Evidence and Proof

Evidence and Proof
(also posted at Wilde Karrde)

During the West-ward expansion of America, many people found themselves in wagon trains traveling across plains and deserts. Occasionally, they found themselves trapped by winter weather far short of their destination, and went through extreme hardship before spring came.

One such party was the Donner party, which began travelling towards California in 1846. Trapped by snows in the Sierra Nevada mountains during the winter of '46-47, the party was forced to eat anything they could find, including their own pack animals.

There are also debates over whether the party ever resorted to cannibalism of their dead members.

Very recent research into the subject is outlined by David Nishimura at Cronaca. Historians cannot prove that the cannibalism did happen, but they can prove that human bones buried there weren't charred.

It is a case of absence of evidence. We don't have direct evidence to prove that survival cannibalism occurred. As David argues in his short post, this is not absence that no such cannibalism occurred. From his own research into other such claims, he knows that such events rarely leave evidence behind in the form of charred bones.

This simple discussion of a grisly subject reminds me of many other discussions that have been held recently. From the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons labs to the question of whether the President was right to order wiretapping of suspected terrorists calling friends in the United States, we are dealing with situations where there is absence of evidence on at least one side of the case.

However, the absence of evidence does not prove that that we have evidence of absence. This applies equally to questions about the legality of Top Secret programs, the historicity of survival cannibalism, data sent by CIA sources all over the world, and knowledge about another government's secret weapons programs after significant effort by that government to hide most of the data from the outside world.

The fact that we don't have direct evidence about the Iraqi weapons program does not mean that we have direct evidence that the weapons program never existed and was never a threat.

Likewise for the legality of wiretapping by the NSA. The fact that we don't have the evidence to show that the wiretapping was legal does not mean that the wiretapping was illegal. It means that the evidence is unavailable to us right now.

CON ST Troopers

Outstanding:

Connecticut State Troopers obviously draw on a pool of fine individuals.

Droid death

Androids Must Die:

Also from my sister, a list of 'get a human' shortcuts for many major corporate and government phone systems. Handling the finances and such things here at Grim's Hall, I've had a fair part of my life stolen by these computerized beasts. By all means, let's frustrate them if we can.

The Alito Nom

Alito, War Powers & International Law:

In deference to poor Cassandra, who wants more Alito, I'll point you to Mondo Alito at PajamasMedia, which has gathered a lot of posts from all sides of the debate.

Meanwhile, from the old journalism school, The Ft. Worth Telegram has a very useful roundup:

Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: This hearing is really our opportunity to fully and fairly evaluate your qualifications for the high court, but what I really want to do is give a lengthy explication of my feelings about Roe vs. Wade. The mere fact that Roe has been upheld for more than 30 years does not mean that it’s entitled to special deference. Is Roe Supreme Court precedent? Certainly. But in my view, it is not super-precedent or super-duper precedent. It is precedent. Nothing more. Now, I want to turn to another topic ...

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a transcript for Biden's war-powers question. It's one of the more interesting Constitutional issues, and a relevant one. The closest I've found is this account, which isn't thorough enough.

Though I am not a lawyer or a judge, I am a citizen, and one who believes firmly that the final right to interpretation of the Constitution lies with the People. As such, I think we all have every right to develop our own opinion of what the Constitution means and ought to mean, independent of what the courts and legislatures say it means. I'm glad to consider arguments from either source, but also from history and reason. In that spirit, let's examine the War Powers question.

Alito is correct to say that the issue is unsettled as a matter of Constitutional law. On the other hand, as a practical matter there is something of an agreement: almost every President of the 20th century 'went to war' somewhere without a formal declaration of war from Congress. Congress retains the power to declare war, and in fact the power to stop it -- by cutting off funding for military operations. Yet it has decided to allow the President a great deal of liberty in conducting military operations.

Even the War Powers Act, passed because of concerns arising from Vietnam, only requires the President to inform Congress. So, as a practical matter, yes -- the President could invade Iran tomorrow, so long as he informed Congress that he had done so.

The Supreme Court has not declared the War Powers Act to be constitutional or unconstitutional, because it has never been asked to do so. Neither the Presidents of recent years, nor the Congress, has desired a formal ruling that might go against them. They have chosen, reasonably, to conduct themselves by informal compromise.

Biden apparently asked if the President "can just go ahead and violate international law ("that's the administration's position," said Biden)."

The answer to that question, as I understand it, is that it depends on what is meant by "international law." If it refers to anything informal, or treaties we haven't ratified but which have been ratified by lots of other countries (e.g., the ban on cluster bombs), or the fact that lots of allied countries have similar laws 'so we should have one too,' etc., then neither the President nor Congress is the least bit bound by "international law."

