BLOGAPALOOZA: Alex Beam probably figured that everyone had forgotten his April Fool’s boner by now. If so, he was wrong.

BLOG WARS: My reduced-blogging regime means that I missed out on a bunch of cross-blog debate regarding the war. You can go here to Tres Producers, then scroll down (and down, and down) and follow the links to get an idea of what’s going on. Also IsntaPundit has a long post responding to one from Hesiod Theogeny (follow the link, then continue ad infinitum). And Nick Denton has a cautionary observation.

Regarding the William Van Alstyne excerpt below on the constitutionality of the war: Several people have asked where you can get a copy of the whole letter. I don’t know — he emailed it to me. I’ve responded to ask if he minds me putting the whole thing on the site, but I haven’t heard back yet. There’s nothing secret or anything — it’s public — but I don’t like to post whole letters between other people on the site without asking unless there’s some very strong reason. It just seems a bit pushy.

QUESTION FOR SADDAM: Is this display supposed to: (1) Scare us; (2) Lull us into a false sense of security; or (3) Cause our troops to collapse into helpless laughter tinged with pity?

It’s gotta be either (2) or (3), right?

CAREY GAGE has posted a response to Brad De Long’s by-now-famous piece on lefties transitioning into righties.

UBERBLOGGER JOANNE JACOBS emails:

You guys will have to start praising NPR’s superb judgment in selecting open-minded, thoughtful, intelligent commentators: I’m making my debut on “All Things Considered” today (Friday) at 5:20, 7:20 and 9:20 pm Eastern time with a commentary on the move to require all students to take college-prep classes. It looks like this will be a semi-regular free-lance gig.

Well, it’s a good sign.

MARC HEROLD, author of famously bogus Afghan civilian casualty estimates, has resurfaced. But Bill Herbert is on the case.

UPDATE: Here’s another response to Herold.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Chris Bertram comments:

Who said that only the “bad guys” would get killed? Who believed them if they did? I can’t recall anyone who said or believed any such thing. Those of us who thought (and think) that the Afghan war was just did so in the full knowledge that in any war innocents get killed.

Indeed.

MICHAEL BARONE says the Saudis are our enemies, and the Administration knows it — regardless of public statements to the contrary.

IS INVADING IRAQ CONSTITUTIONAL? William Van Alstyne, a professor of constitutional law at Duke who I respect very much, has his doubts, as expressed in this letter responding to questions from the Senate Appropriations Committee, which he was kind enough to email me:

Third, and most recent among the resolutions you enclosed, is the express “Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces” by Congress, adopted on September 18, 2001, following the cataclysmic events of September 11. The authorization is quite current And it calls expressly for the use of U.S. Armed Forces “against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” It is also framed in the following quite inclusive terms, in § 2(a), that:

[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

I nonetheless think it doubtful that this will “stretch” to cover a proposal to use military force to overthrow the government of Iraq as is currently being considered, without authorization by Congress, absent quite responsible evidence that Iraq was involved in “the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept.

11, 2001″ –evidence that may exist but not that I have seen reported in the press or elsewhere. I note, respectfully, that the authorization is not an “open-ended” one to authorize the use of military power against any nations, organizations, or persons whom the President identifies as proper targets insofar as it would merely help in some general sense to “prevent” future terroristic attacks by such nations, organizations, or persons. Rather, it is to permit such uses of military power only with reference to those identified as having contributed in some substantial manner to the September 11th attacks, or known now to be harboring such persons.

Van Alstyne does allow that it’s arguable that the 1991 declaration against Iraq might allow for such an act — since, basically, that war never really ended — but doesn’t think that’s the case.

An interesting argument, and certainly an argument that the broad view of the Bush Doctrine (criticized here by Bruce Ralston of Flit) won’t pass constitutional muster. I generally agree with Van Alstyne on this, and on Executive use of force generally, though I note that our view of these issues has little in the way of judicial support, or Executive or Legislative support for that matter. Though I think the Framers intended otherwise, Presidents have generally enjoyed a lot of freedom where the employment of troops is concerned.

Still, if Bush were tricky, he’d call for a vote in Congress in October, before the election (so as to avoid having a “lame duck” Congress vote on such a momentous issue). I think this would work to his political advantage, as well as being faithful to the Constitution. But it’s not the sort of thing that risk-averse White House political wonks want to do.

MY SPECULATION ABOUT WEST NILE VIRUS in the Knoxville area yesterday turns out to have been more true than I realized.

I think all the advice about long pants and DEET is probably silly, though. If it’s abroad in the mosquito population, sooner or later you’re going to get it. And when you do, it’ll probably have no effect after which you’ll be immune. So why fight it? Am I missing something here?

IF AMERICA WERE ASSASSINATING DISSIDENTS ABROAD, even more weenies would be calling for military action against the United States. But when Iran does it it’s something to be kept quiet, apparently:

A prominent Iranian dissident living in Paris is charging that the Iranian government tried to kill him last month.

