They're Ringin' the Flag Down

Does this make any sense at all?

Iraq’s U.S.-picked leaders approved a new flag for the country, making a dramatic change that dumps the Saddam Hussein-era colors and slogan “God is great” and introduces symbols of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, a spokesman said Monday. … But the dramatic change in a national symbol could raise some complaints — particularly since it came from U.S.-picked leaders seen by many Iraqis as American puppets. U.S. administrators have tried quietly in the past to change the flag by dropping the words “Allahu akbar,” but Iraqis have refused to abide by the change.
One council member said the Iraqi leadership should wait for an elected government before altering such a major national symbol.

The linked story shows the "new" flag. By the way, the old flag's colors are not "Saddam-era", they're from the Iraqi flag adopted in 1963. Saddam Hussein added the Arabic words “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great” to the flag, during the Iran-Iraq War.

Now, just to be clear, as of this date there is no plan, for turning over non-sovereignty to a government of as-yet unknown individuals. Also as of this date, our forces are engaged in putting down several uprisings, holding together an ever-dwindling "coalition" of allies, and trying to prevent a general Islamic front of opposition to our continued occupation of Iraq. Given all this, does it make any sense to have Chalabi and his gang run a new, WHITE national flag up the flagpole?

Oh, yeah, and it has blue stripes. Extra credit if you guess which other country in the area has a flag with blue stripes on a white background. Really bright idea, guys …

If Your Mind's Confused

In his speech yesterday, endorsing the renewal of the Patriot Act, President Bush keeps reading from the John Ashcroft script that misrepresents and cravenly shifts blame for their failures, to the "wall":

First, before September the 11th, law enforcement, intelligence, and national security officials were prevented by legal and bureaucratic restrictions from sharing critical information with each other, and with state and local police departments.

We had -- one group of the FBI knows something, but they couldn't talk to the other group in the FBI -- because of law and bureaucratic interpretation. You cannot fight the war on terror unless all bodies of your government at the federal, state, and local level are capable of sharing intelligence on a real-time basis. We could not get a complete picture of terrorist threats, therefore. People had -- different people had a piece of the puzzle, but because of law, they couldn't get all the pieces in the same place. And so we removed those barriers, removed the walls. You hear the talk about the walls that separate certain aspects of government; they have been removed by the Patriot Act. And now, law enforcement and intelligence communities are working together to share information to better prevent an attack on America.

Look, whether you are for or against the election of President Bush, why should we let him run using falsehoods?

Close Inspection of Who's Telling Who Lies

Apologies in advance, for the long post which follows. I get a little carried away with some long quotes from source documents. But, I really do think that John Ashcroft should be called to account, and asked to explain how his sworn testimony differs from the facts contained in a General Accounting Office (GAO) report from the summer of 2001.

The consequences of Attorney General Ashcroft's reckless disregard for the truth, took a serious turn in the past few days. As noted in a post below, from las Thursday, after Mr. Ashcroft sought (falsely) to assign blame to 9-11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick for "erecting" a "wall" in 1995, which prevented intelligence officials from communicating with law enforcement personnel, there were a lot of shrill attacks directed at Ms. Gorelick. The latest reports now indicate: "Jamie Gorelick, a member of the commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said Saturday that she received death threats this week after a number of conservatives alleged that her former work in the Justice Department may have contributed to failures leading to the attacks." So, with your indulgence, we will briefly review how Ms. Gorelick responded to Mr. Ashcroft's accusations. Then, we will look at a GAO report from 2001, which shows that Mr. Ashcroft's claims are false. Finally, we will revisit Mr. Ashcroft's sworn testimony, which loses all credibility in light of the facts, and can be seen as a craven attempt to deflect blame, resulting in threats against a 9-11 Commission member.

First, Ms. Gorelick has provided a detailed refutation of Ashcroft's allegations. In a piece published this weekend, "The Truth About 'the Wall'", she touches on the fact that it was Ashcroft's Justice Department, in 2001, which took steps to increase implementation of the "wall" (and which, quite possibly, misunderstood the whole point of it) :

[T]he memo I wrote in March 1995 -- which concerns information-sharing in two particular cases, including the original World Trade Center bombing -- permits freer coordination between intelligence and criminal investigators than was subsequently permitted by the 1995 guidelines or the 2001 Thompson memo. The purpose of my memo was to resolve a problem presented to me: facilitating investigations on both the intelligence side and criminal side at the same time. My memo directed agents on both sides to share information -- and, in particular, directed one agent to work on both the criminal and intelligence investigations -- to ensure the flow of information "over the wall." We set up special procedures because of the extraordinary circumstances and the necessity to prevent a court from throwing out any conviction in those cases. Had my memo been in place in August 2001 -- when, as Ashcroft said, FBI officials rejected a criminal warrant of Moussaoui because they feared "breaching the wall" -- it would have allowed those agents to obtain a criminal warrant without fear of jeopardizing an intelligence investigation.

[N]othing in the 1995 guidelines prevented the sharing of information between criminal and intelligence investigators. Indeed, the guidelines require that FBI foreign intelligence agents share information with criminal investigators and prosecutors whenever they uncover facts suggesting that a crime has been or may be committed. The guidelines did set forth procedures, but those procedures implemented court decisions and, as noted, were reaffirmed by the Ashcroft Justice Department.