If it means "formal treaties which the United States has signed and ratified," then the US is bound by them unless -- I would argue, and support any President or Congressman who acted on this understanding -- that treaty violated one of the protections of the US Constitution, such as freedom of speech.

However, even then there is a lot of room. What happens if the US acts in a way it feels is consistent with the treaty, but (say) France and Russia feels is a violation? That's a question I would like to see addressed by Alito, if anyone feels inclined to ask a real question. To some degree there's a domestic analogy in the NSA spying -- if the President and the US Justice Department feel it's legal and constitutional, to what degree does that merit deference from the Supreme Court?

My sense is the answer is, "To no degree in cases of rights; to some degree in cases of power; to a great degree in cases of international opinion."

The Supreme Court is meant to be independent of the other branches. If the President, the lawyers at the Justice Department, and the majority in both houses of Congress agree on a point, the Court should take note of it. However, if it is deciding a case that influences the fundamental rights of US citizens, it ought to be willing to decide in favor of the rights of citizens even if there is near perfect unity among Congressmen and the President's men. If the Court is convinced that fundamental rights are being violated, it ought to set the matter straight in spite of every other branch of government.

In cases where rights are not an issue, but the powers of government are, the opinion of the President and the Justice Department should be taken into consideration along with the sense of Congress. However, they should be of no more weight than the opinions of state-level justice departments, in Federalism cases. If the Federal Government and Texas disagree about whether something is legal, they ought to be equals before the court.

If a case of "international law" came before the Court, the fact that the President and Congress believed they were doing right should have great weight. France or Russia's opinion should have no standing at all. The Supreme Court should consider only the question of whether the President or the Justice Department's interpretation holds water, and is consistent with the Constitution.

There is an underlying principle here, which is this: that the Constitution exists for a purpose, and that purpose is "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Fundamental rights are absolutely essential to the blessings of liberty, and protecting them must therefore be the first business of the Court.

Ensuring the success of Federalism is important to the blessings of liberty, as it allows for different people, who will have different understandings of what liberty is and how they want to live, to have the chance to live according to their lights. Balancing Federal and state power is therefore an important concern of the Court, and it should give equal deference to both sides.

Finally, the ability to decide for ourselves as a People is one of the fundamental blessings of liberty. We have won it, and we have defended it; and this government was instituted in part to protect that blessing. The Court has no business handing away any part of that liberty. It cannot give, as a gift to any foreign nation or entity, what they have neither the right nor the power to claim.

Both Right

They're Both Right, Of Course:

Althouse snarls at the Durbin-Alito go-round:

Durbin accused of Alito of seeking out ways to decide cases against the little guy and even tried to connect a decision of Alito's to the recent mining disaster. Alito defended himself in his usual way: I decide cases according to the law. That case relating to mining was about the statutory definition of "mine," and the above-ground pile of coal at issue in the case did not fit the definition.

Durbin just repeated his accusation: There's a pattern, a pattern of decisions, you know, the crushing hand of fate. (Crushing miners underground?) Durbin sounds a litttle dimwitted saying this, but his point is one made by some of the smartest people in the legal academy: I don't care what your excuse is for any given case that you might want to explain. I will just retreat to my observation, based on every case you ever decided, that there is an overall pattern of siding with the big guy.

Alito's last response to Durbin, as the time is running out, is the assertion that there are many cases where he has sided with the little guy -- not enough to alter the pattern, the pattern, you know -- and a description of one case where his decision favored a schoolboy who had been bullied because of his perceived sexual orientation -- doesn't matter because there's still the pattern, the crushing-hand-of-fate pattern...

Here's how I suggest the judge-so-accused answer the question:

"Senator, you're right. A lot of the time, I am forced to rule against the little guy. No doubt about it -- most of the time.

"But that's because I'm a judge, and the role of a judge is to apply the law, not to write the law. All I can do, if I'm an honest judge, is apply the law as it is written to the facts of the case. And, sadly, the law usually favors the 'big guy' over the little guy.

"That's a problem, Senator. But it's not a problem for judges. It's a problem for legislators. So tell me, Senator -- what do you intend to do about it?

"Because these aren't the only hearings going on right now in D.C. There's another set going on about lobbyists and influence and bribe-sucking legislators. The answer you're looking for about where this pattern comes from, that answer is going to be found in those hearings, not these."

