Keep the World’s Poor People Poor.”  Nick Kristof regaled us with stories of young women who escaped prostitution to work in sweatshops.  Even Paul Krugman, in his pre-shrill days, dismissed any substantive criticism of neoliberal economics - though Krugman at least had the intellectual honesty to engage those arguments, in his April 2000 column “A real nut case.”  (For Krugman’s column, and the response to it, see here.)
The reaction of the neoliberal philosophers to any critiques, including advocating stronger labour protections, was to say that we on the left had no idea what we were talking about (we hadn’t taken Econ 101, obviously) and that our proposals would just make things worse.  As the above example of Cambodia shows, that simply wasn’t true.

The success of Seattle, more than anything, was breaking the consensus that existed in the public realm before then.  An important fact that often goes unmentioned is that while the op-ed page of the NYT might have been unanimous, there has always been a raging debate in the academic sphere over what the proper mix of policies for development is.  (My favourite source for anti-consensus economic thinking is the Center for Economic and Policy Research.)  For Friedman, Kristof, and yes, Krugman to try and present the issue as a consensus was dishonest, and it’s a good thing that we’re seeing the Washington Consensus challenged.

I had never thought about how one sided the globalization debate was prior to Seattle, before.  It obviously was, and a lot of ways still is, but I had never really thought of the significance of that massing of protesters before as an indication that the neo-liberal consensus on trade was not in fact a consensus and was very much opposed by many.  And in a lot of ways it brought, a somewhat more critical view to the public discussion.  Maybe not by much, but some.  The impact of globalization is being considered more seriously by more now.  Anyway, I think that’s very exciting.

Via LGM, Brad Plumer

The vast majority of films produced after 1923 have no continuing commercial value. They’re just sitting in vaults gathering dust. There’s obviously no need to extend their copyrights; if no one’s currently making any money off these films, they might as well enter the public domain. But thanks to the CTEA, they can’t. (A more sensible copyright law would have extended copyrights only for those owners who actually wanted to extend them; but that’s not the law Congress passed—all copyrights are affected.)

Now, these days, it’s cheap and easy to restore old films with digital technology—it can cost as little as $100 to digitize an hour of 8 mm film. Many of these films could, in theory, be easily restored, and released, or put in an archive, for people to watch. But thanks to the CTEA, it’s not cheap and easy. Anyone who wanted to restore one of these films would have to track down the owners of the copyright—no small task—and then hire a lawyer, lest they commit a felony. That’s way too much effort and expense just to restore some arcane old movie that only a few people might enjoy. So no one does it.

And the worst part is that by the time the copyright for a lot of these obscure films expires, in 2019 and beyond, the film for these movies—which were produced on nitrate-based stock—will have completely dissolved. They’ll just be canisters filled with dust. An entire generation of movies really will have vanished, never to be watched again. I guess it’s hardly the most important problem on the face of the earth, but culturally, it’s a tragedy, and a rather striking example of the insanity of copyright law.

It’s a bit horrible to contemplate. Of all the cultural artifacts that have been lost to the vicissitudes of history, to lose these because of fucking Mickey Mouse is shameful.

This is fun.  Via Echidne, make your own Bush speech and have it delivered in his voice.

Via Angelica, a couple of articles from Nir Rosen on the Iraqi occupation.  The first describes his unique insights into Iraq as someone who, due to his middle-eastern complexion, can pass as an Iraqi.

My skin color and language skills allowed me to relate to the American occupier in a different way, for he looked at me as if I were just another haji, the “gook� of the war in Iraq. I first realized my advantage in April 2003, when I was sitting with a group of American soldiers and another soldier walked up and wondered what this haji (me) had done to get arrested by them. Later that summer I walked in the direction of an American tank and heard one soldier say about me, “That’s the biggest fuckin’ Iraqi (pronounced eye-raki) I ever saw.� A soldier by the gun said, “I don’t care how big he is, if he doesn’t stop movin’ I’m gonna shoot him.�

I was lucky enough to have an American passport in my pocket, which I promptly took out and waved, shouting: “Don’t shoot! I’m an American!â€? It was my first encounter with hostile American checkpoints but hardly my last, and I grew to fear the unpredictable American military, which could kill me for looking like an Iraqi male of fighting age. Countless Iraqis were not lucky enough to speak American English or carry a U.S. passport, and often entire families were killed in their cars when they approached American checkpoints. […]

Imagine. The American occupation of Iraq has lasted over three years. The above stories are based on my two weeks with one unit in a small part of the country. Imagine how many Iraqi homes have been destroyed. How many families have been traumatized. How many men have disappeared into American military vehicles in the night. How many crimes have been committed against the Iraqi people every single day in the course of the normal operations of the occupation, when soldiers were merely doing their duty, when they were not angry or vengeful as in Haditha. Imagine what we have done to the Iraqi people, tortured by Saddam for years, then released from three decades of his bloody rule only to find their hope stolen from them and a new terror unleashed.

(more…)

Sorry about the lack of posting lately.  Earlier in the week I was a witness to a crime.  Nothing too traumatic, really.  But, as the sole eye-witness, I have been bogged down by bureaucracies of justice and their administrators, and the lawyers for the plaintiffs in what should be the civil component of the matter. I don’t want to comment any further out of concern for the implications such statements may have down the line, legally speaking.  But here are some links to some things I would have liked to have blogged about, in no particular order.

Battlepanda on Rush Limbaugh and maintaining the progressive moral high ground.

Jerome Armstrong on early blog stuff and the Dean campaign and… Wesley Clark.  Intriguing.

And, well, then there’s Marisacat’s take on that.

Much of the discussion at the Washington Monthly of Kevin Drum’s review of Lakoff’s latest.

