From readers:

Jonah,

Remember your analysis on The Corner recently about how the The Collegian's Tillman flap exposed Leftist hypocrisy and journalistic fascism? I loved your equivalent argument:

Indeed, if The Collegian "doesn't hold back" from running controversial pieces that will upset their readers -- good for them. I assume they would stand resolute after running a piece which said "Martin Luther King got what he deserved." Or maybe, just maybe, somebody in the newsroom would have said, "Hey you know what? This piece adds almost nothing to the discussion and is needlessly inflamatory."

But I am sure the Titans of the First Amendment would gird their loins and say "Forsooth No! We must not cave into the sensitivities of our readers!"

Or, as it says in the editorial, "We cannot, however, compromise the mission of our publication for the sake of ensuring the constant happiness of our readership."

Either defend the piece on the merits or don't run it you chumps. But please stop trying to sound like you aren't personally responsible for the decisions you make. That's why you're the editors.

Jonah, it seems to me that while I fully agree that CBS catered to their own obvious bias in publishing the pictures of troops committing crimes, they have every right to do so in a free market where they will live or (hopefully) die financially as the result of their actions. To suggest that they have some sort of call not to publish something you and I think is harmful to the war effort doesn't hold water. Frankly, I think such relativist thinking harms NRO's and the neo-Right's chances of being a pillar of conservatism and not group of political opportunists, looking to debate every subtlety in order to see if it can somehow be made into their pet policy.

CBS can do what it will. In short, if we don't apply basic Constitutional principles across the board, including that CBS will sleep in its own bed, we'll end up arguing relativistic minutiae way down into the noise as the Left does everyday. And look what that's got us.

Instapundit links to a post from a blogger Greyhawk who has some useful scorn for "60 Minutes'" posturing over the torture photos. This was not sleuthed-out by "60 Minutes" it was already being investigated by the army.

I agree with everything Greyhawk says, but I would add something. Whoever leaked these pictures to the press was not doing anybody any favors. Since the case was already being handled, the release of these pictures did more harm than good. I don't blame 60 Minutes for running them -- though I don't applaud them either. But a person would/could be morally obligated to leak these pictures if the army was covering it up or refusing to investigate. It doesn't sound like that was the case. So releasing the photos isn't prodding the government to do the right thing, it's encouraging millions of Arabs to hate us. That's not whistle-blowing, that's sabotage.

Indeed, recall that what happened to the Belgian peacekeepers in Rwanda was censored because to reveal the full story -- it was believed -- would cause more harm than good. I don't know about that decision. But someone will need to explain to me why releasing these pics now -- as opposed to a year from now -- didn't do more harm than good.

Is it anti-Islamic to ask a Muslim woman to unveil her face at a police checkpoint? Apparently, not even the Saudis think so:

“Saudi scholars, Imams and women say that unveiling in critical situations is appropriate, and called for establishing policewomen sections within existing male departments to help foil terrorists who disguise themselves in Abayas. Tareq Al-Hawass, a professor at Shariah College in Dammam, believes that Islam does not prohibit a woman from unveiling her face if the necessity arises and for the sake of proving her identity to a policeman at a checkpoint.”

Meanwhile, British Home Secretary David Blunkett has announced that those Muslim women who request it will be exempted on ‘religious’ grounds from the requirement to be photographed for the proposed British identity card. Before finally conceding that point, he should chat to those experts in Islam over in ‘Saudi’ Arabia.

From Otago, New Zealand:

“Shepherds found the merino sheep now known as Shrek wandering the high country after six years of evading the autumn muster. An open day at Bendigo Station on Sunday was the first opportunity for the public to meet the celebrity sheep. The Shrek theme park sprang up overnight, with enterprising locals making the most of their newfound attraction. The area is temporarily boasting helicopter rides to the caves Shrek hid in during his years lost in the wilderness, 'catch the greasy pig' competitions and displays of farm workers' strength.”

The Daily Telegraph took up the story:

“The woolly creature was shorn of his 15-inch long, 59lb fleece during a live television broadcast.”

Next week on New Zealand TV: “Watching the Paint Dry.”

