This has been building for some time:

I talk to various of Sen. Lieberman's political friends and we wonder between ourselves: What is it exactly? Is he just a man out of time now? Too stung by how the 2004 primaries went and just doesn't care what Dems think? Or maybe he thinks he's legislating for history here. A lot of folks who are generally in line with Lieberman, and like him, ended up not supporting him in the primaries because they worried not about his political views but about his political judgment. So the irony here is that he's displaying the same political tin ear and questionable judgment that kept many like-minded Dems from supporting him. And their very lack of support stung him so badly that it has accentuated those tendencies that kept them off the Joe team to begin with.

And remember, I'm not talking about John Sweeney or Andy Stern here. I'm talking about card-carrying New Dems.

Just this morning I was talking with some political players involved in the Social Security fight and they were wondering how quickly a few hundred thousand dollars of seed money could be raised to fund a decent primary opponent to run against Lieberman next year. And I have say, I think they could raise it pretty quickly.

After half a decade without any senators to represent me, I'm happy to have two I can call my own again. And luckily, Schumer and Clinton are strong supporters of Social Security. But if I lived in Connecticut and my own senator ended up deep-sixing Social Security all by himself, I'd certainly support someone who challenged him. Actually, I'd happily see him replaced by a Republican if that's what it came to.

Millions rely on Social Security, a right earned through a lifetime of work. It's a compact between citizens and between generations. And like all truly good legislation it makes for good policy and good politics. One senator from Connecticut is a small thing when weighed in that balance.

He's the deal-maker. All the signs are showing it.

Sen. Lieberman's popular in Connecticut. But there must be some folks in Connecticut who support Social Security too.

As Matthew Yglesias said:

If and when Republicans get their collective nose bloodied on this issue and agree to stop talking phase-out and start talking funding gap, then there will be room for compromise. The GOP will put a package of benefit cuts on the table. Then Democrats will owe the world an alternative proposal, focused on keeping benefits generous. Then centrist deal-makers can try and broker a compromise. But that sort of thing requires us to all be talking about the same thing -- preserving Social Security. Right now the Republican plan is to save the village by destroying it

So where do I donate?

Brad DeLong writes in his support of his heretofore dormant plan to subvert the dominant Internet Link Hierarchy.

Here are his old posts on this subject:

1. Resist the Oppressive Dominant Internet Hierarchy Through Link Sluttage!


2. On the Impact on Web Quality of Positive-Feedback Linking Practices


3. Subvert the Dominant Internet Link Hierarchy!

He then offers his own fine, fine, choices in line with this nefarious scheme.

Allow me to contribute my own ideosyncratic list of ten blogs--among many--that deserve greater recognition.

In no particular order:

• Brad Plumer


• Worldchanging


• Needlenose


• Iraqi Letter to America and its companion site A Glimpse of Iraq


• Whirled View


• Kuwait Unplugged


• Green Car Congress


• Saudi Jeans


• Total Information Awareness


• And of course, no list of vital blogs would be complete without Baghdad Girl.

updated -- 9, 10, what's the difference?

Aziz and many others have posted about this story in which Scott Ritter is alleged to have alleged that the United States would attack Iran in June.

I don't buy it, particularly in light of signs that the Bush adminstration is tilting towards a more European approach. The Bush team has yet to develop a coherent policy on the nuclear question, though it seems to be gingerly moving ahead with plans to ask Congress to fund Iranian opposition groups (the House Bill--H.R. 282--still has only 75 cosponsors, however). And we continue to need high-level Iranian support for the nascent Iraqi government, even if there are some Iranian factions who are funding its opposition.

According to retired General Sam Gardiner's Power Point presentation (subscription, pdf) on Iran, which was used for the mock war gaming exercise in the December issue of the Atlantic Monthly, this is what a strategic communications plan might look like:

• Methodology: Stay Ahead of the Story
  – Strategically, criticism of Iran will come faster than argument can be made against the points.
  – Tactically, we’ll continue to dominate the 24-hour cycle but work to reduce perspective by others this time.