A man wearing a concealing hat and sunglasses entered the office of Arman Nouri, a Paris dental surgeon, on July 16, claiming to need emergency attention. Dr. Nouri says that the man lay down in the examination chair.

When the dentist turned around to wash his hands, the man stabbed him with a knife in the back, shoulder and stomach areas while shouting, “We warned you! We warned you!” . . .

The attempt on Dr. Nouri’s life is one of several incidents that indicate the Iranian government, in the face of widespread popular unrest, is increasingly cracking down against its political opponents.

This week, anti-government protests have been occurring in several major Iranian cities. While public attention worldwide has focused on the possibility that America will topple Iraq, one member of what President Bush has called the “Axis of Evil,” a little-noticed popular uprising against another Axis power, Iran, is building momentum.

The Iranian regime, which America considers the foremost state sponsor of terrorism, is apparently taking the challenge seriously enough to respond with violence. . . .

In February of this year, an attempt was made on the life of an Iranian dissident lawyer and Shiite Muslim cleric in Germany named Mehdi Haeri. A man visited Mr. Haeri with a briefcase containing brass knuckles, a knife and an electric shock device, claiming that a fatwah had been issued against him for his critical writings and his frequent assistance to Muslim clerics wanting to flee Iran as refugees to Germany. Luckily, Mr. Haeri had been alerted of the danger to his life before the assailer’s visit and police were on hand to arrest the man before he could attack. Mr. Haeri said German authorities have repeatedly warned him to keep quiet about what happened.

Yes, God forbid that word should get out. People might start expecting action.

MORE BELLICOSE WOMEN: John Lott writes about the growing trend toward armed women.

YOU AND WHAT ARMY? No, I really mean that! Adrian Hamilton is arguing for a European invasion of the United States, which he characterizes as a rogue nation.

Of course, while Euroweenies like Adrian want to invade America, American woman Sasha Castel is proving why they’re not man enough, administering a Fisking that will have Adrian walking funny for a week.

“WEATHER FOR THE WEALTHY,” observes Nick Schulz, “is never the same as weather for the poor.” Which is why he — like me — wants to see the whole world become rich.

BRETT GLASS REPORTS that Denver is using antiterrorist measures to collect on traffic tickets.

It’s a parody but probably won’t be for long. That’s usually how these things work.

Homeland security is a joke. And not a funny one, despite Glass’s best efforts.

ARNOLD KLING says that Janis Ian is wrong — not in her criticisms of the music industry, but in placing her faith in CDs as a means of distribution:

I think that her solutions will not work, because the problem with the music industry is much deeper. I think that the problem is that CD’s are obsolete, and the music industry is trying to use the legal system to crush more efficient means for storing and distributing music. I believe that you cannot use a web site as a loss-leader for CD’s, because CD’s are an expensive storage medium compared to hard disks. You cannot charge 25 cents per download, because that would add up to overly expensive charges to the people who download most frequently.

I think that the solution will involve distributing massive quantities of music on hard disks, and allowing unlimited downloads for annual subscription fees. But this would radically change the role of the music industry, which it is not willing to accept.

He thinks the music industry will be bypassed in 5-10 years. My own experience cuts both ways on that front. My own record label, Wonderdog Records, sells CDs, but there’s no question that more of our music was distributed by download than by CD. Our stuff (was) all over Napster, AudioGalaxy, etc. I’d be willing to bet that online distribution exceeded meatspace distribution by a factor of 100.

This didn’t make us any money, of course (oh, it probably sold a few extra CDs, but it didn’t make us any identifiable money) but since we’re effectively a nonprofit operation that didn’t matter. In fact, we actively encouraged people to make our tunes available on filesharing systems, since we and our artists understand that the point is to make the music available, not to make money for it. (Our artist contracts begin “It is understood that Wonderdog Records is not a normal record company.”)

At the same time, though I get a lot of my music online, from independent artists who make it available for free, I still buy a lot of CDs. And I’m not thrilled with the idea of hard drives as the main residence of music: that kind of storage is too impermanent. I have CDs from almost 20 years ago. My mom has Louis Armstrong records from the 1920s, long before she was born. Who’s going to have MP3s of the Tumblin’ Sneakers song The Secret World of Charles Kuralt in 50 years? (Media junkies — you must listen to this song, which is a hoot).

Maybe I’m wrong about that, but when I really like music, I want hardcopy, not just hard-drive copy. Perhaps there will be a technological fix. In the meantime, CDs have actually gotten pretty damned cheap — until you factor in the markup needed to pay for record execs’ cocaine and fancy cars.

And the DIY, more-or-less nonprofit approach to music may be what kills big labels, one tiny bite at a time. When you look at the people willing to operate rock clubs on an effectively nonprofit basis, you have to wonder: as the population becomes richer, and has more leisure time, perhaps all sorts of activities will move from the for-profit to the not-really-for-profit sector.

