JETBLUE PASSENGERS are unhappy about it sharing their personal data.

Interestingly, Wesley Clark is on the board of Acxiom, the company involved, according to this story in the Post. Clark didn’t have a specific role with JetBlue, it says, but he was behind the development of the passenger-information database involved.

Does this tell us anything about the privacy policies of a Clark Administration? I don’t know. Somebody should probably ask him. At the moment, he’s getting beaten on pretty badly:

“The privacy impact of anti-terrorism initiatives is certain to be a major issue in the presidential campaign,” said David L. Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group in the District.

“The public is extremely skeptical,” he said. “He owes the public an explanation as to how, if elected, he would limit the government’s expanding collection of personal information about citizens.”

Others believe that Clark faces skepticism about the money he took to represent Acxiom, even though many former military leaders have done the same thing.

“There’s something unseemly and, yes, mercenary, about a distinguished general lobbying for a company trying to get government contracts,” said Charles Lewis, executive director for the Center for Public Integrity.

Think Howard Dean might make an issue out of this?

UPDATE: There’s more on this at Cryptome, along with the question: “Will Wesley Clark do the right thing and disavow Acxiom?”

A PACK, NOT A HERD: An interesting lesson on disaster preparedness from Japan, via Virginia Postrel.

MICKEY KAUS has more on the California recall, which I haven’t been covering much. But, then, he actually understands California politics.

CHRISTOPHER LYDON is comparing Wesley Clark to Hadrian, and George Bush to Trajan. I’m not sure that this works (in fact, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t), but you can read it and decide for yourself.

A few angry readers have asked what I like about Howard Dean. I thought I was pretty clear about that. It’s that Dean recognizes (at least he says he does, and he seems sincere to me) that bailing out isn’t an option in Iraq — we have to succeed, or the backlash will be far more damaging than the backlash from our timidity in response to Beirut, Mogadishu, and Tehran.

UPDATE: Reader William Lemmon emails:

As a big ol’ Roman history geek and a fan of historical comparisons to current events, I was fascinated by the blog you linked to last night in which Christopher Lydon equates Wes Clark to Hadrian and President Bush to Hadrian’s predecessor, Trajan.

You write that the comparison doesn’t work, and I would agree that it doesn’t work in the sense that the author thinks it does. However, it may be apt in a way that Mr. Lydon doesn’t intend, and wouldn’t like.

Mr. Lydon seems to assert that Hadrian’s consolidation of the Empire’s borders and cessation of expansion was unquestionably beneficial. But this interpretation is far from unassailable.

The Roman Empire was always at its strongest when it was on the offensive, pushing its borders ever further into barbarian territory and carrying the benefits of civilization with them, just as President Bush asserts that America can only triumph in the war on terror by staying on the offensive and bringing the fight to the enemy’s heartland. There’s no reason to believe that the Democratic strategy of going on the defensive (by focusing on homeland security rather than regime change in hostile nations) will work any better for America than it did for Rome, which found it difficult to maintain static borders against the constant encroachments of barbarian tribes (again, just as our porous borders would be almost impossible to seal against terrorist infiltration).

In fact, it’s arguable that Hadrian’s reforms contributed to the eventual fall of the empire by sapping Rome of its drive and ambition for expansion, leading inevitably to decadence and decline. It’s hard to avoid drawing unfavorable parallels to Democratic pacifism and provinicialism.

All in all, I think that Hadrian, with his passion for reform and centralization, his ivory-tower intellectualism and his weakness for sensual pleasure (for which he was widely mocked and derided in his own day) compares rather closely to too many of today’s Democrats. Perhaps more to Wes Clark’s patron, Bill Clinton, than to Clark himself – although, happily, Bill didn’t erect hundreds of statues of Monica, as Hadrian did of his (male) lover Antinous.

For that matter, Bush as Trajan – a man of action from a province considered somewhat backwater by the Roman elites – is a pleasing comparison as well.

Trifle with history geeks at your peril.

MORE ON MEDIA REPORTING AND IRAQ: Jay Rosen looks at the reporting on Ground Zero and observes:

There’s no script for what’s happening in Iraq; there was none for Ground Zero. “Did Bush and Rumsfeld have an adequate plan?” is good for point-scoring; but it’s a naive expectation for action and upheaval on this scale. I expect Americans to be good at problem-solving when there is no plan, when the bosses don’t know what to do, or aren’t around, when only an unscripted experiment can work.