• Phases
  – Building the Base
  • Sub-theme: Iran is bad, but diplomacy is the best option for dealing with the problem.
  – Expanding Support at Home and Overseas
  • Sub-theme: (1) Diplomacy is failing. (2) This is not just a problem for the United States,
  – The Time Has Come
  • Sub-theme: Diplomacy has failed; we have no choice.


• Timing: Communications plan and the military plan have to be synchronized.

Until we see this kind of a drumbeat--and we know how loud and persistent this administration can be when it is pushing something--along with genuine efforts (as opposed to Senatorial mumbles) to improve friendly airbases around the region, I won't believe any rumors like Ritter's.

I think that the administration is truly undecided at the moment, and recognizes that it has a weak hand. There may be an element of "strategic ambiguity" going on that is designed to spook the Iranian government. There are certainly reports of American aircraft violating Iranian airspace and of Pentagon teams training in Karachi, but these are mostly taking place under the radar screens of most Americans. The Pentagon, in any case, denies that "U.S. military aircraft" are "flying reconnaissance missions" in Iran. That doesn't necessarily mean that other things aren't going on -- the CIA could be operating UAVs without official Pentagon knowledge, or "military aircraft" might not technically apply to drones, or Israeli drones could be doing the dirty work. Or we could be bluffing. Who knows?

In any case, until the public drumbeat happens, I'm not going to be impressed by RUMINT. I will be thrilled, however, if the adminstration decides to back the European efforts to negotiate a deal and offer some kind of "grand bargain" that recasts our relations in a more friendly light, while continuing to ask that Iran live up to its commitments on human rights. Even if such a policy fails, it would be much better than the current muddle.

UPDATE: Greg Djerejian reacts to a solid Pollack/Takeyh piece in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. Perhaps the vaunted "Triple Track" approach is not dead after all!

This post of hers made my jaw drop:

Slashdot says:

D. Reed Freeman, the "Chief Privacy Officer" of Claria Networks (formerly Gator), the creators of the pervasive spyware package GAIN, has been appointed to the Department of Homeland Security's "Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee".

And in related news, the Bush administration announced today that Jack Kevorkian will be coming on board as the new head of the Department of Health.

In case you don't know what GAIN/Gator is, you're lucky: it's perhaps the most annoying, invasive software ever devised. Don't install it, ever. See Google for the gory details.

So when read this I thought: surely this is some kind of joke? Or maybe the guy has some technical skills that will come in handy?

Sadly, No!

It turns out to be 100% true, according to the DHS website:

D. Reed Freeman, Jr., Chief Privacy Officer at Claria, Arlington, VA. Mr. Freeman, a Certified Information Privacy Professional, works on privacy issues with emerging technology at a small business. Previously, he was a member of Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC, and a staff attorney at the Federal Trade Commission. Mr. Freeman is serving a 4-year term.

This is what Claria said about him, per one Slashdot commenter:

Claria Corporation, www.claria.com, today announced that D. Reed Freeman, Jr. will assume the position of Chief Privacy Officer and Vice President of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs for the company. Mr. Freeman, a partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC, will spearhead Claria's continued commitment to industry-leading online advertising privacy practices. He will also represent Claria's interests both in Washington and internationally, coordinating Claria's efforts on policy matters.

As the commenter put it, he's a lobbyist, not a technical guy by any means.

Just another day in the Bush administration.

UPDATE: For more on Freeman, see veteran spyware-tracker Ben Edelman, who politely calls Freeman a liar here.