Kids & Cancer

Kids & Cancer:

A number of you read the site of long-time Grim's Hall reader and commenter Lizard Queen, which you can find here. You probably saw her recent piece on the her cousin Marshall, who died of cancer at the age of ten.

Well, today my sister sends a link to the website of a friend of hers, who is an oncology nurse. She -- her friend, not my sister -- is taking donations to shave her head, with the monies going to St. Baldrick's. She has a modest goal of a thousand bucks, and a cute little girl with leukemia who's agreed to do the cutting.

CEN Cares

CENTCOM Cares, Part III:

USCENTCOM sends a request that I point you to their press releases for today. I'm happy to do so. Lest anyone care to think of this as 'another military attempt to propagandize etc. etc. etc.," notice that there is a press release on a death of a detainee at Abu Ghraib in addition to the good news.

Good Reading

Good Reading Today:

Via The Donovan, don't miss this article on hand-to-hand combat training for amputee veterans. It used to be that an amputation meant that the Army considered you crippled, but no longer: increasingly, even amputees are being returned to duty if they wish to go, as many do. That being the case, you have to develop a plan for keeping them combat-effective.

One of the examples in the article has actually been rendered blind. The interesting thing about the Army's move to Brazilian jiu-jitsu as its main hand-to-hand technique is that it largely eliminates the problem of blindness -- at least, once you come to the point of the grapple. Jujitsu, more generally, does -- BJJ isn't unique in this. With training and practice, you can learn to touch a person anywhere on his body, and know exactly how every other part of that body is oriented with your eyes closed. Even the most subtle shift in the location of any part is detected.

Now, if the army would just get on with developing those cybernetic limbs with built-in weapons we've been promised...

To counterbalance that story of martial virtue and courage, we have this story from the Daily Telegraph, via Yourish:

The commanding officer of a nuclear submarine berated his officers with such fury that his face became "gorged with blood", reducing subordinates to tears, a court martial heard yesterday.

Capt Robert Tarrant, 44, bullied and humiliated his officers while at sea on the submarine Talent, yet behaved impeccably in port, it was alleged.

His conduct led to him appearing before a court martial at Portsmouth naval base, where he denied five charges of ill-treating four officers and one rating under his command through repeated, unjustified, verbal abuse.

His "rants" could last for up to 20 minutes, it was alleged. He would place his face 2in away from the target of his rage and shout. One officer was physically sick, it was claimed.

Obviously this British Royal Navy officer missed his calling. He should have been a USMC Drill Instructor instead. Yelling at your subordinates until tears run down their cheeks is considered the height of accomplishment in that line of work. Indeed, it's quite broadly admired as a skill. My father -- who was an Army Drill Sergeant -- used to tell with awe the story of the time they had a Marine DI with them and one of the recruits did something especially stupid with a rifle.

These are literally matters of life and death, rifles and submarines. You can't touch your subordinates to express your displeasure, not even when they do something that could get people killed. Now, apparently, you shouldn't fuss at them either. At least, not in the Royal Navy.

Recess

Recess:

At Red State, Stephen Den Beste is wondering if the Democrats in the Senate are playing a gambit:

[M]aybe the Democrats are using obstruction and delay of SCOTUS nominees as a way of goading Bush into using recess appointments to fill SCOTUS positions. If they can do that, it's a qualified victory for the Democrats. For one thing, it would make Bush look like he isn't willing to fight it out in the Senate despite his party having a majority there.

For another thing, it holds out hope that if the Democrats can move back into the majority in the Senate, that they would have even more leverage over the kinds of candidates who could be approved. I don't think it would break the hearts of Senate Democrats if one or more seats in the Supreme Court actually remained vacant (or were filled by recess appointments) going into the 2008 election cycle because then they could make that a major issue in the campaign.

I certainly agree that Bush is in danger on the recess appointment issue. He has used it recently in cases where it is apt to draw fire from left, right, and center alike. The left is opposed because they oppose Bush generally, and because Myers a crony rather than a qualified appointee; the right, because Myers isn't a qualified candidate to deal with either immigration or customs issues, which are both serious national security concerns; the center, because Myers represents nepotism and political favoritism over merit, and promotion by merit is a classic American value. It very well may be that obstructionism, not only on SCOTUS but on any candidate, could lead to a campaign issue of the type that SDB envisions.

On the other hand, the problem is that obstructing everyone takes the bite out of the tactic. As SDB himself says:

A lot of the rhetoric you saw about Roberts, and now are seeing about Alito, isn't really about them. Turning women back into second class citizens, rolling back civil rights for non-whites, eroding our right of privacy, strengthening the imperial presidency, instituting a Christian theocracy in the US, etc. etc. is really about the Republicans -- or how the Democrats would like everyone to view the Republicans.