Marty Lederman on the Hamden decision, which was the Supreme Court decision announced today, slapping down the lawlessness of the Bush administration’s procedures in Guantanamo.

Steven Poole making fun of the dissenters from the same case.

David Sirota with a post entitled “parties join hands to sell out America Again.”

News that the CIA concluded that Bin Laden was in favor of Bush’s re-election.  Don’t remember where I saw it originally, but here’s a link to Kevin Drum with an excerpt.

I disagree with Nathan Newman on the Barak Obama speech.  He makes a subtle point or two.  But those subtleties aren’t worth much to me.  If it’s so important to speak about faith, there’s no value in talking about the progressive inability to do so or lack of comfort in so doing.  If Barak Obama wants to talk about his faith, by all means, he may.  He won’t draw any ire unless he decides to pander to godbags.  But there’s no value to anyone except Obama himself in the publicly tut-tutting over progressive discomfort with religion.  Yes, that is positively Liebermanesque.

Ezra on the West Wing.

Culture Kitchen on implications of Peter Daou working for Hillary and what it says about the “netroots” as a grassroots force.

I may update this later, cause I feel like I’m overlooking a couple things.

“Some men look at things the way they are and ask why? I dream of things that never were and ask why not?� so old Robert Kennedy once said. I’ll confess that this rhetoric has never made much sense to me in a literal sense. It seems to me quite important to look at things as they are and ask why, and if failing such scrutiny, to jettison them. And what is Mr. Kennedy supposedly fathoming out of whole cloth to which he says why not? I’m unable to assess the value of this approach. Lotsa people come up with lotsa crazy ideas, and I don’t know about you, but “why not� doesn’t justify even a quarter of them. But that’s all fine. I have no quarrel with Bobby Kennedy.

The modern liberal, on the other hand, (perhaps it has always been this way) looks at things as they are, and says that this is the best we can do. At least that’s what they’re saying. Maybe what they really mean is, this is good enough for me

I do like Neil’s sense of optimism. He imagines what it’ll look like in January 2009 and Democrats control both chambers of Congress, and John Edwards is president. He says “it’s time for universal health care and fixing poverty and taxing the rich and raising the minimum wage (which Cantwell supports) and appointing judges who respect women’s rights.â€? He imagines these things. Why not? Well how about, because there hasn’t been a Democrat since LBJ who’s been willing to stand in the face of criticism and make something happen despite the slightest hint of opposition. Or because you’ll get the same litany of excuses for why these things can’t be done then that we now get for why things can’t be opposed. And, of course, we’ll get the same blather about how I have to vote for Democrats. Because not voting for democrats is stupid

So, I say he’s a dreamer… and well… so are others. But there are worse things one can be. The word that pops into my head is “enabler.â€? Like your Democratic politicians who have enabled the Republican Party on Iraq, the bankruptcy bill, Supreme Court justices. They are elected by other enablers. Often progressive enablers, the kind who write letters to their Democratic congressman beginning “I can not imagine the circumstances in which I would not vote for you.â€? They enable the Democrats to shift ever rightward, enabling Republicans. Because as far as they’re concerned, seemingly, there are never consequences to anything a Democrat does. Maybe I’ll frown when I vote for you boss. How’ll you like that? Make some noise of opposition before voting for ‘em anyway. Just like the elected Democrats do.

This is the best we can do.

But this is your Democratic base. It’s mostly the so called moderates for whom the Democrats are so very infatuated. The idea that the Democratic base is particularly progressive does not make sense. When the Democrats appeal to moderates like the moderates are their base, and I see a bunch of moderates embrace the Democrats, clueless to why anyone to their left would not join the coalition-that-the-realities-of-our two-party-constitutional-system-dictate; It seems pretty clear that it’s a moderate party for moderate voters, united with an odd bunch of progressives who have added up the numbers and decided to take whatever they’re given. The extent to which they really care what the Democrats even do is an open one. Is it because it’s the best we can do or is it because it’s good enough? Can it not be both? In your estimation, it certainly can.

I too have a dream. I dream that someday I’ll be able to vote for someone who both deserves my vote and has a chance at winning. Democrats, your complacent obeisance to the system, your bowing to reality, your voting for the best we can do who is good enough for you, will not get me there. I believe in, will advocate for, and will work to reform the winner take all representative “democracy� that we operate under and is your excuse for your enabling patterns of voting. But I will not be held hostage as you are. I will not complicitly support this system that is your best argument for voting your interests (I’m willing to strategically support some Democrats though).

I became a Democrat sometime in 2003. I had been a left-leaning independent. The Republican threat convinced me that joining the Democrats and seeing them elected would be the most effective way to oppose this threat. In 2004, I worked for a woman who would be elected to the United States Congress as a Democrat. I talked to thousands of voters. I knocked doors in sweltering heat and in pouring rain. I convinced myself that John Kerry had a consistent position on Iraq. I convinced myself of a lot of things. Sure, it doesn’t matter if the Democrats have to compromise a little. The Republicans must be defeated. The Democrats will be better. And well that didn’t work. But the tactics would not change.

So over the course of 2005, despite briefly managing to allow the president’s deeply unpopular social security plan to implode, I watched the Democrats roll over and roll over, on Bankruptcy, on judges; and I watched Boss Schumer dictate that Bob Casey, Jr. be the Democratic Senate nominee in Pennsylvania, and I watched the gate-crashers endorse that.

You were probably a democrat before me, and you’ll be a democrat long after I’ve left this useless party. It’s likely because you have the disposition to be a Democrat. I don’t. You are your elected leaders. Enabling, timid, frightened. Or substantively: you like a party half-filled with corporate whores and half filled with uterus cravers. You are a Democrat, because you are a Democrat. One way or the other. You know, I used to, myself, believe and spew a lot of these anti-third party arguments. It took actually being a Democrat for a while to realize how empty they are. But make ‘em anyway. Maybe some of these other cats’ll be herded.