Now, should you just rely on Ms. Gorelick? Well, you don't have to, since you can also read a 2001 GAO report (link is a .PDF) on the effectiveness of the "wall". It turns out, the reason for the report and investigation was a concern that the FBI was not following the 1995 procedures. As recounted in the GAO report, there was a "core group" of officials who monitored how the FBI managed the flow of information, and which could give guidance on specific cases. There apparently was concern that procedures designed to protect criminal investigations were not being followed. But, not to worry, the Ashcroft people had taken over the job. As explained in the 2001 GAO report:

In April 2001, the acting Deputy Attorney General decided to reconstitute the core group and to give it a broader role for overseeing coordination issues. The core group, similar to the prior core group, is comprised of several officials from the Office of Deputy Attorney General, an official representing the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, and the Assistant Directors of the FBI's National Security and Counterterrorism Divisions. Whereas the previous core group's role was to decide which of the FBI's most critical cases met the requirements of the Attorney General's coordination procedures and needed to be coordinated with the Criminal Division, the new core group's role is broader.

According to an Associate Deputy Attorney General and core group member, the new group is to be responsible for deciding whether particular FBI investigations meet the requirements of the coordination procedures and to identify for the Attorney General's attention any cases involving extraordinary situations where compliance with the guidelines requires the Attorney General's consideration. According to the Associate Deputy Attorney General, the FBI is to bring to the core group's attention any investigation in which it is not clear that the Attorney General's procedures have been triggered. For example, during an FBI investigation should it not be clear whether a criminal violation should be considered a significant federal crime, as indicated in the procedures, the FBI is to bring the matter to the core group for resolution. Thus, this is a much broader scope of responsibility than the prior core group's which only considered the need for coordination in those critical cases that were judgmentally selected by the FBI. Furthermore, the core group also is to be responsible for identifying for the Attorney General's attention those extraordinary situations where the FBI believes there may be good reason not to notify the Criminal Division. For extraordinary situations, the Associate Deputy Attorney General opined that it was expected that the number of such questions brought to the core group would be extremely few.
...

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Administration responding for Justice responded that on two of our recommendations, the Department has taken full or partial action. Concerning our recommendation to institutionalize OIPR's [the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review in the Justice Department] role and responsibilities for ensuring compliance with the Attorney General's coordination procedures, the Acting Counsel for Intelligence Policy on June 12, 2001, issued a memorandum to all OIPR staff. That memorandum formally articulated OIPR's policy of notifying the FBI and the Criminal Division whenever OIPR attorneys identify foreign counterintelligence investigations that meet the requirements established by the Attorney General for coordination. We believe this policy should help perpetuate OIPR's mechanism for ensuring compliance with the 1995 coordination procedures beyond any changes in OIPR management.

Basically, the Ashcroft Justice Department took steps to monitor and enforce a policy, which was partly based on the 1995 memo, but also based on prior court decisions, and later modifications of the policy. In light of these facts, Mr. Ashcroft's testimony (link is a .PDF), in which he claims that Ms. Gorelick's memo is the sole source of the policy, appears desparate, craven and false. Ignoring the facts about his own actions, he testified as follows:

But the simple fact of September 11 is this: we did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions, and starved for basic information technology. The old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail. This Commission can serve a noble purpose. Your responsibility is to examine the root causes of September 11 and to help the United States prevent another terrorist attack. Your duty is solemn and sobering. But I, too, have a duty today. I have sworn to tell the whole truth, and I intend to fulfill this obligation.

That last sentence may come back to haunt him. But, to continue -

The single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents. Government erected this wall. Government buttressed this wall. And before September 11, government was blinded by this wall. In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning, imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the law required. The 1995 Guidelines and the procedures developed around them imposed draconian barriers to communications between the law enforcement and intelligence communities. The wall "effectively excluded" prosecutors from intelligence investigations. The wall left intelligence agents afraid to talk with criminal prosecutors or agents. In 1995, the Justice Department designed a system destined to fail.

Now, as noted above, not only does Ms. Gorelick point out that she did not "erect" the wall (and in fact, she was trying to implement procedures to make sure that any "wall" did not inhibit investigations), but the GAO report demonstrates that Mr. Ashcroft is the one who strengthened it. Nevertheless, Mr. Ashcroft stated in his sworn testimony:

But somebody did make these rules. Someone built this wall. The basic architecture for the wall in the 1995 Guidelines was contained in a classified memorandum entitled "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations." The memorandum ordered FBI Director Louis Freeh and others, quote: "We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation." This memorandum established a wall separating the criminal and intelligence investigations following the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the largest international terrorism attack on American soil prior to September 11. Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the Commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission.

So, Attorney General Ashcroft, solely in the interest of full disclosure, declassifies a 1995 document, while neglecting to tell the Commission about refinements to the policy in 2000, or his own strengthening of the wall in April of 2001. And, in so doing, unleashed the attack dogs on Ms. Gorelick.

I don't think it's inappropriate to suggest that Mr. Ashcroft's veracity in this matter should be more closely examined.

You Let Your Walls Get in the Way of These Facts

No More Mister Nice Blog has a comprehensive wrap-up (and refutation) of the attacks which are being heaped upon Jamie Gorelick of the 9-11 Commission, as a result of John Ashcroft's move to pin the blame on her for the "wall" that, it is claimed, prevented the FBI from being able to pursue leads which could have resulted in the capture of the terrorists who perpetrated 9-11. What's especially galling is the fact that Ashcroft's claims are clearly deceptive, especially when considered in light of a July, 2001 GAO report on the "wall" (Note: link is to a .PDF). Entitled "FBI Intelligence Investigations: Coordination Within Justice on Counterintelligence Criminal Matters Is Limited", the report includes the position of Ashcroft's Justice Department, as to whether the 1995 memo and procedures were being followed. That report also details the years of subsequent review of procedures to ensure that criminal investigations would not be compromised. The report appears to indicate that the "wall", instead of hindering intelligence gathering, was something which affected the criminal investigation side of the FBI (if at all).

In any event, the existence of that report, and the contents, shows the level of deception engaged in by Attorney General Ashcroft in trying to fix blame on Ms. Gorelick for an intelligence failure.