That's right, but it's also transparent. The script against Alito and Roberts sounds so similar because there really isn't anything particularly negative to say about either candidate, yet the Democrats in the Senate feel obligated to oppose them vigorously for reasons of fundraising. If there were real areas of concern, we would be hearing about those instead. In the absence of a real issue, you get "fill in the candidate's name here" boilerplate rhetoric that lacks any real power because it is obviously not serious. Boilerplate sounds and feels like boilerplate.

Thus, the other side of the gambit SDB posits is a real risk of breaking down the credibility of Senate Democrats with middle Americans. SDB says they have nothing to lose by playing this out, but in fact they have. Credibility is the currency of the modern world, as The Defense Science Board pointed out in its advice on "strategic communications":

Power flows to credible messengers. Asymmetrical credibility matters. What's around information is critical. Reputations count. Brands are important. Editors, filters, and cue givers are influential. Fifty years ago political struggles were about the ability to control and transmit scarce information. Today, political struggles are about the creation and destruction of credibility.

If the Democrats in the Senate brand themselves as "knee-jerk opponents of anything the President does," they could actually end up in a situation in which the President could recess-appoint even SCOTUS nominees without suffering at the polls. The danger of boilerplate opposition is that it undermines faith in the honesty of the opposition. Middle America could end up saying, "Well, you weren't playing fair anyway; what did you think the President would do? Just accept never having an appointment ratified?"

The danger of opposing every nominee with this kind of radical rhetoric is that you end up not being able to oppose the real bad nominees. There's no credibility left for opponents to use, and thus no power. Indeed, this is true even on occasions like Myers' nomination, when "the opposition" includes a number of people who wouldn't normally be in the opposition. The public becomes used to ignoring "the opposition," and so ignores whoever happens to be in opposition on any given occasion. The statements of the opposition are interpreted as the usual background noise, even on occasions when the speakers aren't the usual opposition and the statements aren't the usual boilerplate.

The result would be a critical breakdown of the "advice and consent" function of the Senate, and with it a serious weakening of the Constitutional separation of powers. It appears we are already at the point that recess appointments for director-level assignments can be used without political negatives by the President, even when there are serious qualms about the candidate being proposed. It is not impossible that even the SCOTUS could come to fall into that category. It is not impossible that even genuine bad actors could end up being approved in cakewalks, or by recess appointment.

I think the gambit is a much riskier undertaking than SDB believes. If you worry about the creation of an imperial presidency, you ought to be thinking about how to improve the credibility of the Senate. We can begin by telling our Senators to shut up unless they really mean it.

The End

The End:

Mark Steyn rang the bell, and there have been some interesting reactions. Lileks is one, and I think he hits his high note in criticizing what we used to call the counterculture, but which has become so important that we now call it by many other names: multiculturalism, trans-nationalism, and the like. Lileks joins Steyn in being astonished that these folks won't see, or talk about, the danger of radical Islam to the things they care most about:

If the Islamists were Christians, they’d be motivated. That threat they understand, because that threat sounds like Mom and Dad...

Doc Russia responded too, wondering if religion is an evolutionary requirement for long-term cultural survival. He posits that the demography will work out so that the American "Red States" overwhelm the "Blue States" by virtue of breeding -- which only may be true, depending on immigration policy. The problem Europe has is that it has been maintaining its population levels by importing people who, two and three generations in, remain alien and hostile to the base culture. Our immigration policy is wiser, which is not to say that it is wise; it just fares well by comparision. Still, it could be improved.

What I don't forsee is the giant culture clash that Steyn and Doc both wonder about. I don't think we'll ever have a single religion that overwhelms the world; even in the height of European colonization, for example, India remained mostly Hindu and Muslim rather than Christian. I do think, though, that Steyn is right to suggest that Europe is going to become far more Muslim in its outlook and law:

This ought to be the left's issue. I'm a conservative--I'm not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I'm with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? Who, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West's collapsed birthrates? Even if one were to take the optimistic view that Europe will be able to resist the creeping imposition of Sharia currently engulfing Nigeria, it remains the case that the Muslim world is not notable for setting much store by "a woman's right to choose," in any sense.

At Doc's place, I commented along a similar line. This stuff is a problem for somebody, but I don't see why it should be a problem for Red State America.