Tony Blair’s belated decision to allow Brits to vote on the proposed EU ‘constitution’ looks like providing some highly entertaining political theater across the continent. Among last week’s stars:

Giscard’Estaing, the man who drafted the document in the first place. He announced that, contrary to Blair’s desperate – and characteristically dishonest – scare-mongering, British rejection of the constitution need not lead to the UK’s departure from the EU. It wasn’t all good news from Giscard, however. The diamond king did warn that a no vote might leave Britain finding itself “on the edge of the Union,” much as it was with the Euro. Well, looking at the relative performance of the UK’s economy when compared with that of the Eurozone, that ‘edge’ has looked very comfortable indeed, more like a nice, and rather well-appointed, balcony. Giscard’s supposed warning looks, in fact. like yet another good reason for a no vote. More work needed, Monsieur, on your blood-curdling threats.

And then there’s that liar and (ha ha ha ha, ‘alleged’) crook better known as the President of France. The EU’s establishment is always claiming that the people of Europe are clamoring for a constitution. Despite that, Chirac seems oddly unwilling to allow the French a vote on it. Why would that be, I wonder?

Across the Rhine, Germany’s somewhat awkward history means (conveniently) that it is not legally permitted to hold a referendum, but that’s not enough for Chancellor Schroeder. He’s looking for ways to bring in the constitution even if it is not, as required, actually ratified in all EU member states (some laws, it seems, can be dispensed with). Schroeder’s worries are shared by the reliably repugnant Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a familiar and rather annoying face from 1968. These days he’s the leader of the Greens in the EU ‘parliament’. He wants a pan-EU plebiscite on the constitution. Why? He’s worried that some pesky small countries might dare to hold things up. That would never do. His plebiscite is, he says, “the only way to move away from the principle of unanimity, which will lead to a blockage…we are now in a situation in which Luxembourg, Malta or Cyprus could block the whole EU". Message from Cohn-Bendit to Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus: “Drop dead.”

This drama will run and run.

Junk science, junk politician, junked freedom: welcome to the world of California Assemblyman Marco Firebaugh, ‘legislator,’ busybody and clown, a man who wants to make it a crime to smoke in a car containing, yes, children.

Meanwhile in Wisconsin, fifteen self-important Madison city councilors have voted through a smoking ban in that previously pleasant city’s bars. Amongst the highlights of the discussion “a parade of middle and high school students [speaking] in favor of the ban.”

At first, I was puzzled why a bunch of schoolchildren should have any say in the matter, but then, when I stopped to think about it, I understood. These bans are introduced by lawmakers intent on treating adults as children. To them we are all immature beings, incapable of making rational decisions for ourselves, so why not make the point by rounding up a few kids to give the rest of us a lecture?

From the Air Power Guy:

Jonah,

If this is legit, then oh, my God.

When I was flying Hogs, I told my guys that we had something that overcame a
lot of shortcomings in our machines...it was the reputation of the men and
women who flew them. If we lost that, all was in jeopardy. So, fight hard,
but fight like the professionals you are.

The damage done to our cause, and our country's reputation by this appalling
conduct could be catastrophic. For all the people in the world who dismiss
the Eurotrash's sniping at America, to say nothing of the likes of bin Laden
and al Jazeera, this will be hard to explain and may very well plant a
poisonous seed.

I'm not the parent of a fallen soldier or Marine, but I can just imagine how
I would feel if, after experiencing the horror of outliving my child after
he or she died for freedom in Iraq, saw those pictures of the prisoners in
Baghdad. My kid's dead...but his memory, and his reputation as an American
fighting man, ostensibly fighting against this same barbarity, has been
sullied by guttersnipes led by a one-star witless moron.

700+ heros have taken a bullet and meanwhile...literally behind their
backs...everything they have bled and died for is being gleefully
undermined. These people pissed on their graves...and laughed. String 'em
up.

I'll be happy to spell one of the guards at Leavenworth should they need it.

Sh*t...

TAG

Worried about what looks like a rapidly crumbling future, Tony Blair has finally deigned to start looking at the immigration mess his government has created in Britain. Quoting the Daily Telegraph, Blogger Scott Burgess notes that “The Prime Minister said there were limited problems with bogus asylum seekers and some radical Muslim clerics "coming here to preach religious hate" and support terrorism. But he stressed that the number of such cases was small and claimed that the way in they had been reported in the media had blown them out of proportion."