Apparently, the Gilliard email that Zengerle quoted from the Townhouse board and claimed to have three sources for, was not written by Steve Gilliard.  Ouch.  That’s the kind of thing that could kill a journalist’s reputation.  While I doubt that Zengerle himself fabricated the email, it seems highly unlikely that three independant sources would verify the same fake email.

Still, as stupid as this TNR vendetta has been - and it goes to show that if you’re gonna smear someone, you really ought to restrain yourself for the sake of credibility.  No that’s not true.  Republicans get away with all kinds of incredible smears.  But anyway, the whole story would have had a greater impact if TNR hadn’t overshot it’s load.  The Jerome Armstrong stuff is legitimitely troubling.  And I look forward to having a clearer picture of that mess.  But the rest of it’s cotton candy.

And check out R. Mildred’s Awesome rant from the other day.  I probably don’t agree with all of it. Or maybe I’m just saying that. Saying too much might be dangerous, what with this shadowy cabal working behind the scenes to keep people silent.  But, here’s my favorite part:

That Kos is even giving the story time of day is fucking diabolical, considering the only interesting thing about the whole armstrong thingie is not that Armstrong actually shilled stocks for cash, the interesting thing is that A) It wasn’t a huge fucking shock (�Major democratic party blogger used to be a con man for big business� should be a scandal of some kind, if you think about it, but isn’t because it’s armstrong, who is an already proudly out member of the paid-for-dem-hack community), and of course B) That Kos apparently thinks that there is nothing wrong with doing this, like Armstrong is being called on smoking pot in college or something actually minor, this man lied to trusting internet denizens so that they’d basically pump money into his bank account. This puts him on the same level as nigerian scam artists (so if armstrong ever starts a fundraiser to get a trapped Kossack astronaut down from a secret Democratic Party manned satellite, don’t believe him).

The part about Nigerian scam artists just cracks me up.

There are one and a half Democrats I really wouldn’t mind seeing lose their Senate races this November.  Bob Casey Jr is the half-Democrat who I wish could figure out a way to lose yet still beat Santorum.  The other one is Maria Cantwell in Washington.  And I’m pleased to say, her numbers are looking positively Liebermanesque.

Dwindling voter support for U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell’s re-election bid has put her in a statistical toss-up with her Republican opponent, according to a new poll announced Wednesday.

Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling firm, said a survey of 500 likely Washington voters June 13 showed the Democratic incumbent leading challenger Mike McGavick 44 percent to 40 percent. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. […]

Hovering 6 percentage points below 50 percent in a head-to-head matchup is a big danger sign for an incumbent. In a news release, Rasmussen attributed Cantwell’s eroding support largely to her past backing of the Iraq war and her vote against an attempt to block the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Both positions have angered voters on Cantwell’s left. She now has two anti-war opponents in the Democratic primary as well as an anti-war Green Party opponent. The Rasmussen announcement didn’t say whether the unaccounted-for 12 percent of those polled were undecided voters, backers of Cantwell’s non-Republican opponents or a combination of the two.

I’m really fucking curious what the fuck she was thinking when she voted for cloture on Alito, coming from the state that she does, in an election year.  Arrogance? Delusions of statesmenship? Stupidity? Probably all three.  But for me, here’s hoping she joins the dustbin of former statesmen who forgot Tip O’Neill’s old maxim: “All Politics is Local.”  That all goes for Lieberman too.

But anything I can do to help her Green Party competition, Aaron Dixon, I’ll gladly do. And you should too.  Unlike the angry centrists you’ll read about on other blogs, Dixon is a real progressive.  And for a progressive state like Washington, Maria Cantwell has proven to be unacceptable.

Geraldo Rivera:

I’ve known John Kerry for over 35 years. Unlike me, he is a combat veteran, so he gets some props. But in the last 35 years, I’ve seen a hell of a lot more combat than John Kerry. And for a smart man like that in a political ploy to set a date certain only aids and abets the enemy, and the Democrats are at their own self-destructive behavior once again.

I’m stealing this idea from a post I saw at Kevin Drum’s a while back of making a top 25 list of best songs, not based on things you think you like, but on what you actually listen to the most. So with that in mind, using advanced computer technology, these are the 25 songs I’ve listened to the most in the past four months (it’s how long I’ve had an ipod. I’m reluctant to embrace gadgetry.)

1) “Here I Dreamt I Was An Architect” - The Decemberists
2) “Jeez Louise” - Grandaddy
3) “Ruby Tuesday” - The Rolling Stones
4) “Never Ending Math Equation” - Modest Mouse
5) “Goin’ Against Your Mind” - Built To Spill
6) “dress up in you” - Belle and Sebastian
7) “Dirty Laundry” - Curtis Mayfield
8) “beyond belief” - Elvis costello
9) “Chicago” - Sufjan Stevens
10) “The Best Ever Death Metal Band Out of Denton” - The Mountain Goats
11) “Acquiesce” - Oasis
12) “Let’s Go Crazy” - Prince
13) “Stars of Track and Field” - Belle and Sebastian
14) “Billy Liar” - The Decemberists
15) “Give The Drummer Some” - Ultramagnetic MC’s (So Kool Keith fans, have you heard? a Dr Octagon sequel is coming soon.)
16) “Favours” - The Delgados
17) “Faith Alone” - Bad Religion
18) “This is How it Always Starts” - Grandaddy
19) “Shake Your Ass” - Blowfly
20) “Drinker’s Peace” - Guided by voices
21) “Casimir Pulaski Day” - Sufjan Stevens
22) “stockholm syndrome” - yo la tengo
23) “Los Angeles, I’m Yours” - The Decemberists
24) “Alternative Ulster” - Stiff Little Fingers
25) “blue jeans” - Blur

Of course, over a longer period of time, there’d be a lot more Bob Dylan and the Pixies on here, considering that’s the stuff I’ve played the shit out of in my lifetime. A hell of a lot more GBV and Bad Religion too. Maybe some Oasis, but maybe not.