So one thing I want to know from the press is: how have these virtues figured in the struggle to rebuild Iraq? That isn’t a negative story or a positive story; it’s just an interesting one… and “probably profound.” It’s not that there haven’t been such reports; there have. (See this, for example.) But in the master narrative for post-war Iraq, problem-solving could have a larger place, which might address some of the concerns about “negative” news.

I’ve seen a little reporting along those lines, but not much, and generally buried.

Rosen also offers this interesting observation:

On a speaking trip to The Netherlands two years ago, I noticed that every time I used the word “experiment,” my Dutch hosts would give me a blank look or reach for their beer. So I finally asked some Amsterdam friends about it. The Dutch think that if you start an experiment it means you don’t know what you’re doing, one of them said. The most likely outcome is to make things worse. “Oh,” I replied, “well, Americans have a different attitude.” “We know,” said my hosts, in unison and now laughing.

I think that ties in with the point noted by Scott Turow (quoted here) on the comparative fragility of European institutions and the political attitudes it produces. And I wonder if the attitude of many in the press — in which trying something that doesn’t work is a “failure” even if you learn from it, because it didn’t work the first time — isn’t something similiar.

Well, I’m not sure what the profound sociological point there is, though I think there is one. But I definitely think that there are a lot of good stories — not cheerleading, but interesting, and informative, and useful at getting things right in the future — that aren’t being reported because people are sticking to a tired Vietnam-era template.

UPDATE: Tim Blair has it all figured out.

MEDIENKRITIK offers an example of German pro-Americanism that wasn’t widely reported — but also notes that Der Spiegel managed to report on European blackouts without the “spiteful gloating” displayed in reporting the New York blackout.

MARK STEYN WRITES ANOTHER EULOGY FOR EDWARD SAID, whose death appears to have inspired new discussion of his scholarship.

UPDATE: And here’s one by Nelson Ascher.

HOW THEY TREAT WHISTLEBLOWERS AT THE E.U.:

Robert McCoy has brought to light fraud and corruption within the EU. Now, in a letter seen by David Wastell, he reveals how he was vilified by Brussels for his efforts

He has worked for the European Union for more than 30 years. His friends regard him as an upright and loyal bureaucrat, keen to uphold the EU’s name against its critics, whether in Brussels or back home in Britain.

Yet Robert McCoy must steel himself before he walks the corridors of his own EU institution. If he is lucky, senior colleagues at the glass and concrete headquarters of the Committee of the Regions – a Brussels talking-shop for local government representatives, set up under the Maastricht Treaty – merely ignore him, turning their heads ostentatiously as he passes.

If not, he may be on the receiving end of abuse. “Gestapo! Gestapo!” angry fellow workers once taunted him. One manager spat on the floor as he walked by, friends say. . . .

Mr McCoy’s offence – as it was apparently regarded by some EU staff and politicians – was to stumble upon, investigate and then seek to correct a series of financial irregularities within the Committee of the Regions (CoR), whose annual budget is €38 million (£27 million).

Last week the European Union was thrown into a frenzy when a trio of official reports confirmed the existence of secret bank accounts, bogus contracts and other accounting malpractices at Eurostat, the EU’s statistical office, over the past five years.

Shocking treatment. You’d almost think that sort of corruption was regarded as acceptable, and even defensible.

EUGENE VOLOKH has some thoughts on today’s Doonesbury and campaign finance “reform.”

Seems to me that this is just what the “reformers” wanted.

EVAN COYNE MALONEY managed to interview Michael Moore on camera — and got some advice. You can see it here.

Sorry for the limited blogging. Power’s out again at the Insta-home. No idea why, as the weather’s perfect today. [It’s a conspiracy! — Ed. Possibly.] I’m at the office, but just briefly. Back later.

THE PLAME/WILSON STORY remains, in Roger Simon’s words “too complicated” for me to feel I really understand it. But here’s the Washington Post story, and here’s a roundup of commentary by Brian Linse. My big question on all of this is “why?” I’m not sure I find Brian Linse’s “pure revenge play” theory plausible, though I’m not sure I find Roger’s crime-writer instinct that it was a setup to embarrass the Bush Administration plausible either.