“Good”, writes Burgess, “Given that the number of such cases is so small, appropriate action can presumably be taken quickly. Or perhaps not. Just yesterday, notorious Sheikh Abu Hamza [a grotesque ‘imam’ well-known in Britain for his hardline views] had his deportation hearing postponed until next year - in part because: "Mr. Hamza's failure to take part in the legal procedures and produce any evidence in his defence has caused delays."”

Burgess then lists a “few of the "limited problems" to which Blair refers,” basically one unrepentant – and ungrateful –Taliban, and a motley collection of ‘imams’ whose fanaticism and superstition appear to be matched only by their idleness and greed.

George W. Bush’s planned immigration ‘reform’ continues to produce results:

“SASABE, Mexico -- After a four-year decline, illegal immigration from Mexico is spiking as several thousand migrants a day rush across the border in hopes of getting work visas under a program President Bush proposed.” To be fair, “many also are trying to beat tighter security to come in June,” but it seems clear that much of the responsibility for this reversal must be put down to the administration’s irresponsible and ill thought-out scheme.

Thanks for nothing, Mr. President.

I've been running around all day and I haven't had time to focus on the tortured Iraqi prisoners. I don't know the whole story, of course, but there's really no story I can imagine that could possibly justify this. Even if all of these pictures were staged this would be an outrage. The fact that they are real makes this staggeringly awful. The awfulness is twofold. First, there's the illegal, morally corrupt -- and corrupting -- evil of torturing people for the pleasure of it (and taking pictures of it!). Second, there's the counter-productive stupidity of it. Even if these guys were the worst henchmen of Saddam's torture chambers, the damage this does to the image of America is huge. How do we look when we denounce Saddam's torture chambers now? How many more American soldiers will be shot because of the ill will and outrage this generates? How do we claim to be champions of the rule of law?

Well, there is one way. This needs to be investigated and prosecuted. If there's more to the story -- whatever that could conceivably be -- let's find out. But if the story is as it appears, there has to be accountability, punishment and disclosure. Indeed, even if this turned out to be a prank, too much damage has already been done and someone needs to be punished.

Under Saddam torturers were rewarded and promoted. In America they must bee held to account.

to our advertisers' ears. From a reader:

I don't know how many people read the corner every day, but it must be massive, because every time you post a link to something cool, the site you link to gets so bombarded with hits it goes down. Case in point, your goat link. Also, I tried to read the loathsome editorial about Tillman, but that site was overloaded as well.

I've gotta refresh the Corner more often so I can get there before the
hoards.

Kevin Drum writes, "Ponnuru is right: if abortion is murder, then anyone who gets an abortion should be jailed. Anybody who performs an abortion should be put on death row. Anybody who supports abortion rights is little better than a mobster or a terrorist. But if that's what [pro-lifers] believe — and they do — why does he think it's unwise to admit it in public? The question answers itself, doesn't it?"

It's always nice to hear that others think that I'm right about something. But I can't be right to hold beliefs that I don't actually hold. I do not believe that it follows from the homicidal nature of abortion that anyone who procures one must go to jail. (I've explained myself a little further on this point here.) I do not believe that it follows that anyone who commits an abortion should be on death row. I do not believe that anyone who supports abortion is little better than a mobster or a terrorist. I am quite certain that most pro-lifers do not believe any of these propositions, either.

It is true that I believe that pro-lifers should generally pick those true arguments at their disposal that are best calculated to win legal protection for the unborn, not those true arguments that are likely to repel people who are otherwise open to persuasion. I don't fault people on the other side of the debate from choosing their public arguments on the same basis. Everyone involved in practical politics does this, and should.

Reuters: The [Justice] department posted the documents [showing USA Mary Jo White's objection to the Gorelick wall] on its Web site late on Wednesday as "supplementary material" to Ashcroft's testimony to the panel earlier this month.

"We were not involved in it," McClellan said. "The president was disappointed about that .... He's disappointed that that information was placed on their Web site like that."

This is an amazing example of...something. Americans' capacity to self-organize, the political activist culture, the plaintiff culture or just plain old parody... I really don't know. All I really do know is that you must move your mouse over the logo.