Actually, in a lot of the world, I think we have more in common with Muslims than we do with anyone else. The Muslims of Xinjiang province, China, for example -- they're about as happy with Communist China as we are. I read Malaysian and Philippine newspapers regularly as part of my job (and so can you, if you want; Bernama, the state news wire, is on Google News, as is the Star of Malaysia and several others). I can't help but recognize a lot of North Georgia in the whole attitude expressed by a lot of Muslim provinces: "We're who we are, and we don't want your meddling in the way we do things, so leave us alone if you know what's good for you."

As far as I can tell, that applies to al Qaeda as much as to the US or their own central governments. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front, for example, is happy to help hunt down bandits and Qaeda-linked groups in Mindanao province, Philippines, but will also fight the government army if it comes meddling. The rebels in Aceh, Indonesia, don't have any use for the Indonesian government or the US -- but they also don't like Qaeda-style meddlers, who want to shut down Achenese traditional culture and replace it with Taliban-style non-culture. Southern Thailand is about the same.

There's not a lot that a fellow raised in the American South is surprised to see. They're religious, and they have funny ideas about their religion, but they mostly just want to be left alone. They don't like meddlers, and mostly nobody suffers from their violence but them and people who stick their noses in their business.

It seems to me we could make allies out of people like that, under the right circumstances. After all, we don't give a damn what goes on in Aceh or Mindanao, as long as it doesn't involve people practicing to blow up US skyscrapers or Naval ships. While the rest of the world plots how to better meddle everywhere else -- China, Europe, our own leftists, NGOs, central governments everywhere -- we could get a long way on down the road we want to be on just by supporting these locals.

Anyone who grew up in the South can probably see what I mean. There is always the church down the road whose members think they're more moral than everyone else -- even the members of the other church down the road, which two years ago was the same church until they split up in a heated dispute over the interpretation of a line from one of the letters of St. Paul. These guys get hot over their particular understanding of the faith, and they will try to enact parts of it into law as the occasion arises. They have every right to do so; it's their country too.

If you can give them some room to do their thing -- say, a town council, or sometimes even just the church's managing board -- they'll confine themselves to that, and generally leave you alone. They don't really like you or approve of you, but they also don't really care about you. As long as you're not trying to change their town or their church, you can do what you like in your town over the hill. In fact, they kind of like that you do things differently -- it gives them something else to feel superior about.

River Tam was right. It's meddling that gets you in trouble. The best thing, if you're going to be a global leader, is to find a way to support people in doing what they want to do anyway. This is true whether you're trying to be a global leader in law and military power, or a global leader in the selling of computers or fashion products.

The great bulk of humanity, which would prefer to avoid politics anyway, will be entirely satisfied by this arrangement. That simplifies the problem: all that remains is to deal with that fraction of humanity that isn't happy unless they're telling everyone, everywhere what to do. That impulse lies behind not only al Qaeda's push for a universal Caliphate but also the United Nations' hand-waving about "unilateralism" and the various NGOs' constant attempts to bully nations into adopting vegetarianism, or banning guns, or whatever.

Anyone who comes selling a universal answer to a human problem is a danger. Not all of them will be terrorists, nor even violent at all, but all of them are selling something you'd be foolish to buy.

What does that mean for Europe? Nothing. Steyn is right; they're done. It does mean something for America, though, which is that we are likely to remain the leading global power for the forseeable future. We are the natural enemy of the "tell everyone what to do" crowd, whether they are Qaeda terrorists or NGO scolds who want to criminalize "hate speech" or fox hunting. But we're the natural ally of anyone, anywhere, who wants to do his own thing.

Indeed, it's the answer to Steyn and Lilek's question: people of the "tell everyone what to do" type see the US as the principle enemy of their natural impulses. With al Qaeda they differ only on the goals, and hopefully the acceptable methods. With the US, they differ on first principles. Al Qaeda's a competitor. We're the enemy.

Myers Again

Julie Myers Shuffles In:

Sovay, who knows how irritated I was with the Julie Myers nomination some months ago, mentioned tonight that Bush had appointed her by recess appointment. I realize the administration has a lot on its plate, and probably is only too happy to avoid any fights it can. Also, it's obviously true that the opposition in Congress is given over to both excessive rhetoric, and knee-jerk refusal of anything Bush asks. That has to be exhausting.

Still, the 'advice and consent' part of the Constitution is not meant to be an empty letter. Recess appointments made a lot of sense in 1787, when the Senate might be out of session for months in order for members to travel home and back again. These days, there isn't anywhere in the world that's more than about 24 hours away from Washington, if you're rich and powerful enough to command a private plane -- for example, if you're a Senator.