The Delgados are a head-scratcher. Who’s still listening to anything off of that forgettable Hate album from 3 years ago? I am, apparently. Also I expect that the yo la tengo is on there because a friend of mine not too long ago made the absurd statement that yo la tengo is “a watered down American Analog Set.� In general, that may be a supportable, and I respect his contrarian instincts, but American Analog Set never put out an album as good as I Can Hear The Heart Beating As One. Period. But there’s no shame in that. That one, along with Belle and Sebastian’s If You’re Feeling Sinister and Neutral Milk Hotel’s In the Aeroplane over the Sea, clearly represents the three best albums of the entire 1990s.

And if there’s anything not on there that I really wish there was, it’s Captain Beefheart, or maybe some Residents.

By the way, if you’re curious, if I did indeed try to list what I actually thought were the best songs of all time, I’m not sure what I’d go with, but Pere Ubu’s “Final Solution,� Patti Smith’s “Gloria,� Bob Dylan’s “Idiot Wind,� or maybe “It’s alright ma (I’m Only Bleeding)� and of course “Wonderwall� would all be near the very top.

So the other day, I wondered why no one was writing about the Jerome Armstrong stock-touting story. Apparently the New Republic has the answer, publishing a letter kos wrote to a private email group consisting of all of the good team players, asking them not to write about it.

Zengerle then wrote another post insinuating that kos has some kind of coercive leverage over these people, which is patently false. I’ll tell anyone who’ll listen that there are just simply no consequences to getting on kos’s bad side. There really aren’t. And certainly not through the liberal blogads network, of which pandagon is still a member. Maybe he’d like to have the power to force people to get in line. I dunno. And maybe there’s a perception that he does have such power. I dunno about that either. But I suspect that you don’t need to threaten a lapdog with discipline.

I’m not claiming to be the definitive authority or anything. But there aren’t many bloggers who have been more scathingly critical of kos from the lefty side than I have. There are some, of course. But not many. And I’ll continue to be critical. Kos is powerless to do anything about it. And honestly, at this point, I don’t have any incentive to be anything but scathingly critical of the man. But that won’t stop me from calling it as I see it. And on this one, I have to take kos’s side.

If you read that letter he wrote, it reads like a guy asking his friends to save him a headache. And when you’re talking to your friends, you don’t need coercion. It’s clubbiness, that’s all. The same clubbiness you’ll see between a Richard Cohen and a Judy Miller. It’s a low-rent cyberspace equivalent of the beltway pundits club. You can always count on your friends right? I tend to think that is what would cause people to refrain from posting on this matter, rather than some weird power kos is alleged to have.

That’s partly why that Zengerle post is such total bullshit. There’s just no substance to the idea.

The other part is that it’s clearly deliberate, small-minded, vindictiveness. A transparent hatchet job.

But Kos’ argument for why people should not write about the brewing scandal is interesting.

The YearlyKos media people have already forced corrections at Slate and NY Times (Suellentrop’s blog). There has been some serious overreach by the few outlets that picked up this story (which as I mentioned before has been shopped around). It was interesting how this one piddly-ass story was used to try and smear Jerome, me, AND YearlyKos.

So the only paper to run this as a news story is the disgraceful NY Post. Others who picked up on it have had to backtrack from their original sensationalistic claims.

I am exploring legal options against some of the wingnut bloggers who are claiming I’m syphoning netroots money into consultants and my own pockets. Note how Glenn Reynolds is fueling it with his typical passive aggressive, “I don’t think it’s a big deal, but let me provide links to everyone who thinks this is THE BIGGEST STORY EVER!”

And Jerome’s case, if it could be aired out, is a non-story (he was a poor grad student at the time so he settled because he had no money). Jerome can’t talk about it now since the case is not fully closed. But once it is, he’ll go on the offensive. That should be a couple of months off. This story will percolate in wingnut circles until then, but I haven’t gotten a single serious media call about it yet. Not one. So far, this story isn’t making the jump to the traditional media, and we shouldn’t do anything to help make that happen.

My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story. Then, once Jerome can speak and defend himself, then I’ll go on the offensive (which is when I would file any lawsuits) and anyone can pile on.

If any of us blog on this right now, we fuel the story. Let’s starve it of oxygen. And without the “he said, she said” element to the story, you know political journalists are paralyzed into inaction. Thanks, markos

If I had seen this, I probably wouldn’t have posted anything either. Most importantly, because Jerome can’t say anything to defend himself at the moment. Something I was not aware of when I posted before. And while I’m not interested in trying to bury the story as kos wants to do in this letter (there’s a lot about this letter that makes me uncomfortable, though what exactly, I couldn’t say), assuming Jerome’s past behavior is defensible, I wouldn’t be interested in joining a presumptive lynch mob by pushing it. I’m also not making any presumptions concerning the speculation that kos and armstrong are at the moment engaged in something underhanded. On both counts, it seems wise to wait till all the facts are in before rendering judgement.

Feministing has be pretty good interview with Joan Blades from moveon.org on the important subject of net neutrality.  Apparently the Senate is expected to vote on the issue friday, and so now would be a good time to contact one’s senator about supporting net neutrality.  Go to savetheinternet.org for more information.