UPDATE Okay, I looked around a bit more. It must be a parody, but it is very well done in its understatedness.

I think this reader overstates the case, as most liberals and leftists have had nothing but nice things to say about Tillman, the troops etc. But he does point to a kernel of truth here. There are a few folks on the left who really don't "support the troops." They simply say they do in public -- at ANSWER rallies and the like when the cameras are on:

Jonah:

Notice how the left likes to give the appearance that they rally around our
troops and then when America does rally around one, they can do nothing but
show their true colors and defame him? For months all I've been hearing from
that side is "They're dying because of lie! We've exploited them!" and "I
TRULY support the troops...I want to bring them home!" The story of Pat
Tillman could've provided a great moment for the left to put their money
where their mouths are, and instead we hear all those disgusting comparisons
and read cowardly, insulting editorials about how Tillman got what was
coming to him. The left blew this one big time, but then again it just shows
they want to have it both ways.........just like their guy Kerry.

I know the big USA Today/CNN Gallup poll of Iraqis has been out for a couple days, but I just looked at it this morning. It's actually pretty fascinating, with good news and bad.

First of all: The Kurds love us.

Also, 84% of Iraqis are doing the same or better financially since the war (nod to Andrew Sullivan's reader).

George Bush is not very popular but he'smuch more popular than Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein.

Huge numbers of Iraqis -- 69% total and 88% Bagdhad residents and 85% of Sunnis -- believe that if they cooperate with the CPA they or the lives of their families will be endangered.

But what I find the most amazing is that only 6%(!) of Iraqis have had personal contact with US military forces. This means A) the military hasn't been able to do nearly enough nation-building personal diplomacy B) Ninety-four percent of Iraqis have formed their views about the US military via word-of-mouth, propaganda fliers, satellite TV, etc.

Jonah, Thought you might enjoy this -- here at Cornell, there was a demonstration against the treatment and holding of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in which protestors dressed up like US soldiers and pretended to imprison and mistreat volunteers. As a counter-demonstration, a few of us from the Cornell Review dressed up as terrorists and questioned the wisdom of letting us walk free. Pictures are up here -Paul Eastlund

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg- Obviously you must have been flooded by angry Army personnel over recipients of more than one Medal of Honor, which is to be expected. The original email that you posted actually is rather correct in a narrow sense, in that Gen. Butler is still the only Marine Corps Officer to receive two MoHs. Gy Sgt. Dan Daly is the other two-time Marine recipient. As for Gen. Butler's rather outrageous political views - Max Boot in his excellent book, "The Savages Wars of Peace" ascribes them to his defeat in the 1932 Republican primary election for open Pennsylvania Senate seat, if my memory serves me correctly. It was only after them did he embark on his pacifist bent that characterized his story until his death.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, took issue today with those Catholics who are calling for sanctions against Catholic public officials who vote in favor of abortion rights. Pelosi, who is a staunch advocate of abortion rights, defended herself as follows: “I believe that my position on choice is one that is consistent with my Catholic upbringing, which said that every person has a free will and has the responsibility to live their own lives in a way that they would have to account for in the end.”

Pelosi, a California Democrat, also criticized those who differ with her position: “I’m certainly concerned when the church comes together and says it’s going to sanction people in public office for speaking their conscience and what they believe.”

The president of U Mass lays down the hammer:

UMass president Jack Wilson issued a statement saying Rene Gonzalez's comments in The Daily Collegian "are a disgusting, arrogant and intellectually immature attack on a human being who died in service to his country."

How much you want to bet some faculty member will denounce Wilson for A) fostering a "chilling effect" on free speech, stifling the "authentic narrative of resistance" B) being insensitive to the views of a Latino C) coming out in support of the military-industrial complex D) all of the above.

From the Washington Post:

The biggest worry, however, is that relatively insignificant controversies from the candidates' youth will drown out discussion of the momentous issues that will confront the commander in chief in the coming four years. Mr. Bush's precise whereabouts in 1973, and whether Mr. Kerry threw away his medals or his ribbons -- these seem to us to matter somewhat less than how the two men might differ in policy toward Iraq or North Korea.