Meanwhile, Josh Chafetz sounds a cautionary note, and Tom Maguire has perspective, while Daniel Drezner is more upset than some of his commentors.

UPDATE: Reader Matthew Brown emails: “I don’t believe for a second that the Plume story is ‘too complicated’ for you. It’s about intimidation of whistleblowers, no?”

Well, that’s what some people say. But it doesn’t make sense to me. First, if you want to “intimidate” someone, committing a felony at which you can be caught — and which doesn’t hurt the target — doesn’t seem to be the way to do it. What possible benefit was there to the Bush Administration in saying that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? When what they could have said is what the British did say, which is that Wilson was gullible and inept? Had Plame been fired on a pretext, or Wilson’s taxes been audited, or some such, then there’d be an “intimidation” argument. But this? Perhaps I’m too missing something here, but this seems like a rather tepid version of intimidation — or, for that matter, revenge. I can’t help but feel that there’s either more to this, or less, than we’re hearing. And I guess if it weren’t for the palpable desperation on the part of people looking for a scandal with which to tar Bush — reminiscent of numerous right-wing Clinton critics from about five or six years ago — I might be more inclined to say “more” instead of “less.”

I suppose I should just be happy to see such solicitude on the behalf of a reputed CIA agent from people who aren’t usually so solicitous.

ANOTHER UPDATE: On the other hand, Donald Sensing writes:

I happen to have been a seminar attendee in 1993 in which Wilson was a speaker one day. There were only about two dozen attendees, some of us military and others civilian government factotums from all branches of government. So we had very informal and engaging discussions with the daily speakers.

I found Wilson to be expertly knowledgeable on the Middle East and quite sober-minded. I rate his credibility extremely high, so I find the charges he has made very credible and very disturbing.

Sensing’s view makes this more credible and disturbing to me. But I still wonder why, exactly, anyone would do this, even if they were trying to intimidate a whistleblower. And read the comments to Sensing’s post.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Kori Pirouz emails:

Shockingly, you really don’t get what is intimidating about blowing the cover of a CIA agent. What could be more intimidating than putting an agent’s life at risk? I’m curious to know.

I don’t think that Valerie Plame is undercover in Islamabad, so I don’t quite see where the risk is. There may be risks to contacts she developed in the past, which would be bad — but why would that intimidate Wilson? This seems like a case of manufactured outrage to me. I rather doubt that most of the people who are so exercised here were condemning that hero of the antiwar left, Philip Agee, who really did put lives in danger.

But if somebody did endanger Valerie Plame as a means of intimidating Wilson, that would be contemptible. But once again, I don’t see the reason for taking this approach, even if your goal was to intimidate Wilson. Surely the White House could do a better job, if that were the point, without violating the law or endangering national security. Unless you buy this theory from reader Stephen Galbraith:

W. Post says that “two Senior Administration officials” informed 6 journalists of Plume’s CIA connections/work. Hmm, one must be Ari Fleischer. The other is? Rove?

That doesn’t make sense. It sure doesn’t smell of any larger orchestrated effort. The White House, according to all sources I know of (Woodward et al.), is very secretive and squashes leaking. We don’t see this M.O. operating in any other way.

Fleischer and Rove late one night after a couple of beers? Wonder if they initiated the calls or the press?

I’m not sure why one has to be Fleischer, but the beer thing doesn’t ring true, either.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: This bit from reader Robert Jeffers makes more sense than anything else I’ve read:

Wilson himself does not think that the exposure of his wife as a CIA agent (something he has been careful to neither confirm nor deny, in every interview with him that I’ve heard or read) was meant to intimidate him. He obviously discounts the idea that it somehow impugns his credibility or integrity (the reason Novak gave for identifying his wife’s status with the CIA; i.e., that he was asked by the CIA to go to Niger because of her connections, not his reputation/background). But he understands that it intimidates anyone else who might come forward. A warning shot across the bow to other whistle-blowers, in other words: don’t embarass us (as Wilson did) or we’ll ruin your careers, too (as Ms. Plame’s “undercover” career has been ruined). Which, of course, is the classic response to whistle-blowers: it is too late to intimidate
the one who has blown your secret. All you can hope to do is to send a message to anyone else with secrets to tell. That’s where the intimidation comes in.

