August 20, 2005
Making life in Madison look glamorous.
With Jetson stools, Chihuly light fixtures, and a faint hint of the chick-lit conversation. Bonus: picture of me surrounded by booze at the link.
The shoot-to-kill policy.
The London police are keeping their shoot-to-kill policy, with "one or two small changes."
I'd like to hear more about the surveillance that led them to focus on Menezes. Surely, it's not enough to go ahead and make mistakes and just apologize afterwards. Presumably, the "one or two small changes" are designed to avoid further mistakes, but it seems to me that they should say a little more to inspire confidence that they are doing the right thing. But terrorists need to get the message that this one mistake isn't going to make life easier for them.
"The methods that were used appeared to be the least worst option (for tackling suicide bombers) ... we still have the procedure in use," [London police chief Ian Blair] told the Daily Mail....
Operation Kratos outlines what level of force officers can use to thwart what police call a "deadly and determined attack".
Public awareness of the policy only emerged after police shot Jean Charles de Menezes eight times at point blank range as he boarded an underground train on July 22, the day after four bombs failed to explode on the London's transport system....
At the time of the incident Blair said de Menezes was under surveillance as part of a manhunt to catch the four fleeing bombers and had not respond to police challenges. The next day Police admitted they had shot the wrong man and apologised.
I'd like to hear more about the surveillance that led them to focus on Menezes. Surely, it's not enough to go ahead and make mistakes and just apologize afterwards. Presumably, the "one or two small changes" are designed to avoid further mistakes, but it seems to me that they should say a little more to inspire confidence that they are doing the right thing. But terrorists need to get the message that this one mistake isn't going to make life easier for them.
"A woman named Ann Althouse" responds.
Did I make trouble for Glenn with this Instapundit post? Read this, from Think Progress.
"Think Progress" — if you want to call yourself that, don't make the "think" part seem like a joke.
(Why does it irk me that TP referred to me as "a woman named Ann Althouse"? A whiff of sexism there? Or is it like "A Man Called Horse" — kind of noble? I'll put it on my list of possible titles for the memoir I'm writing about my life as a blogger. A key chapter will be on the big difference between the way bloggers to my left and bloggers to my right treat me.)
In the comments at the Think Progress link:
Frankly, I haven't traced down the exact role of Jamie Gorelick as one of the government lawyers who played a role in restraining the sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement. I didn't fact-check the assertions in the editorial I cited. Think Progress writes:
This isn't a vendetta about Gorelick. The only other mention of her on this blog is in this post linking to my own Instapundit post (to make a place for comments). I'm genuinely concerned about the Able Danger story. But now that Think Progress is drawing attention to Gorelick, I can see that her presence on the 9/11 Commission impairs the credibility of its report. That's terribly important!
Isn't it?
If it's not, explain why, respectfully and rationally, and I'll discuss it with you. Don't just go into that ridiculous hysterical mode. My recent experience with lefty blogs that misread, freak out, and hurl insults makes me unwilling to engage with people who don't show a commitment to civil discourse. I'm going to save time by assuming it's not going to go anywhere.
UPDATE: A shorter Atrios... Wait! You can't get any shorter. I mean: Thanks to Atrios for providing an instant example of what I'm saying about lefty blogs. Sigh.
IN THE COMMENTS: Lots of hardcore types making fools of themselves and some good observations too. I just wanted to highlight this statement of mine about fact-checking:
I'm supposed to do independent research before I blog about anything that contains factual statements? That's a weird requirement, yet Atrios and Think Progress are acting all triumphant as if this post admits to some big failing! Really, is it their contention that you can't link to an opinion piece without checking any facts it includes? Do they follow that rule? I think not!
"Think Progress" — if you want to call yourself that, don't make the "think" part seem like a joke.
(Why does it irk me that TP referred to me as "a woman named Ann Althouse"? A whiff of sexism there? Or is it like "A Man Called Horse" — kind of noble? I'll put it on my list of possible titles for the memoir I'm writing about my life as a blogger. A key chapter will be on the big difference between the way bloggers to my left and bloggers to my right treat me.)
In the comments at the Think Progress link:
Trying to insist Reynolds is vicariously part of this “smear” campaign you charge is being perpetrated, through Althouse’s bringing notice to an editorial in Investors Business Daily and calling it harsh, while guestblogging at Instapundit, is an absolute textbook example of what people mean when they use the term “moonbat.”Indeed.
Frankly, I haven't traced down the exact role of Jamie Gorelick as one of the government lawyers who played a role in restraining the sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement. I didn't fact-check the assertions in the editorial I cited. Think Progress writes:
Shaffer’s story [re Able Danger], if it’s true, involved communications between the Department of Defense and the FBI. Gorelick’s 1995 memo was only about communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department.I didn't fact-check that either. I'd love to read a very substantial, unbiased analysis about the role of government lawyers in stopping the flow of information about the 9/11 plot. But isn't that what the report of the 9/11 Commission should, in part, have been? I don't want to see Gorelick (or anyone else) smeared, but by serving on the Commission, she contributed to the feeling many of us have now that we were deprived of the whole story.
This isn't a vendetta about Gorelick. The only other mention of her on this blog is in this post linking to my own Instapundit post (to make a place for comments). I'm genuinely concerned about the Able Danger story. But now that Think Progress is drawing attention to Gorelick, I can see that her presence on the 9/11 Commission impairs the credibility of its report. That's terribly important!
Isn't it?
If it's not, explain why, respectfully and rationally, and I'll discuss it with you. Don't just go into that ridiculous hysterical mode. My recent experience with lefty blogs that misread, freak out, and hurl insults makes me unwilling to engage with people who don't show a commitment to civil discourse. I'm going to save time by assuming it's not going to go anywhere.