Why, then, make use of the provision? ThisNation provides a good writeup on the process, and also the remedies available to the Congress if a President seems to simply prefer to avoid debates on his nominees.

While this provision is fairly straightforward, it has produced several differences of opinion between the Congress and the President. How many days must the Senate fail to convene for it to lapse into a recess? Does a position have to become vacant during a Senate recess for a valid recess appointment to be made or does the position simply have to remain vacant during the recess? Instead of allowing the Court to settle these disputes, the Congress and the President have generally agreed to work together to solve them. This makes sense because neither side has a particularly clear interest in forcing the issue. If the President tries to force recess appointments on the Senate, thus circumventing the normal "advice and consent" process, the Congress can refuse to appropriate funds to pay the salaries of the appointees. The Senate might also take the extraordinary measure of blocking future nominations to "teach the President a lesson." Furthermore, if the Senate took a hostile approach to all recess appointments, it would essentially have to remain in session all of the time--an inefficient solution, to say the least.

Currently, the President and Congress generally adhere to a procedure for recess appointments that minimizes the potential for interbranch conflict. If the President wishes to make a recess appointment or appointments, he generally sends a list of persons to be appointed to members of the Senate shortly before or during a recess. If Senators express serious concerns about a nominee, the President will likely hold off on the appointment until the Senate is back in session and the normal procedure can be followed.

"Currently" obviously should be read "until recently." Myers has been subject to quite a lot of concern.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said on Friday that Ms. Myers "really was not qualified for the position." Mr. Lieberman said Congress had intended the position to be held by someone with at least five years' management experience.

"In my opinion, she lacks the management background," he said. "And one of her key responsibilities is to enforce immigration laws, and she has virtually no immigration experience."

Daniel K. Akaka, Democrat of Hawaii, echoed those concerns. "The head of I.C.E. should be an individual who has demonstrated extensive executive-level leadership and the ability to manage a budget through reorganizations and budget cycles," Mr. Akaka said. "Ms. Myers has not demonstrated this ability."

Lieberman, at least, isn't one of the knee-jerk enemies of the President, although he does vote with his party more often than not. The Times, which is one of the knee-jerks, digs up a couple of Republicans to say bad things about her, and also a National Review editorial. They didn't quote me, but I had one or two or three things to say about it also. So did Froggy, who served as a Customs Special Agent -- that is, one of the people whom Myers will now be commanding. This isn't a case of the political opposition stonewalling out of spite. It's a case of genuine, serious concerns raised by allies as well as opponents of the President -- and the President choosing to simply ignore those concerns, and those allies.

No wonder they want to avoid a debate. Here is the administration's defense against charges that Myers is an unqualified nepotism appointment:

"She's tried criminal cases and worked with customs agents on everything from drug smuggling to money laundering," Ms. Healy said. "So to say that Julie does not have the prerequisite experience to lead I.C.E., it simply ignores her extensive background working with law enforcement, immigration and customs."

Here's a hint, in case you folks at the White House ever want to do this kind of thing again and there's not a handy recess. If you want to convince the public that your appointee is a highly qualified expert and not someone who is simply being promoted due to her political connections, don't have your spokeswoman call her by her first name. It says volumes that she's so close to the White House that they, reflexively and thoughtlessly, refer to her in the most familiar way.

Hard

A Hard-Hitting Town Hall:

Greyhawk has some more from the Murtha-Moran town hall meeting.

Hello Mr Moran I'm General Wagner. I'm here tonight, I decided to come at 7:30. And I'll tell you the reason I came at 7:30 is because I want an answer to a letter, to a friend of ours. She wrote this letter to Mr. Murtha, where she pointed out to him that he was causing the insurgents to bring more activity against the soldiers in Iraq, just as the traitors did during the Vietnam war. I was fighting in 1972 with the Vietnamese when people were cavorting with the North Vietnamese.

Her son was killed today.

I got the message at 7:30 tonight, and I'll tell you, I wasn't going to waste my time coming here because I knew the trash that was going to be put out. But I'm really mad. Because what is being put out is being used to incite the insurgents to continue this war, just as it incited General Giap to consider the Vietnam war.

He hasn't answered her letter, Mr Moran, but I want to read a paragraph to you...

And so he did. Moran's response, far from inspiring, was as off-balance as you would expect from someone who just got hit upside of the head with a sledgehammer.

Neverthess, he had to respond. The lady, may her grief be eased by time, has absolute moral authority to demand an answer.