19 MILLION AFGHANS HAVE BEEN INNOCULATED AGAINST MEASLES since the Taliban were booted out, according to an article referenced in The Corner. This has saved 35,000 children from death.

I don’t know for a fact that this is wrong, and I’m sure that quite a lot more Afghans have been vaccinated for all sorts of things since the Taliban were routed. (And, of course, there are the 12,000 or so that the Taliban would have killed, had they continued killing Afghans at their pre-invasion rate). But 19 million out of a population of 26.8 million seems like an awful lot. The best I can find are some stories saying that the campaign’s goal was to vaccinate nine (not nineteen) million. Does anyone know if this figure is correct?

YOU CAN ONLY ADMIRE this kind of ingenuity — though I’d expect no less from a blogger.

WHY GORE’S POPULISM worked best with the upper middle class. I find this fairly persuasive:

Remember, the insults hurled against Bush (I was one of the hurlers) were that he led a charmed life and everything was handed to him. Now think for a second, who would be most upset by a spot taken away at Yale? Would it be A) a truck driver for whom there is little differentiation between institutions of higher learning or B) the guy who still pissed off that he had to go to Brown, because he had no connections with the Yale admissions committee? Without going into the value of such arguments, think about all the argument against him and consider whose ire they raise.

Interesting.

UPDATE: Of course, there’s also this explanation. Jeez.

RESPONDING TO AN EARLIER DECLARATION AGAINST THE WAR by a group of German intellectuals, a group of American academics and intellectuals (including Mary Ann Glendon, Jean Bethke Elshtain, David Gutmann, Elizabeth Fox Genovese, Samuel Huntington, James Q. Wilson, and a host of others) has written a response. There are also links to the earlier correspondence. Excerpt:

You describe the rise of Islamicist violence in the world as “a consequence of the instability of the balance of power in the present unipolar world order.” If we understand this viewpoint correctly, you are suggesting, at least in part, that if the U.S. and its allies had less power and influence in the world, and if states such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and other states in the Middle East and in the Muslim world had more power and influence in the world, then the world would become a safer, less violent place. Recognizing that many (though not all) of these states whom you regard as insufficiently powerful and influential in the world are run by unelected authoritarians who oppress their own people and frequently nurture and export the terrorist violence that now threatens the world, including the Muslim world, we disagree with your prescription.

Your letter raises the subject of civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan. The subject is a serious one, which concerns us deeply, but your treatment of it is not serious.

It’s basically a heavyweight group-Fisking.

WHY GUN OWNERS FEAR THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: A cogent explanation. If you’re seriously interested in this subject, this law review article by Dave Kopel and Joseph Olson is worth reading, too.

CORPORATE WELFARE FOR HOLLYWOOD: Matt Welch says there’s a lot of it.

EUGENE VOLOKH has an excellent post on why he’s an optimistic libertarian. Well worth reading if you — as I sometimes do — have gotten depressed about the future of liberty.

DAHLIA LITHWICK writes about a man’s right to choose in Slate. It’s not a bad piece. I’ve got a piece on the back burner (I have a lot of those — my scholarly rangetop goes into another timezone, but at least I’ll never run out of things to write about even if I never have a new idea) called Male Procreative Autonomy that addresses these issues in more depth. There’s rather a lot of hypocrisy, which Lithwick doesn’t really address, in the juncture between the way abortion is treated (“my body, my choice!”) and the way child-support is treated (“he got her pregnant, he should pay!”). Perhaps Richard Bennett will have something to say on this topic.

“WHO CARES ABOUT WEST NILE VIRUS?” Asks Rachel Lucas. Yeah, it’s not exactly the Black Death. Though I wonder if it’s not more widespread than people think. There’s a “bug” going around here that involves a week of headaches followed by a couple of weeks feeling generally worn out and crappy. (I’ve had it; I’m on week 3). If it were West Nile, would anyone know? (And I haven’t seen a crow in weeks. There were lots last year.) Probably nothing, but as I reach for the Tylenol, it’s crossed my mind.

SWING TO THE RIGHT: John Rosenberg has a post that tries to explain the phenomenon Brad De Long writes about. And Nick Confessore emailed to say that I don’t appreciate the tremendous, er, “discipline” of Republicans in DC and the groupthink that goes with it.

No, I don’t. That’s probably because (1) I’m not a Republican; and (2) I don’t live in DC. But even when I did live in DC in the 1980s, I found Republicans more anxious to win converts, and Democrats more anxious to condemn political incorrectness. Perhaps that was just the crowd I ran with — not everyone can be as openminded and welcoming as, say, Nick’s old boss Bob Kuttner — but perhaps not.

UPDATE: Reader Peter Weinstein says that it’s all explained by this Mark Steyn column.