But while you’re at feministing, be sure to check out this humorous video clip extolling the virtues of anal sex, in a technical virgin sort of way.

Man, it’s been quite a while since I’ve actually read an actual Townhall column, instead of the dissections posted here and elsewhere.  It’s been so long I had forgotten what a hilarious treat the Townhall column can be, even without the smug counterpoints interspersed throughout!  But this column by Burt Prelutsky is a real dandy.  A real… humdinger.  A barrel of laughs, if you will (AND YOU WILL!!!).  I’m sure you’ll love it as much as I do.  And though I could probably just reprint the whole column as is, don’t worry, friends, a Townhall column peppered with smug counterpoints is what you expect, and that is what you shall recieve.

When I was a mere sprout, I recall that some nincompoops were convinced that fluoridating water was a communist plot. So it was at a very tender age that I first caught on that, no matter how normal people might appear to be, there was always a good chance that scratch the surface and you’d find screwballs.

I know what he means.  Kinda reminds me of these nincompoops from our day, young sprouts, who think that global warming is some kind of manufactured liberal plot.  Man those guys are crazy.

But so far I like this guy’s conversational writing style.  There’s something about it that reminds me of volunteer work in nursing homes, listening to some crazy old guy complain about the other crazy old guys, while playing checkers or something. Know what I mean?  You will later.

These days, in order to remind myself that far too many of you have had your brains somehow replaced with pumpkin seeds, I tune in to my friend Michael Medved’s radio show on Wednesday.

Yeah, me too.

But sometimes Sean Hannity though.

The stuff and nonsense that many of you actually believe would be funny if it weren’t so scary. I mean, some of you drive cars and work around heavy machinery and cast votes in national elections.

There is absolutely nothing so totally absurd, I’m convinced, that a fair number of our fellow Americans won’t accept it as gospel. Which certainly explains cults, the National Enquirer and Ted Kennedy’s career.

And the 2004 election results!

It would be comforting to assume that these people are all illiterate bumpkins who think the earth is flat and the moon is made of gorgonzola. But, judging by the way they sound on the radio, that’s not the case. It isn’t the way they speak, but what they say, that’s the tip-off to the fact that, mentally speaking, they’re ninety-three cents shy of a dollar, three quarters shy of a football game

Is that all you got?

several sausage links shy of a Denny’s Grand Slam.

Good one.

But in spite of all that, these dimwits are in excellent company. Consider America’s scientific community.

Yeah, now those guys are cray-zay! Total buffoons, them.  What with their crazy “hypotheses” and their elaborate methods for “testing” them and gathering data and all that hocum about their “observation” of “phenomena” and the insane - insane - obsession with discernible “reality.”  Somebody, please, get the fucking straight-jackets. And maybe some kind of professional deprogrammer.  You know, like when someone joins the moonies, and their family has to kidnap them and deprogram them?  We need one of those.  For the scientists.  Oh yeah, and stat.  Oh, who am I kidding, I’m not a medical doctor.  And this isn’t surgery.

Does a single day pass that the folks in the lab coats don’t warn us that something or other is going to kill us before next Tuesday? They’re the sort who give hysterics a bad name.

You know who else gives “hysterics” a bad name? Women.  Interesting fact: in olden times, hysterectomies were actually originally performed for the purposes of treating this so-called “hysteria.”  Perhaps that’s what the scientists need.  Hmm?

Frankly, I can’t imagine how Tipper Gore manages to put up with that nervous Nellie she’s married to. I always picture Al leaping up on a chair at the sight of a mouse, and screaming, “Bubonic plague!�

Yeah, totally, Al Gore is a fucking hysterical pussy, afraid of minor things. Like tiny little mice.  And drastic global climate change.  Just like the scientists in their girly little lab-coats.  Grow some balls, ya women!

Here he comes, here comes John Wayne.  “I’m not afraid of those polar ice caps melting.  They don’t have the guts.”

Anyway, you know, there’s just something about devoting half a column to making fun of crack-pots before launching into your own crackpot denial of global warming… based on the argument that the scientific community is nothing more than a bunch of… effeminate crack-pots.  I don’t know exactly what it is.  But it’s delicious.

Check this post from Battlepanda.

That’s right.  Anal Clenching.

The latest from the Democrats on Iraq:

Leading Senate Democrats called Monday for a “phased withdrawal” of U.S. forces from Iraq, outlining what they hope will become a consensus position on the war that will help their party speak with a more unified voice.

….The new Democratic proposal sets a starting point for withdrawing troops but does not set an end date or demand a particular pace for the redeployment, said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee….”Our amendment does not establish a timetable for redeployment,” Levin said. “It does urge that a phased redeployment begin this year, partly as a way of moving away from an open-ended commitment and a way of avoiding Iraqi dependency on a U.S. security blanket.”

Does this even mean anything? “Urge” a phased redeployment, but “does not set a timetable or establish a pace.” Kevin Drum thinks the “substance” of this “plan” “probably isn’t bad” because “the key issue isn’t really setting some precise date for redeployment. It’s making clear that an open-ended commitment is a dumb policy.”

Huh?

I’m sorry but I’m not following… Did we change the meaning of the word “substance?” Is “making clear that an open-ended commitment is a dumb policy” a substantive Iraq policy?

I think there really are some substantive problems with setting a firm date for withdrawal. I can appreciate that. But I don’t understand how substantively this proposal is any different from an open-ended committment. The commitment is still completely open-ended, it’s just that a little noise has been made about “redeployment.” It’s a characterization. Nothing more. Maybe if this redeployment were tied to concrete benchmarks, but I don’t see anything to indicate that it is.