Marine SOCOM

Marines @ SOCOM:

BlackFive has a post which started as speculation as to whether the new USMC SOCOM units would have a different name (e.g., "Marine Raiders" instead of just "Marines"). It's become something a bit more than that in the comments. Doc Russia and I have already engaged it, as has JarHeadDad. Some of the rest of you might like to jump in.

Idiots

Oh, This Is Going To Work Out Great:

One never knows if Drudge has been drinking before noon again (not that there's anything wrong with that), but if this report is accurate, it shows that the Democratic national party is cheerfully unwilling to change course in the face of the rocks in front of it, in spite of the experience of having hit those same rocks just recently.

Senate Democrats intend to zero in on Alito’s alleged enthusiastic membership to an organization, they will charge, that was sexist and racist!

Democrats hope to tie Alito to Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP). Alito will testify that he joined CAP as a protest over Princeton policy that would not allow the ROTC on campus.

THE DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a Summer 1982 article from CAP’s PROSPECT magazine titled “Smearing The Class Of 1957” that key Senate Democrats believe could thwart his nomination! In the article written by then PROSPECT editor Frederick Foote, Foote writes: “The facts show that, for whatever reasons, whites today are more intelligent than blacks.” Senate Democrats expect excerpts like this written by other Princeton graduates will be enough to torpedo the Alito nomination.

So, let's play this out.

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN: Mr. Alito, you belonged to an organization that held that whites are more intelligent than blacks.

ALITO: I did?

DC: Yes. Your old organization, the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, ran an article to that effect in its publication.

A: Really? Huh. I don't remember reading that.

DC: It ran in the Summer 1982 edition of their journal.

A: Could be. I don't remember reading it, though. I had other concerns in 1982. In fact, the reason I joined CAP was one of them: Princeton was trying to keep ROTC off campus.

DC: Don't change the subject. What about these racist writings?

A: Don't remember seeing them. But what I do remember is that Princeton was slandering our military, and doing its best to deny the military access to the campus. Our national defense depends on quality recruits, and...

See where this is going? Right. The same place we've been the last few elections. Republicans are running on the need to provide for a national defense in the face of violent enemies; Democrats are running on identity politics concerns that appeal, by definition, to narrow interests. The Democrats hope to build enough such interests together to make a coalition majority, but so far it just hasn't worked. Coalitions are hard to keep together: their interests are often at variance with each other.

The Republican message, by contrast, is a national unity message. The ROTC story speaks to every American. Not every American will be concerned at all with the question of whether, in 1982, this magazine published a story that could be construed as racist (indeed, I can't muster even idle interest myself); but every American has an opinion as to whether the military is a fine and noble organization, or a base one that should be banned from campuses.

Sadly, we do have a sizable minority of citizens who will hold the latter. That being said, the majority will and has stood with the former proposition.

Bush wins. Alito confirmed. Somewhat more than half of US citizens look in wonder upon the Democrats, who seem consistently willing to take positions that can be interpreted as anti-military. That's just not a competitive message among the swing voters who occupy middle America. Haven't ya'll watched any Superbowls lately?

Well, you'll have another chance soon. I'll bet there will be a few references to the military, designed by the best minds in corporate America to appeal to the broad mass of citizens. They know the right way to talk about the military in order to maximize profit.

Pay attention this time. You might learn something.

Froggy

Froggy Reviews "Navy SEALS":

It's worth having a look at his review of the movie about his service. My favorite part:

The interesting thing about watching the movie again this time was that the “team” commander (Biehn) contacted an American journalist with connections in Lebanon to gain information about the terrorists and the location of the missing missiles. In 2006 America, this is something of a quaint proposition.

Yeah.

ML

The Passing of a True Hero:

The Castle draws our attention, and rightly, to the story of Hugh Thompson, who has died at the age of sixty-two. Thompson was the helicopter pilot at My Lai, who on that terrible day put his ship in between US soldiers and fleeing noncombatants, and transported those he could to safety.

Correction

How A Blogger Makes A Correction:

For that matter, how a man does:

If there was another house just 20 meters away, too, I think we do have to look at whether the force used was proportional, under the old Jus in Bello doctrine we all had to learn during precommissioning training.

Much as I'd like to bring it to the bastards, I think an analysis in light of jus in bello and proportionality is entirely fair and should be constantly renewed.

And now, having written a post that sucks harder than an incontinent street whore with a plane to catch, I have to go commit sepuku in order to preserve my family's good name.

I'll leave it up for the record, but the post "A good strike" is hereby retracted. My heart goes out to the victims and their loved ones.

Well, except for their loved ones are moojies. Then to Hell with 'em.