Like Some Soldier Undaunted

A belated hello to my visitor earlier today from Army.mil, who found me with a "Google" search for "James Yee 'Article 15' dropped April 16 2004". While the Army has, finally, dropped all penalties imposed against Chaplain Yee, there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the decision to bring the case against him in the first place.

There is also one piece of unfinished business, as Captain Yee's attorney noted: "We hope that higher authority will agree that an apology is overdue."

[Update] On whether the military owes Captain Yee an apology, even the Instant Pundit now says: "I'm not that familiar with the ins and outs of the case, but it appears that they do." Although, for someone "not that familiar with the ins and outs", the IP was willing to join the initial smear campaign, when he wrote about the start of the case: "Sounds almost as if he were planted. Sadly, this will only produce more suspicion toward loyal Muslims." Maybe the IP could start the apology ball rolling?

The Words That You Used to Say

Some excerpts from the President's statements, with no comment. June 24, 2002:

As we make progress towards security, Israel forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000. And consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee, Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop. ... Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues that divide them if there is to be a real peace, resolving all claims and ending the conflict between them. This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognize borders.

June 4, 2003:

As I said yesterday, the issue of settlements must be addressed for peace to be achieved. In addition, Prime Minister Sharon has stated that no unilateral actions by either side can or should prejudge the outcome of future negotiations.

December 4, 2003:

I also talked about the need for the Israelis to keep in mind that if they support a Palestinian state, which they have told me they do, that the conditions on the ground must be such for a Palestinian state to be able to emerge. And that's why we're continuing to talk to them about the illegal settlements and outposts -- illegal outposts and settlements, as well as the fence.

And finally, yesterday:

In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

This is the fellow who said, at the end of his press conference on Tuesday, "One thing is for certain, though, about me -- and the world has learned this -- when I say something, I mean it. And the credibility of the United States is incredibly important for keeping world peace and freedom. "

He Rides Head First into a Hurricane and Disappears

Please take a moment to salute NPR's Don Gonyea, who finally got the chance to ask a question, at the end of the President's press conference on Tuesday, and took the opportunity to say what everyone in the room was thinking:

THE PRESIDENT: Let's see, last question here. Hold on for a second. Those who yell will not be asked. I'll tell you a guy who I've never heard from -- Don.

Q: I appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: It's a well-received -- (laughter.)

Q: Following on both Judy's and John's questions, and it comes out of what you just said in some ways, with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have -- quite significantly over the past couple of months -- I guess I'd like to know if you feel in any way that you've failed as a communicator on this topic? Because --

THE PRESIDENT: Gosh, I don't know. I mean --

Q: Well, you deliver a lot of speeches and a lot of them contain similar phrases, and they vary very little from one to the next. And they often include a pretty upbeat assessment of how things are going -- with the exception of tonight's pretty somber assessment, this evening.

THE PRESIDENT: It's a pretty somber assessment today, Don, yes.

Q: I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way? You don't have many of these press conferences, where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

Well, if we never see him called on again, it still may have been worth it.

Bombed 'em (Part II)

I heard on the news today that a Google search for the word "Jew", results in a hate site as the number one result. Google has an explanation of this at this link.

Seems that a little constructive counter-Google-bombing may be needed ("Google bombing", if you haven't heard the term before, is defined as: "A technique through which a group of bloggers working together can make a webpage come up when someone searches Google for certain keywords."). Since the number one result is now a hate site, maybe folks could change that to something completely different - what if the word "Jew" was used to link to the Anti-Defamation League?

Let's give it a try (hey, I already did).

Bombed 'em with the Blues

Now there's Counter-Google-bombing?

"Waffles".

Mr. Willis explains it all.

Strolled All Alone Through a Fallout Zone

In all the fussing about the testimony today of Ms. Rice, before the 9-11 Commission, it seems that former President Clinton also met with them today:

The federal panel reviewing the Sept. 11 attacks met with former President Clinton in a private session Thursday that commissioners described as frank and informative.
The 10-member panel interviewed Clinton for nearly four hours to discuss what his administration could have done to prevent the attacks. The former president was "forthcoming and responsive," said the commission.

The panel said it didn't plan to release specific details of the meeting, saying much of it involved classified information.

Commissioners said Clinton addressed "big-picture" policy issues, including his administration's response to the October 2000 al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole. Some commissioners have criticized the Clinton and Bush administrations for failing to mount a military response to the attack, which killed 17 U.S. sailors.

"He was adamant about trying to work in a bipartisan way to fix the problems," said Democratic commissioner Timothy Roemer, a former U.S. representative from Indiana. "He was quite honest and frank."

John Lehman, a former Navy secretary under President Reagan, agreed.

"He did very well," Lehman told CNN. "He gave us a lot of very helpful insights into things that happened, policy approaches."

In contrast, President Bush will be meeting with the 9-11 Commission under a time limit, and with Vice President Cheney at his side.

No comment, just observing, that's all.

Men Without Women

In the Catholic faith, the Mass on Holy Thursday includes special elements to remind the faithful of the life and message of Jesus, especially with regard to the night before He died. As part of this, the priest re-enacts Jesus' washing of his disciples' feet. As noted by the U.S. Catholic Bishops: "Christ's disciples are to love one another. For this reason, the priest who presides at the Holy Thursday liturgy portrays the biblical scene of the gospel by washing the feet of some of the faithful." As the bishops also note:

Because the gospel … read on Holy Thursday also depicts Jesus as the "Teacher and Lord" who humbly serves his disciples by performing this extraordinary gesture which goes beyond the laws of hospitality, the element of humble service has accentuated the celebration of the foot washing rite in the United States over the last decade or more. In this regard, it has become customary in many places to invite both men and women to be participants in this rite in recognition of the service that should be given by all the faithful to the Church and to the world. Thus, in the United States, a variation in the rite developed in which not only charity is signified but also humble service.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Archbishop of Atlanta has decided that he has a better idea:

Archbishop John Donoghue has limited Holy Thursday foot-washing services to men …The archbishop's position on the ancient foot-washing ritual came in a March 19 letter he sent to pastors telling them that 12 men were to be selected for the rite as the representation of "Christ's linkage of the institution of the Eucharist to the establishment of the ordained priesthood."