As for the revelation itself, it really isn’t necessary that Ms. Plame now be in mortal danger (“in Islamabad,” as you so artfully put it) to be a felony. Obviously her career is at an end, at least the one she (probably) enjoyed. That’s intimidation enough for anyone else who needs the paycheck. Now Ms. Plame cannot travel anywhere without being suspect, perhaps even subject to revenge (who knows? It sounds a bit “James Bond-ian” to me to even type such a thing, but then again, the law doesn’ t require that disclosure place the agent’s life in danger to be a felony). The law is meant to protect national security. According to a source who spoke to the Washington Post, that concern was trumped by political concerns. The fact that it may be petty is not the issue, any more than it made sense to send the burglars to the Watergate complex. This isn’t, after all, a mystery novel. It is real life, and truth is usually more petty than fiction.

Well, that last is certainly true — just read my email! The whole notion seems a bit farfetched to me: transferring Ms. Plame to clerical duties in Ougadougou would have been just as effective a punishment (and intimidation), and not a felony, wouldn’t it? If the “outing” claim is true — and at the moment it’s rather thinly sourced — it involves behavior that’s contemptible, and (I think, based on what I’ve read on other blogs and in news stories) illegal. Not to mention phenomenally stupid. Nor is it clear to me what “whistle” Wilson actually blew, when you actually look at the Niger uranium story’s facts — the White House, after all, never said anything specifically about Niger. But assuming that it is true, Jeffers’ explanation of the “why” makes more sense than anything else that I’ve read on the subject. Perhaps Roger Simon will weigh in.

MORE: Megan McArdle:

When liberals start championing the CIA as a beacon of truth and justice, something is amiss. I’m suspicious of both sides, especially since, if this were Clinton, 99% of the liberals would be telling us that the CIA are a bunch of lying bastards who can’t be trusted to tell you that the sky is blue, and 99% of the conservatives defending Bush would be declaring that the CIA are the watchdogs of our liberty and how dare you impugn their motives?! So for now, I’m just going to wait and see.

Read her whole post.

UPDATE: Reader Patrick Dunne emails:

I don’t understand why, if outing a CIA agent is so outrageously terribly awful, these anti-Bush people aren’t more incensed at Robert Novak. Wasn’t he the one who actually published her name for the “evil-doers” to see? Wasn’t he a dupe, if these people are to be believed, who became a tool for nefarious schemers in the Administration? Where are the questions about his judgment and journalistic integrity? If they Administration actually approached six journalists, doesn’t this mean five of them had the integrity and judgment to decline to break the law and endanger this woman and Novak didn’t? How does Novak retain any reputation if this thing is such a humongous scandal?

The whole thing smells of a cooked up scandal a la BBC v. Tony Blair if you ask me.

I don’t know if Novak comes under the statute or not, but that would have no bearing on the moral status of his actions. I have to wonder why anyone in the Administration would shop a story like this to Novak, who doesn’t like Bush and has notorious Arabophile tendencies that would make him seem a dubious choice to me. But then, there’s obviously something going on here that I don’t fully understand.

STILL MORE: Did the CIA do the leaking?

MORE YET: John Hawkins writes:

However, there is a big flaw in much of what’s being written about this story. That flaw is that it is being treated as a given that this story was leaked by a member of the Bush administration. While that may turn out to be the case, there is little at this point beyond a leak from an anonymous source to indicate that is what happened. . . .

In any case, a felony was committed here. If someone in the Bush administration did the crime, then they should be fired and put on trial. That’s the law and it applies to everyone. However, before people start leveling wild accusations against the Bushies they ought have better sources than an “anonymous aide” and a bitter husband who has already had to eat some of his own words about this very matter. There is going to be an investigation and if what that anonymous aide & Wilson said is true, there’s are an awful lot of people who know about this — far too many to cover it up.

Stay tuned.

EVEN MORE: Clifford May says everyone knew Plame was an agent. That’s typical (as lefty critics of the Agency are usually pointing out). He’s got more background on Wilson, too. Here’s a link to the statute in question, too, though I’m not at all familiar with its actual application.