Obviously this isn’t a political winner either. It’s the worst of all possible worlds that I can see. The Republicans will still call it “cutting and running,” just because they can. And, sorry Mr. Drum, but a glass eye in a duck’s ass can see that there’s no real substance to this. I don’t know who this is supposed to make happy. The idea that this will resonate with the public is ludicrous. What, do you think the American public has really suddenly become enamored with nonsensical dithering?

There are two answers to the Iraq question, and only two. Either commit to an indefinite stay, or figure out how to get out. You have to pick one or the other. There are relatively nuanced ways of figuring out how to get out. But this plan isn’t one. And, politically, if that latter option is chosen, you need to face the fact that no one is really going to hear the nuance anyway. It’ll be called “cutting and running” regardless. I nevertheless doubt that any substantive approach to getting out of Iraq is actually a political loser, despite what epithets may be hurled.

Update: Turns out Yglesias thinks it’s a good idea too.  I’m thinking pity for the Democrats is affecting their judgement.

Despite Garance’s claim that the blogs have been in a “tizzy” over this.  I can find little evidence that that is the case, which is very weird to me.  This is something that I think the blogs, certainly the “activist” blogs, should be discussing.  I just can’t even comprehend how Jerome Armstrong’s reputation could survive this. Yet, I am in strange ways, admittedly, very naive.

Bloggers were in a tizzy all weekend over a New York Times report by Opinionator Chris Suellentrop on Friday unearthing the fact that Mark Warner PAC Internet strategist Jerome Armstrong was charged with being a stock tout in the late 1990s, hyping a worthless company in which he held stock without disclosing the conflict of interest, leading to an Securities and Exchange Commission investigation that alleged that “there is sufficient evidence to infer that the defendants secretly agreed to pay Armstrong for his touting effortsâ€?; a permanent injunction against Amstrong touting stocks; and ongoing litigation over potential penalties. Suellentrop then called “the links between online stock speculation and online politics…delicious.” The New York Post picked up the story on Sunday, running with the much harder-hitting — it’s a tabloid –“SHILL TO HACK: CELEBRATED LIB STRATEGIST HAS SHADY MARKET PAST.”

Call me juvenile, call me peurile, call me what you will.

Here’s the purported Democratic agenda for the 2006 elections, recently unveiled, yet totally bridled, but brilliantly listed under the title “A New Direction For America.”

A NEW DIRECTION FOR AMERICA

Democrats offer a New Direction, putting the common good of all Americans first for a change and will:

Make Health Care More Affordable: Fix the prescription drug program by putting people ahead of drug companies and HMO’s, eliminating wasteful subsidies, negotiating lower drug prices and ensuring the program works for all seniors; invest in stem cell and other medical research.

Lower Gas Prices and Achieve Energy Independence: Crack down on price gouging; eliminate billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop American alternatives, including biofuels; promote energy efficient technology.

Help Working Families: Raise the minimum wage; repeal tax giveaways that encourage companies to move jobs overseas.

Cut College Costs: Make college tuition deductible from taxes; expand Pell grants and slash student loan costs.

Ensure Dignified Retirement: Prevent the privatization of Social Security; expand savings incentives; and ensure pension fairness.

Require Fiscal Responsibility: Restore the budget discipline of the 1990s that helped eliminate deficits and spur record economic growth.

It’s drawn some fire for not being bold enough. And I’m not really a Democrat anymore and don’t really care, but here are my thoughts. I don’t think there’s some magic phrase that anyone is going to throw together that going to turn this election into an unstoppable juggernaut for Democrats. This is a decent, broadly supportable list, that I think gets at some Republican weaknesses on various issues. Some of the items turn the list into a boring litany, and the rest need more of a pugilistic punch. They need to learn to write these things in a way that suggests “ENERGY INDEPENDANCE !!!– And we REALLY Goddamned Mean it!!!” Instead of, “we’ve done the polling, and we know you want this, and if we don’t get too many headaches trying to make it happen, we’ll do our best to make some mild, popular reforms.”

And while the former would be better, I don’t think it’s necessarily the rosetta stone for democrats hungry for power. I don’t think there’s a slogan or an agenda really up to that task. Not an overarching one. Marketing matters, I know, but I’m sick of the crisis over marketing in Democratic circles. I tend to think it’s the substance of the ideas that are going to be the most effective part of the marketing. After that, it’s the authenticity of the advocates. Do you believe that the candidate espousing that position means it, or is he telling you something you wanna hear? I’m curious to see how well the Stone Cold Steve Austin’s that many of the partisan blogs are so enamored with fare this time around, compared to the more typical consultant moulded candidates. And if the Stone Cold’s even really mean it, despite their “muscular authenticity” - a phrase I believe I stole from Ezra.

But if I were a Democrat, I’d be concerned that this particular set of issues weren’t the issues voters really cared about. What do Americans really care about? I don’t know, but personally, the shit I really care about is only partially represented on this list. And Iraq isn’t on there at all, (as well as some other issues that aren’t worth mentioning because they’re way too divisive and important for the Democrats to ever talk about). I think it’s worth repeating something I mentioned a few weeks ago, and that’s that politicians don’t get to decide which issues that people find important.

Anyway others have made a big to do about the lack of Iraq talk on this agenda, probably most notably Frank Rich the other day. Who, among other things, said this:

On the war, Democrats are fighting among themselves or, worse, running away from it altogether. Last week the party’s most prominent politician, Hillary Clinton, rejected both the president’s strategy of continuing with “his open-ended commitment” in Iraq and some Democrats’ strategy of setting “a date certain” for withdrawal. She was booed by some in her liberal audience who chanted, “Bring the troops home now!” But her real sin was not that she failed to endorse that option, but that she failed to endorse any option.