UPDATE: A shorter Atrios... Wait! You can't get any shorter. I mean: Thanks to Atrios for providing an instant example of what I'm saying about lefty blogs. Sigh.
IN THE COMMENTS: Lots of hardcore types making fools of themselves and some good observations too. I just wanted to highlight this statement of mine about fact-checking:
Bloggers link to articles and opinion pieces all the time without independently checking the facts in them. If someone just sent me a friendly email when there's an error, I'd check into it and make a correction. There's nothing to flake out about. You're just being hardcore partisans looking for ways to attack all the terribly many people you view as your enemies.
I'm supposed to do independent research before I blog about anything that contains factual statements? That's a weird requirement, yet Atrios and Think Progress are acting all triumphant as if this post admits to some big failing! Really, is it their contention that you can't link to an opinion piece without checking any facts it includes? Do they follow that rule? I think not!
The Amsterdam Notebooks—Page 20.
It's Day 20 of this 35 day project. (The set thus far.) Today, I visit the Van Loon Museum:
If "Mrs. Rittenhouse" means nothing to you: go here. More here.
If "Mrs. Rittenhouse" means nothing to you: go here. More here.
August 19, 2005
1000.
That's the number of miles I just drove. Beginning with the sunrise in the rearview mirror, I ended driving into the early part of the sunset, which made the mountains look like frosted glass.
A big difference between driving east and west from Wisconsin: tolls! It's tolls all the way after Wisconsin, going east. Not a single toll going west.
A big difference between driving east and west from Wisconsin: tolls! It's tolls all the way after Wisconsin, going east. Not a single toll going west.
Roberts reined in Reagan.
Here's what looks like good news about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.
There's a limit to what we can infer from old papers, and we don't know how well the NYT picked through the documents and interpreted what it found, so I'm not going to become giddy with high hopes about Roberts. Still, I can't help but think that he will dramatically improve the quality of Supreme Court opinions. We shall see.
Newly released documents from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library reflect Mr. Roberts's repeated efforts to protect Mr. Reagan and his aides and supporters from some of their own most zealous instincts. He warned against excessive public presidential support for the Nicaraguan contra rebels. In 1984, he wrote a somewhat defensive note to his boss, the White House counsel Fred F. Fielding, arguing that it was all right for a presidential letter on minority business enterprise to speak of "encouraging government procurements," adding, "I do not think 'encourage' connotes anything in the nature of a set-aside or quota."He sounds like a tough and clear thinking character. We need someone with good instincts and the nerve and the intelligence to see the excesses in others and to stand up to them — in crisply apt English.
In 1984, Mr. Roberts objected to the proposed draft of a presidential campaign speech that would have had Mr. Reagan refer to the United States as "the greatest nation God ever created." Mr. Roberts wrote, "According to Genesis, God creates things like heavens and the earth and the birds and the fishes, but not nations." He added that the phrase was "a likely candidate for the 'Reaganism of the Week.'"
There's a limit to what we can infer from old papers, and we don't know how well the NYT picked through the documents and interpreted what it found, so I'm not going to become giddy with high hopes about Roberts. Still, I can't help but think that he will dramatically improve the quality of Supreme Court opinions. We shall see.
The ways of the spambot.
Analyzed.
UPDATE: Blogger now lets you require commenters to type in those non-font letters to prove your a human being. Just go to settings, the commenting. Sorry to bother everyone with that extra step, but given a weapon against spambots, I'm going to use it.
ANOTHER UPDATE: RLC writes a post saying that his mother just died and the seventh comment is from a spambot. ("Hi, I was just blog surfing and found you and i like your blog! If you like, go see my indianapolis escort related site. You may still find something of interest.") For shame!
UPDATE: Blogger now lets you require commenters to type in those non-font letters to prove your a human being. Just go to settings, the commenting. Sorry to bother everyone with that extra step, but given a weapon against spambots, I'm going to use it.
ANOTHER UPDATE: RLC writes a post saying that his mother just died and the seventh comment is from a spambot. ("Hi, I was just blog surfing and found you and i like your blog! If you like, go see my indianapolis escort related site. You may still find something of interest.") For shame!
The Amsterdam Notebooks—Page 19.
It's Day 19 of this 35 day project. (The set thus far.)
Today's page puts side-by-side two drawings that observe couples in restaurants. One is a general observation about the way men and women relate to each other in restaurant conversation, which, traveling alone, I overheard constantly. The second depicts a particular woman, who deviated from the norm and gave her partner hell about every little thing.
I was feeling lonely on this trip, but I often thought about whether I would be happier if I were this particular woman or that, sitting with that man, experiencing that conversation. The answer was usually no. I put a lot of effort into trying to reshape my loneliness into a profound, spiritual solitude. That worked some of the time, and the drawings are the direct record of this effort.
Throughout this trip I was always aware of the vacations that other people had that were denied to me. They could pursue fun and relaxation, but had the threat of interpersonal friction. I was on an art pilgrimmage, far from any of these things.
Today's page puts side-by-side two drawings that observe couples in restaurants. One is a general observation about the way men and women relate to each other in restaurant conversation, which, traveling alone, I overheard constantly. The second depicts a particular woman, who deviated from the norm and gave her partner hell about every little thing.
I was feeling lonely on this trip, but I often thought about whether I would be happier if I were this particular woman or that, sitting with that man, experiencing that conversation. The answer was usually no. I put a lot of effort into trying to reshape my loneliness into a profound, spiritual solitude. That worked some of the time, and the drawings are the direct record of this effort.
Throughout this trip I was always aware of the vacations that other people had that were denied to me. They could pursue fun and relaxation, but had the threat of interpersonal friction. I was on an art pilgrimmage, far from any of these things.
August 18, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