And Roger Simon has responded to my invitation to comment further. He’s suspicious.

FINAL UPDATE: I’ve updated this thread a lot, rather than posting new items, because a lot of people were linking to it, but enough is enough. I actually counted the words before adding this update and it came out 1,860. That’s two or three op-eds worth. There’s a later post here, and I’ll update more as needed. (I’ll try to remember to always use “Plame” in the post, so it’ll be easy to find on a search, too.)

Reading the stuff above, it seems to me that one reason why this is so confused is that the nature of the charges is vague and shifting. Was Plame put “at risk?” Or not? Was the purpose to intimidate Wilson? Or someone else? I’d like to see more specificity. The trouble is, at this point we don’t know enough.

Follow the link (way up top) to Tom Maguire’s page, where he’s got a chronology. That helps some, but things are all rather maddeningly vague.

UPI CORRESPONDENT PAMELA HESS has an interesting piece on media coverage of matters in Iraq. It’s long, and complex, enough to defy simple summary, but here are some excerpts:

It is an important debate to have. Coverage out of Iraq is largely negative, and the surprise to me upon arriving there in July was that it wasn’t nearly as dangerous as I thought it was going to be. People are on the streets evening and morning, eating at restaurants and doing their shopping. They swim in the Tigris to keep cool. They play soccer. . . .

If the CPA feels that its successes are not getting appropriate media attention, they might ask themselves why.

On my first day in Baghdad, I submitted the required written request for more than a dozen interviews and briefings, knowing many would not be granted. Four weeks later, when I left Baghdad, my requests had never even been formally acknowledged — although a CPA spokesman confirmed they had been received — and none were ever acted upon. . . .

These Marines, from Gen. Mattis down, understood what Keane talked about Thursday: that the deaths of American soldiers (not a single Marine has been killed by hostile fire since April 12) are statistically small but play into the hands of the enemy, who depend on the daily news report of the grim statistic for psychological victory. They want Iraq to seem lawless and ungovernable and most of all dangerous, so the Americans and the 20,000 other troops will leave.

There is another reason they are dismayed by the media coverage: It gives way too much credit to the enemy. The attacks on U.S. soldiers are relatively “cheap” — they are remotely detonated bombs or mortar or grenade attacks conducted from far off. They don’t require much in the way of expertise or bravery. Each news report of each hostile death — and there have been 81 since combat operations supposedly ended May 1 — contributes (the military says unjustly) to their image as a credible fighting force.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Rapid response!

Just read the Pam Hess piece you linked to about media coverage in Iraq. Given that I am sitting squarely in the middle of the CPA press shop in Baghdad as I write this, I feel qualified enough to comment.

First, Hess completely leaves out one of the reasons for the easier time the Marines (and the Army’s 101st Airborne in the north) are having with the population. Namely, the Shia and Kurds were more favorably disposed to the Americans deposing Saddam and hence more likely to “give peace a chance” once the Americans settled in to rebuild. Not so in “the triangle” and in Baghdad proper, and it is Army units that got that assignment.

This is a critical point because it explains some of of the Army’s skittishnes about reporters. This isn’t to say that the Marines didn’t approach this correctly right from the start, they have. It’s just to highlight that the (Army) units in and around Baghdad got the tougher assignment and hence are a little more strained in their daily effort. Which in turn tends to mean they are more restrained with reporters roaming around. . . .

Her piece here is just one long apologia for the press who are now being rightly) assailed for letting their biases choose what actually makes it into print and this seems to be in line with her previous work and reputation.

Finally, Hess fails to mention how understaffed the CPA itself is and thus by extension its public affairs effort. It’s tough to give all the media everything they want when you lack the manpower to do it. Sure, more people would be great. But more people come with more logistical and other problems and, while I am not privy to this decision, I would not be surprised if there was a conscious decision to limit the “footprint” of CPA in order to avoid the perception that the CPA is here to stay. Already you can find grumbling on the Iraqi General Council that they are ready to take on more governing responsibility. Increasing the footprint of CPA would tend to send a signal that we’re overly paternalistic here. Not an image we are trying to foster.

Not sure if any of this is interesting to you or not. But I just thought I’d take 5 minutes to point out just a SMALL part of the other side. I’d appreciate being anonymous if you use any of this.

