[Other News: Some great sentiments here, including on the sad state of McCain's credibility and overall Republican hypocrisy. The Perjury 9 bit is amusing too. As to Cheney -- oh please. The cheap shots are fun, if a bit lamely predictable, but almost make him into a goofball. The Darth Vader image surely helps the cause better than ridiculing him for a hunting accident involving pellets. (Oh well ... see here ... so he is a reckless hunter. Yeah, that is shocking and somehow unique to people we don't like politically.) As to the ass protecting spin, this is as shocking as Libby saying that administration officials authorize leaks of classified info.]
The trek thru the snow (two feet? you would never know it ... NYC has remarkable snow removal) was worth it: good non-nutritious brunch and nutritious NYT articles. One was a follow-up on the wiretap issue, which referenced a troubling policy of targeting whistleblowers and others who happened to come upon information said individuals brought to light. For instance, governmental official Lawrence A. Franklin was convicted of passing classified intel -- rightly or wrongly -- but now they are going after the group to whom he (orally) passed material. As referenced by the defendants' brief, this has troubling First Amendment connotations -- even Fitzgerald was leery of charging Libby on such grounds.
Two discussed foreign countries ... btw that Haitian election came at an ill-timed spot … a fifteen year statute of limitations law for murders in Japan (of late nineteenth century origins) and the new "coca yes, cocaine no" policy in Bolivia under its new leadership. The article in passing notes how the U.S. -- without much evidence to back it up -- tried to bad mouth the new coca friendly leader, which only helped the guy in the long run.
A theme of late in Latin America has been the election of left leaning leaders that voice a popularly supported sentiment that El Norte leaves a bit to be desired. As to coca, it is a traditionally used low grade narcotic that a sane drug policy would recognize is not a danger on its own. But, who says the U.S. has a sane drug policy -- I especially love these anti-marijuana ads (how about meth, a growing danger?) that try to show teen users as moronic followers (one portrays someone using pot on a dare and then trying to outrun a junk yard dog ... sounds like a country/western song). As to drugs, the NYT had a piece on smoking and members of Congress with a picture of a witness lighting up. I again reference clips of Scalia's testimony to the Judiciary Committee in 1986 ... with him smoking a pipe.
OTOH, we have the anti-liberal editorials. I see Brooks wants another Gang of 14 to supply a weak-willed compromise (probably akin to the watered down Patriot Act reforms the dissident Republicans agreed to) solution to the wiretap and other issues. Well, DeWine seems willing to come up to the plate.
Stanley Fish also had a piece on "liberalism," the scare quotes are warranted given his cheap shot approach, which such arguments like liberals do not really care what you say, all things being equal. In real life, liberals do care, but do not support censorship (some do). So, "What is important is not the content of what is expressed but that it be expressed. What is important is that you let it all hang out," does not quite work, does it? Ditto his libel on liberalism's view of religion: "The first tenet of the liberal religion is that everything (at least in the realm of expression and ideas) is to be permitted, but nothing is to be taken seriously." Thus, you can "respect" people without it really meaning anything. In real life, "respect" means a bit more than that to liberals, but stereotypes are fun, aren't they?
The piece begins with this sentiment from the Danish paper that started the whole cartoon debate: "To me," he said, this "spoke to the problem of self-censorship and freedom of speech." The publication of the cartoons, he insisted, "was not directed at Muslims" at all. Rather, the intention was "to put the issue of self-censorship on the agenda and have a debate about it." But, it isn't that simple, actually. The paper was wary of publishing anti-Christian material. So, it turned out, a bit of a cultural double standard. This isn't necessary a "liberal" problem though. Anyway, if a small paper cannot examine this issue -- even if it is insulting to Muslims -- it is unclear what can be allowed in a "free" press.
And, in the process, one side or the other, might miss the point or not respect certain groups ... but this is not somehow a "liberal" or "conservative" problem ... it tends to be a universal one. In the real world, not strawman liberalism, things are a bit more complex. Anyway, Fish "is a law professor at Florida International University." I know of the guy ... he likes to be controversial and pops up from time to time in the "speech wars." But, darn if that is not as an obscure sounding place as Ward Churchill's environs appear to be.