That's why the Kerry campaign's response to Mr. Cheney's speech this week was so inadequate. In his address in Fulton, Mo., Mr. Cheney was unsparing in his criticism of Mr. Kerry, but his line of attack had nothing to do with Vietnam. Rather, Mr. Cheney questioned Mr. Kerry's record on defense and foreign policy, asserting that he "has given us ample grounds to doubt the judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security." Some of his points were unfair; for instance, Mr. Kerry's proposed cuts in the intelligence budget a decade ago aren't evidence, as Mr. Cheney would have it, of a "deeply irresponsible" attitude toward funding the war on terrorism. But the vice president's recitation of what he termed Mr. Kerry's "inconsistencies and changing rationales" on Iraq, from the Persian Gulf War to the present, gets to the heart of what this campaign needs to be about: America's place in the world, the right and wrong times to use force and similar weighty questions. Recalling Mr. Cheney's multiple draft deferments isn't a rebuttal; both campaigns need to engage on the merits.

From a reader:

Charles Lindberg fought bravely and served his country well in combat, but his personal and policy views were abhorrent. He was an isolationist, an anti-semite, and a nazi sympathizer.

Even the great Smedley Butler, the only American to receive 2 Medals of
Honor, was a complete nut when it came to policy. I'd love to have him run
our battlefield, but there is no way he could make sound political decisions
for the US, imho.

Benedict Arnold, of course, was one of the best and brightest of the
American generals before he stabbed us in the back.

Then again, we live in a world where being a talented linguist somehow
confers political brilliance on a person, according to the left.

I share Derb's ambivalence. I think if Tillman returned alive, he would and should have received great praise, just as he deserves posthumously. But I don't think that his service -- or anybody else's -- automatically confers the presumption of his opinions being right on any save a very narrow band of issues. I trust my "air power guy," for example, to have more valuable opinions than my own on avionics, military strategy etc. But it does not follow that if he said "you're wrong on tax cuts" that I should give his opinion any more weight than anyone else's. And even if he said I was wrong about the B2 bomber, he'd still owe me an argument. "Because I say so" is a winning argument only for God and parents.

In a sense there's a vague whiff of identity politics which gets stirred up in these discussions. The left loves to say that because a person is black or a woman or if they grew up poor then their views on affirmative action or social policies deserve greater respect beyond the merits of their actual arguments. For example, statistically speaking if you grew up poor odds are you're going to be worse on economics than if you grew up rich. And yet, we constantly hear about the "moral authority" on economic issues of people who grew up poor. What does one have to do with the other? Does growing up in a refridgerator box make you better at regression analysis? I'm being crass of course, but you get the point.

When it comes to military experience, I have no problem with the traditional conservative attitude that service in uniform is a sign of good character. But good character and good thinking are not synonymous. And I think that in the modern era where the media make personality matter so much more than they did in the past many Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, confuse the two. In short, facts and reasoning should stand independent from the person offering them. Are we supposed to believe that John Kerry or John McCain are more expert than John Keegan? Maybe so, but only if we actually hear their arguments about a specific subject.

Anyway, I tried to get into all of this in a funnier way in this column.

From a reader:

Jonah,

I'd like to see you flesh out the principles that reconcile your positions
on the two Daily Collegian items. Are you saying they should have run the
political ad, but not the Tillman op-ed? Or that they should have run both,
or neither? Do 1st Amendment principles argue for printing the political ad,
even though no government censorship is involved, but running a
controversial op-ed is is solely up to editorial judgment?

Curious minds want to know...

Sure. I thought the Tillman op-ed was sophomoric and not worth publishing. The author could have easily made the same substantive points without saying this guy deserved to die in Afghanistan. To frame the argument the was he(?) did was gratuitous and offensive.

Now, the editors didn't think so. Or, they may have thought so but they didn't think the Tillman piece crossed the line. Now that they're being criticized, they're invoking the first amendment and the "principle" that they are not obligated to please their readers. This strikes me as stupid and cowardly for several reasons. The first amendment does not absolve editors of their professional obligations to, well, edit. They had to have seen some merit in the piece to begin with or they would not have run it. Now their afraid to admit that they saw merit in it. I would have a lot more respect for them if they defended their decision on those merits without crying "the first amendment made me do it!"