Done. I must say that I’ve found Hess’s commentary on this pretty balanced — but then, I’m not square in the middle of things in Baghdad, so I can only compare it to what I’m hearing from other reporters.

In a related vein, read this.

LIES ABOUT WMD: A rogues’ gallery.

STEFAN SHARKANSKY is back, after recovering from a “catastrophic hardware failure.” Check out his peace prize nominations!

NICK KRISTOF WRITES:

In reality, the wave of activity abroad by U.S. evangelicals is one of the most important — and welcome — trends in our foreign relations. I disagree strongly with most evangelical Christians, theologically and politically. But I tip my hat to them abroad.

Read the whole thing.

APPARENTLY, IT’S DIFFICULT TO GET AN INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL MOORE — even when you try really hard.

Go figure.

UPDATE: Reader Robert Racansky points out that “four years ago Michael Moore had this guy arrested.”

And, of course, Moore has admitted to, ahem, counterfactual material in Bowling for Columbine, though Spinsanity is unimpressed with his overall honesty.

GEITNER SIMMONS HAS A NICE POST on poverty and the Third World.

THE OTHER REASON (besides power outages) that I’ve been blogging less this weekend is Neal Stephenson’s Quicksilver — which is also the subject of an interesting collaborative annotation project here.

JEFF JARVIS IS UNIMPRESSED with Burger King’s new low-fat sandwich. It’s awful. And so small!

DAVID BROOKS WRITES ON THE CRUSHING OF DIVERSITY ON CAMPUSES. Juan Non-Volokh agrees:

When I was an undergraduate at Yale, I had several long discussions with my senior essay advisor about whether to pursue my PhD. My advisor, who was himself quite liberal, cautioned against it, largely because of my emerging, right-of-center political views. As he described it, succeeding in the liberal arts academy is tough enough as it is without the added burden of holding unpopular views. To illustrate the risk, he noted that one of his colleagues on the graduate admissions committee explicitly blackballed each and every candidate who had ever received financial support (scholarships, fellowships, etc.) from the John M. Olin Foundation because, his colleague insisted, the Olin Foundation only funded people who thought like they did, and Yale did not want any graduate students who thought that way. If I truly wanted to be an academic, he counseled, I was better off going to law school.

Anything but that! Follow the links in the Volokh post for more comments on Brooks’ column.

UPDATE: David Adesnik agrees with Jacob T. Levy (quoted in the Brooks piece, in case you didn’t follow the link) that this isn’t such a big deal.

Since the piece is about arts and sciences hiring, I couldn’t say, and I imagine that it varies a lot from institution to institution. Hiring at my school is pretty non-ideological, and the committees generally get along pretty well. But then, we’re a pretty collegial faculty, and plenty of others, er, aren’t.

And read this, too.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg comments.

QUAGMIRE IN KNOXVILLE: The power was out this afternoon. It’s back on now.

EVERYBODY is getting into the Iraq-media-criticism game:

Bishop Abouna, a Chaldean Catholic, told the Catholic Herald in London that the situation in Iraq is steadily improving rather than descending into a morass resembling the Vietnam War, as often depicted by media outlets.

“It’s getting better but still there are many problems,” Bishop Abouna said. “The first problem is that they need security, then they need water and electricity — and all these things are getting better.”

“The media are exaggerating a lot of things. They should be realistic about the situation in Iraq. Newspapers and television are saying a lot of things that aren’t true. When they go there they can see everything (is changing),” he said.

It’s officially a trend now.

HOSSEIN DERAKSHAN has a post on what weblogs can do for Iran.

RED HERRING IS BACK. Well, sort of.

HERE IT IS, a major holiday, and I almost missed it!

UPDATE: A reader emails:

Glen:
Can’t believe you still celebrate this overly-commercialized holiday. Ever since Bush, Cheney and their bloodsucking crew took over this country, this holiday has been turned into nothing but another day for Big Cooking Oil and Big Corn to rape the public.

Wasn’t like that during the Clinton years. Those were the days when corn dogs were real; and big, too.

Bush-Cheney and corn dogs is just a way now to distract the public from the failed policies of the administration. Corn dogs and circus, that’s what it is.

But you can get them with mustard! Gulden’s!