As reported in the local news media, "The overwhelming majority of American bishops allow women's feet to be washed in the ceremony, although the decision is left to individual bishops."

Is there some important religious or liturgical reason for the Archbishop's decision? Doesn't seem so, especially since his interpretation of the meaning of the ritual, appears to be at odds with what is taught. Even if the Archbishop could sit down, and with extensive reference to Church teachings and linguistic analysis of the relevant Church documents support his position, does it still make it the right one? No, I don't think so. In case the Archbishop has forgotten, the U.S. bishops are still trying to regain the trust of a lot of people, Catholics included. With all of the tension and division nowadays, in the Church as well as in the world, Catholics are ill-served when one of the "shepherds" promulgates a rule which will simply be seen as useless and petty. But don't just listen to me. As the Archbishop's brother bishops have already noted:

The liturgy is always an act of ecclesial unity and Christian charity, of which the Holy Thursday foot washing rite is an eminent sign. All should obey the Lord's new commandment to love one another with an abundance of love, especially at this most sacred time of the liturgical year when the Lord's passion, death, and resurrection are remembered and celebrated in the powerful rites of the Triduum.

… and the poets just stand back and let it all be

In addition to the horrible news today, of new deaths of U.S. troops and the horrible deaths of four U.S. civilians yesterday, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count website informs us that U.S. troop deaths in the Iraq war now total 600, including 461 since the President proclaimed "Mission Accomplished!"

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Think it Over Judge, One More Time

Captain Yee's lawyer has filed an appeal of the reprimand (and refusal to clear his name of spy charges) he received from the Army. As recounted in this news report:

The attorney, Eugene Fidell, wrote "a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred. Decisions were made on insufficient evidence, and have had devastating effects.''

Fidell said the Army's decision to drop most of the charges and hold an Article 15 proceeding--used to settle minor disciplinary issues--hurt Yee's defense preparation and minimized media scrutiny. "This smacks of gamesmanship and bias,'' he wrote.

Fidell is requesting Gen. James T. Hill, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, recuse himself from the case and asks that the military return Yee's passport, restore him to duty and grant him a formal apology.

[Edited 3/31/04 to add] ... and in this morning's NY Times there is a letter continuing the smear and innuendo campaign, from one Lt. Col. Costello, a "public affairs" director with the U.S. Southern Command (sorry, the link may require registration). Lt. Col. Costello asserts:

Capt. James Yee was never charged with espionage or characterized as traitorous by government officials. He was found guilty on adultery and pornography charges and processed through nonjudicial punishment.

Official government spokesmen consistently stated that Captain Yee was part of a continuing interagency investigation, and that the public needed to allow the judicial process to work before jumping to conclusions.

That assertion is incredible, in light of the orchestrated release of information and charges (as previously noted here), as well as the fact that the Army went ahead with a public proceeding when (a) it never conclusively determined which documents were confidential, (b) it seems that exactly one expert concluded that Captain Yee had pornography (which the government knew nothing about before detaining the chaplain), and (c) the prima facie case for adultery never demonstrated circumstances or allegations which rose to the level of the military's own criteria for prosecution of such a charge.

In short, the Army appears to be continuing its strategy of parading allegations in order to discredit Chaplain Yee. The "public affairs" officer concludes:

It was Captain Yee, not the Army, who chose to abandon his luggage at an airport in Jacksonville and try to avoid Customs; who decided to commit adultery; who downloaded pornography onto a taxpayer-financed computer; and who sullied his reputation as a chaplain and a military officer.

As it turns out, in dropping the charges and punishing Captain Yee nonjudicially, the Army effectively gave him what he requested.

Want to guess again on that last point?

Is it as Simple as it Seems

Mr. Balkin at Balkinization has a good post concerning the "unintended consequences" of the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act". I had similar thoughts about the Act when I first heard of it, and after summarizing Mr. Balkin's thoughts, I'll add a few of my own (including about why a pregnancy test should now be a standard part of a Federal criminal investigation).

The dust-up about the Act comes not from the fact that harm to a fetus is now a separate crime under Federal law (something which was never really opposed, as further discussed below), but over how that's accomplished. The approach which prevailed, and which will be signed by the President, is to define "unborn child" as follows:

(d) As used in this section, the term 'unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

As Mr. Balkin points out, "the statute by its own terms does not reach abortions":

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

He concludes:"This produces a perverse result for pro-life forces: Congress officially says that a fetus is a child, but also officially says that ending the life of this child through abortion is legal. Should a pro-life Senator vote for such a bill?" As he also points out, by the terms of the new law, the death of the unborn child is specifically not a crime for which the federal death penalty may be imposed.

Personally, I think it's obvious that getting the "child in utero" language into the bill was so important that its proponents were willing to overlook the fact that the law also affirms a woman's right to choose (indeed, it states an affirmative right for someone else to choose abortion for a woman, if that someone is "a person authorized by law to act on her behalf"). It did not have to be that way. Prior to final passage, the Senate rejected a compromise by a vote of 50-49, under which causing or attempting to cause the termination of a pregnancy, while committing a crime against a pregnant woman, would be a separate offense. That potential compromise still would have made termination of a pregnancy a separate, prosecutable crime; however, it did not require any language which could be used as part of the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. Instead, proponents of the Act were motivated, not simply by the desire to enact a law to protect pregnant women, but by a need to do so in a manner that would be a political football in the abortion debate.