Like Mr. Bush, she presented a false choice - either stay the course or cut and run - yet unlike Mr. Bush, she didn’t even alight on one of them. This perilous juncture demands that leaders of both parties, whether running for president or not, articulate the least-disastrous Iraq exit option that Americans and Iraqis can rally around. Time is running out. The new Brookings Institution Iraq Index cites a poll showing that 87 percent of Iraqis want a timeline for American withdrawal, and 47 percent approve of attacks on American troops. A timeline does not require, as Mrs. Clinton disingenuously implies, an arbitrary “date certain” for withdrawal.

I have to disagree a bit with Mr Frank here. I don’t think a false dichotomy has necessarily been presented. It seems to me, we can either stay in Iraq until we accomplish whatever it is we set out to accomplish there, which may very well be, have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Or we can decide that the costs of what we’re doing, burning through money and men, are not worth whatever it is that thing is which we set out to accomplish. I simply would not characterize it as “staying the course” vs “cutting and running.”

After all, no one sitting here stateside, wants to be called a “pussy” with respect to other people’s lives, except for, you know, moon-bats. I’d characterize it as “stubbornly wasting money and lives for a perverse sense of dignity” vs “accepting the consequences of misguided adventurism.” You can set benchmarks or whatever, and call it a third way, but ultimately, the choice is between staying until you accomplish something, anything, whatever on the one hand, and getting the fuck out of there, on the other, with perhaps details to be worked out. The absurdity of our times, is that with that conversation leaning the way it’s leaning, the Democratic Party is still unable to give voters a sense of what electing them would mean in this respect.

And don’t even get me started on the failure to put “holding the executive branch accountable for it transgressions” on the agenda. Last week at the Take Back America Conference, Harry Reid spoke of a number of executive branch scandals, and the “rubber-stamp” Congress’s failure to issue any subpoena’s. So I’m curious as to the number of subpoena’s the not-quite-so-rubber-stamp minority party would issue should they find themselves as the majority.

Lindsay has the video.

I suppose I should make clear though that I give about as much faith to this “diagnosis” as I did to, say, Bill Frist’s “diagnosis” of Terri Schiavo.  But you do have to wonder what’s going on here.  This isn’t simply a case of selective video clip selection.  Well, it is.  But I don’t think a more random selection of clips would to lead to an appreciably different reaction from the viewer.

Also, even 10 years ago, Bush still seemed kinda dim.

Julian Sanchez writes of offensive humor:

So it seems like you might find racist/religious/sexist/etc epithets or jokes in two very different kinds of context: First, sincerely, among actual racists, sexists, and other bigots. Second, in groups where there’s a strong taboo against those actual attitudes, but the people communicating are sufficiently confident of themselves and each other on that score that boundary-pushing results in that all-clear humor reaction. The problem on the Internet, of course, is that you often end up with a forum that feels like a small close knit community but is actually available to thousands of casual readers—a tension I expect we’ll be negotiating for a long while yet. Anyway, that might be one reason you find the kind of rhetoric the Feministe folk were so appalled by in particular among the blogs and chat boards of the left, where people are both especially likely to be conscious of speech taboos and confident that everyone’s actually got the right sorts of views.[I added the hypertext link]

I have basically two observations. The first is simple. I don’t think that the propensity of progressive blogs to say things like “Jeff Goldstein is a paste-eating ‘tard. Ann Coulter is an anorexic cunt with an Adam’s apple. Hey Michelle Malkin, me love you long time!” is well explained by this phenomenon Julian posits. Progressive blogs and our commenters use this kind of language because many of us are lazy and stupid, and it’s all too easy to fall into this kind of “politically incorrect” language because it’s so fucking culturally dominant. It feels perhaps “edgy” or “iconocastic” or “brash” or what have you, but it’s really about as subversive as going to a kegger at a frat-house. Amanda has covered this ground too well in the past for me to inadequately dwell on it, but I think you get what I’m saying. Anyway, I’m not at all “confident” that many progressive bloggers have “the right sort of views” on these subjects.

But the actual phenomen that Julian mentions, that “in groups where there’s a strong taboo against those actual attitudes, but the people communicating are sufficiently confident of themselves and each other on that score that boundary-pushing results in that all-clear humor reaction” I think is true. For example the other day, my friend Vanessa, respected feminist, called me a “pussy” because I didn’t want to chug some damned concoction of Guiness and Baileys and Jamison. Believe you me, that shit was high-larry-us in a totally ironic way. The problem is that over time the less that these taboos are respected, the more the jokes become indistinguishable from actual racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive jokes. The irony seems to be lost or is an afterthought as the offensive humor is laughed at in the wrong way, as substantively funny with but a thin patina of that essential irony. I’ve seen it many times. Someone says something horribly offensive out of the blue, gets a huge laugh, and the flood-gates open for jokes of the realm. The laughter gets less voluminous, but no one has the courage to point out that a line is being crossed.

Via Ezra, a defense of Scalia’s recently authored Hudson opinion declining to extend the exclusionary rule to no-knock searches, which has sparked much criticism lately.

The exclusionary rule, however, is not the only possible remedy. For instance, the remedy could be a federal civil rights suit against the police department, or even throwing the offending officers in jail. The point is that there is a whole range of potential remedies. The exclusionary rule is just one of many. And it’s an extreme one because, in order to deter bad conduct, it always lets a guilty person go free.

The second thing to keep in mind is the distinction between a warrantless search and a search conducted pursuant to a warrant. If the police have a warrant, that means (in theory) they did their job and gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause before a judge, who then executed the warrant. On the other hand, they could have just barged in without a warrant. These two situations are very different.