As for the idea that they owe it to their mission to run controversial pieces, that's fine if that's what they think. But that directly contradicts their refusal to run the Horowitz ad which presumably would have been just as controversial in many quarters on campus. The same hold with their first amendment argument since the first amendment offers the same protections of political ads as it does of political editorials (or at least it used to before campaign finance "reform"). Moreover, the editors would have had even less responsibility to determine whether the ad had merit than they do for editorials. Virtually all publications run ads for groups they disagree with. And yet, even though both of their defenses of the Tillman piece would logically require them to have the guts to run the Horowitz ad, they chickened out when the issue was offending the left and they boldly went ahead when it came to offending "the right" (I use quotation marks because I am sure countless non-conservatives were equally offended by the piece).

In short, I think the editors are free to run or not run pretty much whatever they want. All I am saying is that they should stand by their unpopular decisions without turning into a sprinkler system of B.S. about the first amendment and they should apply the same standards of excellence or controversialism (or in this case mediocrity) consistently if they are going to invoke those principles in their defense.

Also, if they're so into free speech, a lot of readers are wondering, why have they blocked all attempt to comment on the editorial in their reader forum?

It turns out the Daily Collegian was one of the newspapers which refused to run David Horowitz's anti-reparations ad. Well fellas, as anyone at the ACLU will tell you, ads of a political nature are central to the first amendment. And, yet, somehow you refused to run that even though you had far, far, far less editorial responsibility because, as an ad, the Horowitz appeal was not editorial content.

Sorry if I sound unduly miffed, but it is precisely this sort of politically correct bloviating self-congratulation I despise about A) liberal journalists B) liberal college kids and, most especially, C) liberal College journalists. They censor and condemn whatever personally offends them and then they celebrate their own willingness to be "controversial" by running things they don't mind. Then, if criticized, they don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand by their decisions crying free speech and whining about how criticism amounts to censorship.

I would keep going, but if I did, I'd end up hurling myself at the floor like John Belushi in one of his old SNL News skits.

Specter is distancing himself frum Bush, even though he concedes Bush got him the nomination:

After wrapping himself in President Bush's coat-tails for months to narrowly win the Republican Senate primary on Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., flew a new banner yesterday, emphasizing issues that divide him and Bush.

To squeak to his 16,000-vote victory over U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey, R-Allentown, Specter's campaign used Bush's image and voice in radio and TV ads and recorded phone messages to voters.

Specter told conservative Bush fans that the president said a vote for Specter was a vote for Bush.

Specter even conceded yesterday that Bush's role in the primary, which attracted mostly conservative Bush supporters, was "determinative," helping him clinch a 528,543-to-511,864-vote, or 51 percent to 49 percent, victory.

The Daily Collegian is defending its decision to run the "Pat Tillman got what he deserved" piece by hiding behind the skirt of the First Amendment:

Rene Gonzalez is a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts who occasionally submits columns to The Collegian. While his views in no way reflect the opinion of our editorial board or staff, we base our decisions not on whether we agree with the opinion of students submitting opinion pieces, but on the backbone of journalism: The First Amendment.

As a news organization, The Collegian lists the First Amendment as its most important value and asset. We do not hold back from printing news stories, columns or editorials that may upset our readership - instead, we seek to both inform and stir debate through our publication. Our decision to publish Gonzalez's column - an opinion piece written by a member of our campus community - is the only way for us to live up to this ideal.

What a bunch of heroes.

There's only one problem, the First Amendment has, mmmm, let me see: Nothing to do with this. The First Amendment protects against government censorship. This is a question about editorial judgement. Be men (or women) for pete's sake. If you want to defend your decision to run the piece on the merits, great. But don't pretend that the constitution made you do it.

Indeed, if The Collegian "doesn't hold back" from running controversial pieces that will upset their readers -- good for them. I assume they would stand resolute after running a piece which said "Martin Luther King got what he deserved." Or maybe, just maybe, somebody in the newsroom would have said, "Hey you know what? This piece adds almost nothing to the discussion and is needlessly inflamatory."

But I am sure the Titans of the First Amendment would gird their loins and say "Forsooth No! We must not cave into the sensitivities of our readers!"