By the way, I think there's another unintended consequence of the Act. Once the Act is signed into law by President Bush, then presumably every Federal prosecutor will be required to investigate whether a crime has been committed under the Act, if circumstances warrant. And which circumstances will those be? Well, where the commission of a crime against a woman causes the death or injury of her child "in utero", "at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb". If that is the law of the land, then the only responsible conduct for a prosecutor would be for any female crime victim of child-bearing age to undergo a pregnancy test, to see if she is (or had been) carrying a child in utero at the time of the commission of the offense.

You're free to tell me that such a thought is absurd. But if it's absurd, then tell me where a prosecutor is to draw the line at investigating and prosecuting a crime under the Act. Would you only apply the law to situations where the woman already knew she was pregnant? Why would that be, especially since the Act does not require that the criminal know that his victim is pregnant? And if the crime only exists if the mother knows that she is pregnant, how again does that make this a "pro-life" enactment?

Radio, Radio, Hear My Tale of Heartbreak

As if the news isn't bad enough, today brings this announcement from NPR:

Bob Edwards, the award-winning broadcaster whose voice has been associated with NPR's Morning Edition since the show's beginning in 1979, is leaving the morning news program effective April 30.
…

Edwards, a native of Louisville, Ky., who joined NPR in 1974 and became co-host of All Things Considered before moving to Morning Edition, will take on a new assignment as senior correspondent for NPR News.

"Morning Edition, the most popular morning program in all of broadcasting, enjoys a well-earned reputation for integrity in journalism," Edwards says. "I am proud to have served with my Morning Edition, colleagues, who perform a daily miracle at ridiculous hours when resources are not abundant. I am grateful for the many years of support from NPR member stations and look forward to continuing to visit them and meet our listeners. That audience is the best and the brightest in broadcasting, and it's a challenge to meet its expectations. Morning Edition, will continue to be my first source for news. I wish all the best to its new host."

Of course, you have to know that's not the real story. As further recounted by the Washington Post:

"I would have preferred to remain on Morning Edition," he said in a telephone interview.
NPR spokeswoman Laura Gross said NPR's programmers and news managers made the decision as "part of a natural evolution. New hosts bring new ideas," she said.
…

Edwards said, however, that today's news release from NPR was a bit "premature. We haven't settled up on what I'm going to do and what I'm going to be paid for it." Nor, he said, was he given specifics as to why he is being replaced. "They're going to find something else for me to do," he said. "That's pretty much what I heard. Seriously. . . . "One day you change flavors at Baskin Robbins. I think that's what this is. . . . I just stayed too long. . . ."

And as recounted by the AP via CNN:

He said he was given no specific reasons for his ouster. "It's the old 'move the program in a new direction.' There was no Janet Jackson incident," he said.
Spokeswoman Laura Gross said NPR's programming and news management made the change because they're trying to refresh all the network's broadcasts.

Now hold on a minute. This is a morning news program, heck, it's the morning news program. It's exactly what we want in the morning - a no-nonsense, straightforward discussion of the news, with a little more in-depth consideration than may have been possible the night before when the first impressions of the day's news were reported. What kind of "natural evolution", "new ideas", or for gosh sakes "new direction" are they going for at NPR? They clearly don't know, so we’re supposed to hope for the best, I guess?

It's my morning news program, I like it just the way it is, I don't want it to change, so - fix this right away. Thank you.

Sorry for the Things That We Done

Note to government: Real people are being hurt by these games.

A day after the Army dropped its charges that Muslim chaplain Capt. James Yee mishandled secrets at a prison for terror suspects, his mother said military officials owe him and the family an apology. Fong Yee of Springfield called the dismissal of charges against her 35-year-old son "a victory," but said the family remains "crushed" by the six-month ordeal.
…

Those charges were dropped Friday by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, commander of the joint task force that oversees the Guantánamo base. Military officials said they could not proceed with the case because presenting evidence in court would raise national security concerns.

At the Springfield home where Yee was raised, his mother said yesterday there was little celebration. She chided military officials for branding her son a spy and jailing him for 76 days, then dropping the charges without clearing his name. "Realize you made a mistake and apologize," Fong Yee said in a telephone interview. "What's wrong with that? It's an honorable thing to do. That's just basic human decency."
Instead, she said, officials have continued to say that Yee may have been carrying classified documents at the time of his arrest, adding to what she called a pattern of efforts by the military to save face even as its case unraveled.

"People will always remember this spy stuff," she said. "I want to impress on the government how many people that they hurt."

This refusal to concede error means that Captain Yee will continue to be demonized by those for whom "Muslim=Terrorist" is an article of faith. That's a simplistically erroneous view which Captain Yee himself worked to overcome, as demonstrated by his writings in the Guantanamo base newsletter a year ago:

September 11th, the pending war on Iraq, and our own day to day experiences of the Joint Task Force Guantanamo mission have all contributed to the picture many of us as Americans have painted about Islam and Muslims. And now, this universal religion of more than one billion followers worldwide is scrutinized by a population that has little knowledge of its basic tenets and practices. It is with a fearful eye that Islam and its worshippers are now being examined with the notion that they have become our nation's greatest enemy. However, a truly objective look makes it quite clear that Islam is really nothing to be afraid of at all.

Captain Yee was trying to explain that Americans should not fear all Muslims. Unfortunately, our government's behavior suggests that the converse is not true.

Are You Tough Enough to Play the Game They Play?

The government has tired of its efforts to ruin Captain James Yee's life, so they came up with a lame excuse to drop the charges, while still trying to make him look guilty.

Sorry to have such a jaundiced view of the facts of this case. In the short time, and limited posts, on this site I've posted thoughts about this accused Muslim army chaplain here, here, here, and here. I won't repeat everything I've posted previously, but I do think that there are some serious questions which still need to be answered:

Why was he ever detained? This is how the Washington Times described the basis for his arrest:

The Bush administration decided to arrest Army Capt. James J. Yee because it feared he would reveal information that could aid terrorists and endanger the lives of military guards at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, a law-enforcement source said.