Kevin Drum recently set off a firestorm on the female side of the lefty political blogosphere for openly musing about reasons for the lack of female representation in the (flawed) NZ Bear ecosystem, the embers of which are still raging. Ezra took on the issue here, and a good discussion followed. Ezra subsequently added more female bloggers to his sidebar, including the excellent Julie Saltman. Personally, I don't read or link to nearly as many female bloggers as male bloggers, but I'm not sure I can explain why. Am I a jerk? I didn't have any opinion whatsoever on the Larry Summers controversy, although I think that firing people for things they say once is usually an extreme reaction (there may be other valid reasons for Harvard faculty to toss him out though). But I guess I just don't think about gender very much, and my reading habits have become increasingly narrow. Our beloved Nadezhda, obviously, is female, as are KatherineR and Hilzoy of one of the blogosphere's last bastions of bipartisan discussion, Obsidian Wings. I read them regularly and with gusto. Then there's also Garance France-Rutka of TAPPED (the lone woman!), and the award-winning Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft, who I read less often but with similar enthusiasm. I used to read Respectful of Otters but she seems to have disappeared. And then there's the incomparable Belle Waring, who also posts on Crooked Timber from time to time, which has taken up the gender-in-political-blogging thing on numerous occasions, though with little practical effect. And Elizabeth Anderson of Left2Right has become a blogosphere force in an astonishingly short period of time.

Meanwhile, I can't help but notice that, quietly, Big Media Matt has been breaking out of his usual habits and linking to more female writers and discussing gender issues in a more sensitive way than in the past, studiously immune to the slings and arrows directed his way. Sneaky.

UPDATE: I seem to have spoken too soon.

I've been kind of wondering what the deal is with the increasingly odious language from the American right, and Walter Sobchak at The Poorman takes a break from ogling nudie pictures of Jeff Gannon to amplify a theory put forth by one of Jon Henke's commenters:

My theory is the differences you identify, John, are coming to the surface. And as they become more pronounced, so does the hate speech directed toward the politics of the left. In other words, rather than defining what the GOP is, those on the right are attempting definie itself by what it is not. The Right needs to gloss over the differences within the party by uniting the party against the left. And as the GOP becomes more powerful and the differences of its coaltiion more apparent, this becomes more difficult, as it does for any coalition in power. As the power of the GOP grows, the level, intensity and tone of scorn toward the left must accordingly increase. The GOP must define itself by what it is not. ("While we have our differences, at least we aren't a bunch of traitors like Hillary and Ted. Those un-American bastards. Why don't they just crawl back into the spider hole with Saddam and Osama because we all know they hate America.")"

I think that's about right.

It would behoove folks like Dave Johnson and this guy to understand why this is happening rather than merely getting agitated about it.

Praktike reminds us that Mojtaba Saminejad and Arash Sigarchi are bloggers who have been jailed by the Iranian government, just for speaking freely. Today, thanks to the media savvy of the Committee to Protect Bloggers, is "Free Mojtaba and Arash" day around the world.

As praktike notes, other arrested Iranian bloggers have described being beaten and coerced into revealing or inventing embarrassing personal information before being released.

Iran does not have an embassy in the the United States, but if you live here you can contact their representatives via their UN mission or the Pakistani embassy.

Dr. Mohammad Javad Zarif
Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran
622 Third Ave. New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 687-2020 / Fax: (212) 867-7086
E-mail: Email the ambassador

- OR -

Iranian Representative
Embassy of Pakistan
Interests Section of the Islamic Republic of Iran
2209 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20007
Email the Interests Section

The Committee asks that you be polite, and make reference to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

As a member of the United Nations, Iran is a party to the UDHR, which is non-binding. For bonus points, you can reference the Tehran Declaration of 1968.

For more on human rights in Iran, see also Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

---

{update Feb-22-05 3:30PM} by nadezhda
Prak notes that our brooding friend offers some further observations on the illuminating magic of language and "captivating names."

Stick to intraneoconservative food-fighting and liberal strawman-demolishing.

Noam and Matt do the dirty work.

Our august host may differ here.

Nice:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said he believes the US government is planning to assassinate him.

"If they kill me, the name of the person responsible is [President] George Bush," Mr Chavez said.

Mr Chavez - who offered no evidence to back his claim - said any attempt on his life would backfire and threatened to cut off oil supplies to America.

He was apparently reacting to growing criticism by top US officials of his left-wing government.

Can we figure out a way to talk this guy down?

R.I.P. (story)