Or, as it says in the editorial, "We cannot, however, compromise the mission of our publication for the sake of ensuring the constant happiness of our readership."

Either defend the piece on the merits or don't run it you chumps. But please stop trying to sound like you aren't personally responsible for the decisions you make. That's why you're editors.

From now on, whenever I screw up I'm going to blame you guys. After all, that's what the owner of the New York Times does. Of course, you guys aren't as passive as Times readers. From MassNews:

Pinch Sulzberger, owner of the New York Times, last week blamed the readers of the Times for the Jayson Blair scandal which rocked his newspaper last year and brought it  and him  to their knees.

Sulzberger made the charge against his readers while he was on a panel at the American Society of Newspaper Editors according to Editor and Publisher magazine, which reported the story this way:

“Sulzberger [said] the worst thing to come out of the Blair scandal was … readers who knew about the incorrect reporting did not complain…”

But Pinch, the readers may not have complained to you, but someone much more important did. And that was your editors.

More reason Gorelick should testify, from the Washington Times:

Newly released Justice Department memos show that September 11 panel commissioner Jamie S. Gorelick was more intimately involved than previously thought with hampering communications between U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies fighting terrorism. As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995.

"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.

AP reporting that Marines will swap out with Iraqi soldiers in Fallujah. Very interesting deal if true.

Rod, Kathryn: I don't believe Santorum should "get a pass" from conservatives, whatever their religious affiliations. I also think, as everyone here knows, that public officials have a moral obligation to extend legal protections to unborn human beings. That means voting for pro-life bills and against pro-abortion ones. Catholic teaching on these points make it scandalous that politicians who deny justice to the unborn present themselves as Catholics and present themselves for communion.

But it does not follow that voters have a moral obligation always to support pro-life candidates over pro-choice ones, or that Catholic voters do. So, for example, assume a pro-life voter considering an election pitting a pro-life Democrat against a pro-abortion Democrat. If that voter really believed that maintaining the pro-life party in legislative control required the election of the pro-abortion candidate, his support for that candidate would be justified and might even be required. The moral obligation is to the unborn, not to particular candidates. (In most cases, I would strongly dispute that voter's judgment.)

Or assume a pro-life Democratic politician who always votes the right way on abortion bills but is deadset against the Iraq war--considers it both unjust and a disaster. Could he support a left-wing presidential candidate who promised to end the war but was pro-abortion? He might reason that presidents have more power to end war than they do to end abortion. Now don't get me wrong: I would vigorously dispute this politician's prudential judgments. But I could not dispute that these are prudential judgments rather than violations of pro-life principle. (For one thing, the politician would have to take into account that the probability that he is wrong about Iraq is greater than the probability he is wrong about abortion. Also, you would have to ask him if behind his somewhat contrived calculation lurked a failure to take the claims of 1.2 million unborn human beings seriously.)

Back to the question of Santorum. In a very important sense, Republicans shouldn't be given a pass simply because of their party: As Peter Robinson noted the other day, pro-abortion Republicans who claim to be Catholics must be denied communion as surely as pro-abortion Democrats must. But if Santorum really believed that Specter's nomination was important for pro-life goals, which is something strongly implied by his public argument for Specter, then he should be criticized for making the wrong judgment rather than failing to uphold public morality or even Catholic teaching.

Specter has to be counted the favorite to win the fall election. But it remains to be seen how many of Toomey's supporters turn out for Specter this fall. The answer will depend on Specter's own behavior in the next few months. He moved right for the primary--although I was always surprised at how much more room he left for Toomey--and will now presumably want to move left. He will have to be subtle about it if he doesn't want to have a problem with conservative turnout.

Will conservatives punish Bush and Santorum? The election-night result is the one most calculated to cause them trouble with conservatives. If Toomey had been crushed in a landslide, they would have accepted what Bush and Santorum had done. If he had won, they would not have cared. But since he lost so very narrowly, they know that Bush and Santorum are directly responsible for the result. Santorum has time to recover before he is up for re-election in 2006, but this episode may limit his potential as a conservative standard-bearer. Bush will probably be able to get most conservatives to vote for him this fall, but his task is a little harder after last night.