Really? In addition it was reported that the "highest levels" of government made the decision to detain and arrest him. It's interesting to note that testimony in his preliminary hearing indicated that he was stopped only after he had traveled to the mainland:

Special Agent Sean Rafferty, who works as a U.S. Customs inspector in Jacksonville, testified he was tipped off to watch for Yee at the airport when he returned from the Cuba base.

Rafferty said he stopped Yee and found two pocket-size notebooks, a paper on Syria and a typed list of names and numbers with the top torn off in the backpack Yee carried off the plane.

"It was determined the documents were of interest to national security," Rafferty said during a conference call to the courtroom.

He acknowledged none of the material was marked "secret" or "classified," and defense lawyer Eugene Fidell said the paper on Syria was part of Yee's work as a graduate student.

Rafferty refused to say who in federal law enforcement told him to look for Yee.

At the time, it was claimed that he had documents "that a chaplain shouldn't have," and ties to radical Islamists. Now, of course, we know that the government was never able to establish exactly what the "classified" nature of this information was. So, to sum up, the "highest levels" of government wanted this guy arrested, so they search him when he returns to the U.S., claim that the documents he is carrying are classified, and therefore he's a spy!

Why the adultery charge? This was something which the government learned about after his arrest, apparently. The only evidence given was immunized testimony from the other alleged party, who held a rank equivalent to Captain Yee's. Even if Captain Yee was cheating on his wife (a bad thing), the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the military's own rules, do not call for prosecution of this conduct, without more. The elements of the offense are set out in Article 134 of the UCMJ:

(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. .

The fact that private, apparently unknown conduct between two officers serving in different units would not normally be prosecuted is indicated in an Executive Order issued by President Bush in 2002, adding explanations to the UCMJ, including guidance for adultery prosecutions:

To constitute an offense under the UCMJ, the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. Adulterous conduct that is directly prejudicial includes conduct that has an obvious, and measurably divisive effect on unit or organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or respect toward a servicemember. Adultery may also be service discrediting, even though the conduct is only indirectly or remotely prejudicial to good order and discipline. Discredit means to injure the reputation of the armed forces and includes adulterous conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute, make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in public esteem.

But, this conduct was unknown, and only disclosed as part of the prosecution of Captain Yee. Public exposure of this alleged affair has certainly damaged Captain Yee's reputation; can it honestly be said that prosecution of Captain Yee was called for, under the military's own code?

And pornography? We'll never know exactly what it was that was considered pornographic. As was reported with respect to the only witness on this issue:

Also testifying was Warrant Officer Jennie Callahan with the Army Computer Crimes Unit in Washington, who said she found evidence that Yee's computer hard drive had been used to access adult Web sites.

She said she considered some of the images on the hard drive pornographic.

"I'm not labeling all those pictures on that disk as pornographic," she said. "I've been in the Army 10 years, and there's not a lot that I consider pornographic."

Now Captain Yee is "free", but with an official statement which makes him look guilty:

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, Commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, dismissed all charges related to the alleged mishandling of classified information pending against Army Chaplain James J. Yee, ending an investigation that began with his apprehension at the airport in Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Fla., in September 2003. Citing national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence, Miller decided to drop these charges. Miller made his decision after consultation with government lawyers and intelligence officials. Although Miller considered Yee's offer to undergo a debriefing in exchange for the government dropping the charges, granting him immunity and supporting his resignation, relevant law enforcement agencies could not support Yee's request for immunity.

So, some more questions. If they can't prosecute Captain Yee for mishandling classified information (becuase that would disclose the information), does that mean that they can't prosecute anybody? What "relevant law enforcement agencies" wanted the Army just to drop this, and are they the same ones who told Special Agent Rafferty to detain Captain Yee in the first place? And finally, will anybody in the news media bother to pursue any of these questions?

Local Hero

Leaving aside that the following is from Tina Brown (with an assist from Jann Wenner), I liked the point:

When I called to congratulate Wenner, he had waxed on about the need to defeat Bush. "This election is simple," he said. "Whose values do you want? Bruce Springsteen's or Wayne Newton's?"

The trouble is, though, that John Kerry ain't Bruce Springsteen. Democrats know this, but they are so fixated on ousting Bush that they don't want to talk about that awkward fact, even to each other. It's why they suddenly get so excited when they hear a rumor about a possible John Kerry-John McCain ticket. They think that Kerry plus McCain equals Bruce.

The Lies That Leave You Nothing But Lost and Brokenhearted

Two items from today's papers. First, the New York Times carries a guest column by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (sorry, the link requires registration). In it, he provides the current rationale for the war which started one year ago today:

Today, in a world of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and states that sponsor the former and pursue the latter, defending freedom means we must confront dangers before it is too late. In Iraq, for 12 years, through 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions, the world gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to avoid war. He was being held to a simple standard: live up to your agreement at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war; disarm and prove you have done so. Instead of disarming — as Kazakhstan, South Africa and Ukraine did, and as Libya is doing today — Saddam Hussein chose deception and defiance.

Repeatedly, he rejected those resolutions and he systematically deceived United Nations inspectors about his weapons and his intent. The world knew his record: he used chemical weapons against Iran and his own citizens; he invaded Iran and Kuwait; he launched ballistic missiles at Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain; and his troops repeatedly fired on American and British aircraft patrolling the no-flight zones.

Recognizing the threat, in September 2002 President Bush went to the United Nations, which gave Iraq still another "final opportunity" to disarm and to prove it had done so. The next month the president went to Congress, which voted to support the use of force if Iraq did not.