True to the facts, true to himself. And in real time.

Blogger Sued

Hunting Bloggers:

This should be fun.

Lawyers who filed the suit say that Web logs and other new media should be held to the same standards of accountability as traditional media and journalism. Brodbkorb, a former operative for the Minnesota Republican Party, pledges to protect his source and to keep his website going.

The suit alleges that Brodkorb, citing an unnamed source, defamed the St. Paul-based public relations firm New School Communications when he posted a claim that New School had become publicly critical of the congressional campaign of Coleen Rowley only after Rowley rejected a contract with the firm.

Despite being told that New School does not perform political campaign work, Brodkorb, the suit says, continues to make the claim, even though his source "may, in fact, be a fabrication."

If you do some follow-up reading on the blog in question, you'll see that it appears that the claims he made have support from several traditional journalistic outlets. That's going to be a problem for the PR firm when they get to court. They could still win, if the get a sympathetic jury (everyone loves it when corporations attempt to sue the little guy, right?), but it makes it less likely.

What is more likely is that they'll lose their case, while getting enough media attention drawn to the blogger's claims as to convince the world that those claims are true. Thus, at best they might win damages the blogger probably can't pay (I'm sure we all have $50,000 in liquid assets sitting around, right?) while humiliating their client; more likely, they'll lose while humiliating their client.

But those would have been the options even if the likelihood of winning were reversed: even if victory were certain, the media attention from the case would train the spotlight on the blogger's charges. That suggests that the PR firm was not acting out of a desire to win the lawsuit, but a desire to use the suit to silence the blogger without a trial. The firm doubtless thought the blogger would fold, being unable to afford to mount a legal defense. This kind of rank intimidation is nothing but an attempt to use the simple weight of money to push people around.

Jeff Blanco suggests that the blogger has done all he ought to do by providing a comments section in which the PR firm can dispute his claim, and there is something to that argument. Just like here at Grim's Hall, commenters can post evidence and argument to prove that the blogger is wrong. I've been proven wrong just now and again by readers, at least two of whom -- Eric Blair and Captain Leggett -- are now co-bloggers here.

If I say something you think is flat wrong, or untrue, you're invited to prove it in real time and with the full attention of the readership. The ability to do that is something that makes blogs different from newspapers, say, where the best you can hope for is a correction, published someday, without fanfare, and hidden somewhere inside the paper instead of on the front page.

I don't know if that satisfies the legalities for libel, it surely must go a long way. I've always heard that truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel, so "I have every reason to think this is true, and invite any evidence to the contrary to be published right here" isn't too far away from simple truth.

Indeed, it's the closest thing to the scientific method that "journalism" (for this purpose, to include bloggers) has ever developed. The scientific method is of course the best way humanity has found to determine where uncertain truths can be found. As long as the method is administered honestly, commenters are allowed to post evidence and argument, and the blogger will admit if he is proven wrong on a point, I think the system must be judged as good as any newspaper correction from a legal standpoint. It is certainly better, from a practical one.

Pranks

Pranks:

Don't miss this story from the Economist (of all places). The writing is as stiff as you'd imagine, but it's worth clicking on it just for the picture.

None of you will be surprised to learn that I have had a hand in a prank or two myself. I take great pleasure in that kind of humor, which performs the absolutely necessary function of upending the social order so everyone can laugh at it for a moment. Not that I'm an enemy of social order -- just the opposite. Still, like everything, you have to know how to laugh at it. A certain amount of order frees us to live without fear. Too much becomes a prison, or a justification for evil and oppression. Laughter is often the thing that lets you break it off at just the right point.

On one occasion a companion and I "liberated" a desk from the school, and spirited it away for six months or so until the day before Spring Break. Then -- having painted the desk with the famous "Kilroy was Here!" symbol along with our class designation -- we returned it to the campus by hanging it thirty feet in the air from the branches of a giant tree. Getting it back down again proved a logistical challenge for the administration.

What we had not known, but what made the prank perfect, was that the park in which the tree was located was to enjoy its 100th anniversary that next morning. It had been designed by Frederick Law Olmstead. The occasion was one in which every dignitary in Atlanta came by to see it, up to and including the mayor himself. The challenge of removing the offending desk was too difficult to be accomplished before the ceremony, so...

That was a pretty good school prank, though it doesn't compare to the story from over the holidays about the Fire Department ghosts. Surely some of the rest of you have good stories as well.

SA Move

Southern Appeal:

The infamous blawg "Southern Appeal," often cited here at Grim's Hall, has a new address. Please make a note if you are interested.