Finally, before police enter your house, they are constitutionally required to perform a “knock-and-announce.� It’s an old tradition. As Scalia explained, the rationale behind the K&A is (1) to prevent unnecessary violence and property damage; and (2) give people a second to gather themselves (e.g., put their pants on). For instance, if the police just barged in, people would be surprised and might attack or shoot the perceived intruder. Also, if the police knock, a lot of people will comply and open the door, making busting down the door unnecessary.

Ok — with all that in mind, you can understand why the opinion was right. The precise question in Hudson is not “what should the remedy be when the Fourth Amendment is violated?� The precise question is “should the exclusionary rule be the remedy when the K&A requirement is violated?� I don’t think so.

First, as Scalia explains well, you have to consider whether the remedy matches the purpose of the right. Unlike the warrant requirement, the K&A right is not intended to protect you from government scrutiny. It governs the manner in which the police may enter after they’ve already decided to enter. And it does so to prevent violence, damage, and to protect your dignity. That’s not to say there shouldn’t be any remedy for this violation, but it seems like excluding evidence is a bit drastic for this situation.

Just some quick comments. I might write more tomorrow. Like Ezra, I basically agree. And I don’t think this opinion is as bad as it’s been made out to be. Considering that the police have warrants, and therefore a judicial determination of probable cause, excluding evidence gathered due to failure to “knock and announce” doesn’t strike me as a proportionate remedy to the violation. I think police entering homes without the knock and announce is generally a bad idea, a very bad idea, but failure to do so in some circumstances, I don’t think should mean jeting evidence that the police otherwise did the procedural work to acquire. Provided that evidence acquired not pursuant to the warrant would still be excluded. But ultimately, I think the invasion of privacy is sufficently limited in this scenario that I don’t think the balancing of interests leads to an application of the exclusionary rule. I’ll accept that there are reasons external to the issues to mistrust this case, the opinion, the man who wrote it, but I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with it.

Saturday Morning Update:

Reading through your objections in the comments, I’m kinda unmoved.  What we’re dealing with is a knock, a verbal announcement, and ten seconds before the police crash through the door of someone for whom they already have a warrant.

I guess I am in the distasteful position of acknowledging that other than the exclusionary rule, there is little to no redress for the police’s failure to do this.  So I guess I have to acknowledge that I’m comfortable with the fact that there is no redress for this specific violation.  But I think the privacy violation in this instance is quite minimal.  The important matter to me is that the police have a warrant.  That’s the compelling safeguard in my opinion.  Having gone through the procedures of establishing probable cause to obtain that warrant, whether the police knock or not before entering a home to seize evidence persuant to that warrant doesn’t strike me as a compelling legal issue in the constitutional sense.  And balancing the privacy interests infringed by this failure to knock against the interest in obtaining probative evidence persuant to a warrant does not seem to me to justify the exclusionary rule, unless you have very little regard for the value of the gathering of such evidence.  That’s not to say that I don’t understand that there’s reasonable basis to believe the case should have gone the other way under the principle of stare decisis.

I do think that no knock searches are an incredibly bad idea.  Patently so.  And I would expect the ramifications of these searches, such as the increased likelihood of someone getting shot to be a deterrent to police behavior in this regard.  And I haven’t forgotten the Cory Maye case, which was the result of one of these no knock searches.  But that something is a bad idea in general doesn’t justify the application of the exclusionary rule either.

There’s another line of argument, quasi-ad hominem quasi-slippery slope that this is the first step toward eliminating the exclusionary rule altogether by Scalia and the other fascists on the court.  That may very well be true.  In fact, I accept that it is.  But that does not make this particular decision incorrect.  I’ll grant you this though, if my criticizing this decision could stop them from rolling back our fourth amendment rights, I would do so.  But if Scalia et al are hell-bent on rolling back those rights, there’s nothing stopping them from doing so.  Certainly not me, and certainly not me misrepresenting what seems to be a reasonable decision, from my point of view.  Not even me as part of some larger blogospheric paroxysm of ire.  If we’re fucked, we’re fucked.  And I’m not any happier about it than you.

This is cute:

Still, all the griping was clearly having an impact on Warner’s internet strategist Jerome Armstrong by Sunday morning, who dismissed the snipers as “ideological� and “pretty left wing.�

“It wasn’t going to be a love-in to begin with,� Armstrong sighed as the final brunch session of the conference wound down. “This was a great opportunity for bloggers to meet Warner. But also, the whole blogosphere and broader press was focused on this event. Coming here was a no-brainer.�

I kinda liked it better when it was coming from the old consultants.  hmm… On the other hand… No not really, I’m actually more amused by this.

From Tony Snow’s Press Briefing:

Q: Tony, American deaths in Iraq have reached 2,500. Is there any response or reaction from the President on that?

MR. SNOW: It’s a number, and every time there’s one of these 500 benchmarks people want something.

Speaks for itself, doesn’t it? But for the sake of… whatever… here’s Tony’s ensuing slip into the pretense of caring:

The President would like the war to be over now. Everybody would like the war to be over now. And the one thing that we saw in Iraq this week is further testimony to the quality of the men and the women who are doing that, and the dedication and determination to try to ensure that the people of Iraq really do live in a free, effective democracy of their own creation and design.

Any President who goes through a time of war feels very deeply the responsibility for sending men and women into harm’s way, and feels very deeply the pain that the families feel. And this President is no different. You’ve seen it many times. You saw it, you saw it when he was in that ballroom, Terry, and you had this crowd of servicemen and women who were cheering loudly for the President, and he got choked up. So it’s always a sad benchmark, and one of the things the President has said is that these people will not die in vain.

Make no mistake, your President cares very deeply about each and everyone of those meaningless statistics.