And, when Saddam Hussein passed up that final opportunity, he was given a last chance to avoid war: 48 hours to leave the country. Only then, after every peaceful option had been exhausted, did the president and our coalition partners order the liberation of Iraq.

I do not know if by this he means the threat was "imminent". From reading this, it appears that the reason we went to war was because Saddam Hussein neither left town, nor proved to the satisfaction of the United States that he had disarmed. The claims made one year ago, that Iraq actually had WMD that they were poised to use, are slowly being obscured by today's after-the-fact rationales. In this regard, a recent article provided by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace details five "themes" in the Administration's backing away from its prior claims, and is worth reading (heads-up on the article was provided by "The War in Context").

As I noted yesterday, the fact that inspectors were in Iraq until we told them to get out, is something which the Administration would prefer that the public forget. But really, is it true that "every peaceful option had been exhausted"? Whether the threat was "imminent", "immediate", "gathering", or whatever, can we honestly say that our leaders chose the wisest course of action? The real question is not, "Are we better off without Saddam?" Instead, the real question should be, "Was this the right way to reach our goal?"

The second item in this morning's papers: a full page of photographs of the members of the military from my state, who lost their lives in the past year in Iraq. Included is a photo of a young man from my area, Army Specialist Simeon Hunte, a husband and father who was killed last fall, long after "Mission Accomplished". Looking at his face, and all the other faces, I think it's legitimate to question whether the Administration really considered the cost of the course of action they chose.

In the upcoming election, the armchair warriors will continue to speak of the bravery and sacrifice of soldiers such as Specialist Hunte, as if the fact of their deaths justifies the decision to plunge into war. In that discussion, we should keep in mind that those sacrifices are, in fact, a reason to question the decision-makers and demand accountability. As my favorite contemporary philospher has put it (in a statement I've quoted before):

"The question of whether we were misled in the war with Iraq is neither a liberal or conservative question or Democratic or Republican question. It's an American question. And protecting the democracy we ask our sons and daughters to die for is our responsibility and it's our trust. And demanding accountability is our job as citizens. That's the American way so that truth will out."

There's a Lot of People Leaving Town Now

Yesterday was the one-year anniversary of President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Both of those events are being commemorated and commented upon. But, there's one event which seems to be getting less attention. Today is the one-year anniversary of the U.N. weapons inspectors leaving Iraq:

U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.

After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night.
…

U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad for the first time in four years on Nov. 27, 2002, and resumed inspections two days later. During four months of inspections, arms experts traveled the length of the country hunting for banned weapons of mass destruction.

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has said that during those inspections, inspectors never found any "smoking gun."

The fact that there actually were inspectors in Iraq right up to the start of the war, is a little detail which the Administration would like people to forget. For example, Vice President Cheney in a speech this past January:

Against that background, the Congress of the United States voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force in Iraq. The U.N. Security Council unanimously found Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowed serious consequences in the event Saddam Hussein did not comply. When Saddam Hussein continued his defiance, our coalition acted to deliver those serious consequences.

And President Bush, during his "Meet the Press" interview with Tim Russert in February:

You remember U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly stated “show us your arms and destroy them, or your programs and destroy them.” And we said, “There are serious consequences if you don't” and that was a unanimous verdict. In other words, the worlds of the U.N. Security Council said we're unanimous and you're a danger. So, it wasn't just me and the United States. The world thought he was dangerous and needed to be disarmed.
And, of course, he defied the world once again.

So, let's observe the one-year anniversary of the U.N. weapons inspectors being chased out of Iraq, not by Saddam Hussein, but by President Bush's threat to start a war.

[Edited to add] In the comments, Damfa pointed out an even more absurd statement in the same vein, made by the President back in July (scroll to bottom of linked page), while sitting next to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan:

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.

You Best Remember Who Your Friends Are

In the last few days, the Bush campaign has been ramping up its claims that Democratic challenger John Kerry is weak on defense. Looks like Senator Kerry is getting a little help from one of his friends:

Bush's chief Republican rival in 2000, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he does not believe Kerry is weak on defense even though they disagree on some issues. McCain, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee and is a friend of the Massachusetts senator, said a discussion of Medicare and other issues should replace negative campaigning.

"He's responsible for his voting record, as we all are responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it," McCain said of Kerry on "Today" on NBC. "But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don't agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that's going on on both sides. The American people don't need it, and the end result will be lower voter turnout, particularly amongst younger Americans."

Mr. Bush may start to regret having his "nasty boys" work over Senator McCain four years ago. As Senator Kerry has said, "Bring it on!"

[Edited to add] This is priceless. Senator McCain appears to have made the rounds of the morning news programs.

Asked on NBC’s “Today” if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: “No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He’s responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he’ll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don’t agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that’s going on on both sides. The American people don’t need it.”

When asked on “The Early Show” if Kerry’s election would compromise national security, McCain responded: “I don’t think that — I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country.”

They're Ringin' the Flag Down

The same-sex marriage amendment may not be working for the Republican campaign. Looks like they're switching to the flag burning amendment:

March 3, 2004 - NOTICE OF HEARING :

"The Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on Wednesday, March 10, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 106 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building on 'Letting the People Decide: The Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Congress to Prohibit Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United States.' "

The heads-up on the hearing is from How Appealing. Say, would "physical desecration" include whipping out a Sharpie pen and signing your name on a flag? Yes, of course I'm going to link to the picture of President Bush signing a flag last August.

I can think of a lot of things which are more disrespectful of the American flag, than some jack-ass buying a flag and burning it. Trying to accuse people of being unpatriotic, because they think that tolerating dissent is more respectful of the flag, is one of them.

Two Hearts Are Better Than One

Well, the most famous guys from Asbury Park these days are not in the E Street Band. Louis Navarrete and Ric Best were issued a marriage license by the Asbury Park city clerk, and were married yesterday. According to this news story, they've been together for fifteen years; and, despite the fact that people have differing opinions of same-sex marriage, actually being married was something which was very important to this couple:

Nearby, best man Ed Johnson, 41, said he was glad his best friends had waited to get married. When Johnson married his partner, Jeff Lundenberger, last summer in Canada, Best and Navarrete almost tagged along.

Johnson said his friends' union was sweet not just because it represented the first New Jersey same-sex marriage.

"Marriage really does change things. We feel finalized and steady. It stabilized a lot of things that other people take for granted," Johnson said.

An interesting perspective was provided by the Deputy Mayor, who performed the ceremony:

Partying with Best and Navarrete cost Deputy Mayor James Bruno a bit of soul-searching.

"I really wrestled with it," said Bruno, who is Catholic.

When he got a phone call asking him to perform the ceremony, he thought about what his constituents faced, agonized for a little while, and decided to officiate.

"I've had gay neighbors for 17 years. They cut their grass like everybody else. They argue like everybody else. It seems to me, they're married like everybody else. If you take the sex thing out of it, I think people would say, 'OK, I have no problem with it,' " Bruno said.

Well You Say You Got No New Dreams

There's a column in today's New York Times by Stephen Gillers, a professor of law at New York University, proposing that among the speculation about a Vice Presidential selection by John Kerry, "one name is conspicuously absent: Bill Clinton". See The Next Best Thing to Being President (link requires registration). After explaining that the Constitution only bars Mr. Clinton from being elected President again, he writes:

For Mr. Clinton, the appeal of the vice presidency is both political and personal. First, he could help his party win. Yes, Mr. Clinton remains a divisive figure in American politics — but not so much among Democrats. And surely many voters long for the strong economy and economic stewardship that was one of the hallmarks of his administration.

Second, he could burnish his legacy. In exchange for joining the ticket, Mr. Clinton could negotiate for plum assignments as vice president. Mideast peace? National health care? Racial equality? He could focus on any or all of them. And from a purely personal standpoint, it might be especially gratifying for Mr. Clinton to be part of the team that defeats the man who four years ago promised to restore "character" to Mr. Clinton's own White House.

With all due respect, I think Professor Gillers is thinking too small, here. Instead of VP, Senator Kerry should announce that, as President, when the Chief Justice retires the job will go to Bill Clinton.

Seriously, can you picture it? Women would faint, and strong men weep, at the prospect of Chief Justice Clinton. Appointed for life, he could reign on and rain down from his judicial pinnacle for decades (at the same time still collecting hefty book royalties and honoraria). Sure, his confirmation hearing could be a little bumpy, but the same Senate that wouldn't convict him may also be more wary of a journey through the skeletons in their own closets. Republicans might even be reluctant to threaten such action during the election, considering that they are looking forward to the appointment of Justice Antonin "Duck Season" Scalia to that post.

Yes, I do believe that dangling the prospect of Bill Clinton in charge of our most sacred document, would finally make this Presidential election interesting.

When It's All a Storybook Story

From the "Good News/Bad News" department:

First the, um, "bad" news, I guess. I usually don't get to the Arts section of the NY Times until the end of the day, when I get home from work. When I opened it up, I found a great big, two page ad trumpeting the fact that Disney and Walden Media will be bringing us the first movie installment of The Chronicles of Narnia at Christmas, 2005. For those who do not know already, the Narnia books were written by C.S. Lewis, a friend of J.R.R. Tolkien, and both were members of a literary circle at Oxford known as the "Inklings". Lewis and Tolkien would read to each other, from their "works in progress". In many ways, Tolkien's work influenced the development of Lewis's more overt Christian allegory.

Anyway, the movies would apparently start with (of course) The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. According to E!Online:

Disney and Walden are betting that Lewis' fantasy franchise--which also includes the prequel, The Magician's Nephew, and the sequels The Horse and His Boy, Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Silver Chair and The Last Battle--will follow Warner Bros.' Harry Potter and New Line Cinema's The Lord of the Rings series by casting a spell at the box office.

"With an exciting and meaningful plot and well-drawn, emotional characters, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe has the potential to be just the start of an extraordinary series of films; the exceptional imagination present in the novels follows in the best Disney tradition," said Disney chairman Dick Cook. "I think this is just the kind of movie audiences are looking for, and we're thrilled to be able to bring it to the screen."

The Narnia books are wonderful, but nevertheless I think a little trepidation is in order. I already know that there were several false starts with respect to the dramatization of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and only the extensive and dedicated effort and creativity of Peter Jackson was able to finally bring about the trilogy of films which have been so deservedly honored. So, I think this means that, for fans of the works, who makes the film is an important issue.

For these films, Disney has joined with Walden Media, which has apparently been buying the film rights to "beloved" works. Walden originally optioned the Lewis books in 2001. The company was launched in earlier that year by, among others, billionaire investor Philip Anschutz with the mandate of "marrying popular entertainment and education." Apparently, Anschutz (the 16th richest American according to Forbes) not only owns Walden, but also one-fifth of America's movie screens. According to a September 1999 Fortune article, Anschutz was "working deliberately and diligently" to do "something significant in American Christianity." He also is, apparently, active in conservative circles. Recently, he purchased the San Francisco Examiner, and it has been reported that in the 1990s "Anschutz backed Colorado's Amendment 2, which tried to restrict that state's cities from adopting civil rights protections specifically for gays and lesbians."

I remember reading that the publishers of the Narnia books were trying to figure out a way to de-emphasize the Christian allegory in the works. That would be unfortunate, but it would also be unfortunate to go too far the other way. If the movie-makers can avoid the temptation to "hit us over the head", we can always hope for something as enjoyable as LOTR.

Oh, I said that was the "bad news" part. The "good news" is that there is no indication that Mel Gibson has been signed to direct.