A READER REMINDS ME that I promised a longer post on Eric Alterman’s What Liberal Media? quite a while ago, and never delivered. True enough.

I don’t think I’m in the right frame of mind to do it justice, though, with war looming and my mind elsewhere. [Hey, you were in the right frame of mind to blog about margarine labels, and those don’t have to do with the war — Ed. Yeah, I’m in the right frame of mind to do justice to margarine labels, too. Not books. And don’t you belong on Kaus’s page? Yeah, but that damn animated ad with searchlights and disco music is starting to bug me, and I needed a break — Ed. Hey, that’s better than the one that made it look like mold was growing across your computer screen! Amen to that, brother — Ed.]

Anyway, here’s the short version. Alterman says that there’s no such thing as a liberal media. And under his definition of liberalism — what we might call Walter Reuther liberalism — he’s right. But Alterman admits quite clearly that journalists do share the values of the academic upper middle class. It’s social liberalism, not economic liberalism, and although there’s a class-based element to it, the class in question isn’t the working class.

But the kind of liberalism that Alterman invokes is obsolete. By that standard, the Democratic party isn’t liberal, either (“exactly!” some people shout). But when most people talk about “liberal media,” they mean precisely the constellation of views that are associated with the academic upper middle class: Volvo/Brie liberalism. Or maybe John Zisk liberalism.

It’s okay for Alterman to use the definition he chooses, of course: all definitions are permitted to the definer, so long as they are clear. But given that most people define liberalism differently, even if Alterman convinces them that his kind of liberalism is rare in the media, it’s not likely to persuade many that the media aren’t liberal according to the Volvo/Brie/Zisk definition.

In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing more of an anti-corporatist slant in the media: not Walter Reuther liberalism, perhaps, but one that recognizes that the political/governmental axis is way, way too tight these days. In fact, I wrote something on that a while back. But I don’t think that’s what Alterman has in mind.

LIKE JAMES LILEKS, I DO THE SHOPPING (and, usually, the cooking) for our household, and I keep seeing this stuff in the dairy aisle. And it bothers me. “Dew Fresh” is a fine name — but for margarine that by its nature never got close to a single drop of dew, unless you count condensation on a refrigeration line at the plant where it was made, this seems a bit much. Who are they kidding?

I also like the way it’s wrapped in wax paper for that crude, handmade-by-struggling-dairy-farmers look, too. And that’s a flower there between “Dew” and “Fresh,” though the first time I glanced at it I thought it was an atom, which somehow would have been just surreal enough to work.

I wonder — was there a design meeting where guys with spiky hair weighed the different possibilities? Hmm. What should it be: Foil for a futuristic look? A fake stone crock made of plastic? A squeeze tube? — Until one guy suddenly had an inspiration and exclaimed, “Wax paper! Crudely printed wax paper! That’s the look we’re going for!” And everyone else gasped in amazement, and he was promoted to Executive Creative Director for Margarine.

Lileks could get a whole essay out of this. All I got was a post. Well, that’s the difference between us.

BELLICOSE WOMEN UPDATE: Michele says it all.

UPDATE: Asparagirl weighs in with some comments, and some ideas on helping out servicewomen, a subject that feminist groups have unaccountably neglected.

RATS AND LEMMINGS AND MOTHS in Iraq. And, also in BlogCritics, Toby Keith on Natalie Maines. He’s not a fan.

UPDATE: A commenter on the Natalie Maines post writes:

The first and last Dixie Chicks song (and video) I heard was “Goodbye Earl.” I know it was supposed to be cute and funny but I found it thoroughly offensive and nasty–and I’m an alt.rock fan, not at all sensitive about these things.

Killing Earl was pretty damn unilateral, come to think of it.

Indeed. By the way, if you haven’t heard it yet, check out My Name is Earl by the Dixie Dicks.

WILL INVADING IRAQ SET A BAD PRECEDENT? Eugene Volokh responds to this claim in Slate:

But regardless of the arena, precedents chiefly influence those who care about equality and consistency and those willing to defer to the precedent-setter’s judgment. The Chinese government, to take Howard Dean’s example, fits neither category. When China is deciding whether or not to invade Taiwan, it will focus on its own interests, not on being consistent with what other governments have done. And Chinese officials are unlikely to be influenced by America’s judgment about when a war is just: They simply don’t respect our views the same way that we might respect our own Supreme Court or Congress.

Read the whole thing.

NORWEGIAN BLOGGER FREDRIK NORMAN is getting some attention for his pro-American venture. Meanwhile Bjorn Staerk reports that many Norwegians are starting to worry about a rift in relations.

DAN HANSON caught Eric Alterman pumping his book on The Daily Show. He wasn’t impressed.

RAND SIMBERG REPORTS that the wounded media are trying to regroup.

DENMARK IS SENDING FORCES to help with Iraq. But the Danish Prime Minister was attacked by a “peace” activist in response. Dagh Nielsen has pictures — just follow the link. He’s also got a link to video of the attack. It’s good video.

UPDATE: Reader Edward Baer emails:

These lefties are idiots. But my question is, “why does a tiny country like Denmark need such a huge parliament building?” Rasmussen was walking down one corridor after another for a full minute!

Yeah, I wondered about that, too.

DANIEL DREZNER finds some good news from Egypt.

A WARNING for both pro- and anti-war folks — over at GlennReynolds.com.

BRITISH MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT TOM WATSON BLOGS:

Yesterday I ended up three down from Robin Cook when he made his resignation speech. What I would have done to have moved to the end of the row, but once you’re in, you’re in. His speech was typed (so he must have been writing it for some time) and his hands were quivering (it must have been very difficult).

To hear his moral case for no conflict contrasted to the moral case for a conflict put to me earlier in the day by the PM of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. “We have had 35 years of tyranny, and this is our last chance” he told me.

I also met a woman who had witnessed her sister drenched in petrol and set alight by Saddam’s Republican Guard. 100 people were made to witness the event and threatened with being shot if they tried to extinguish the flames. She talked about the acid pools and the torture chambers. She told me how 21 members of her family died in the chemical attack at Halabja.

Why am I writing this? Well, it’s because I’m now convinced there is not a moral case for inaction.

We need more blogging MPs.

UNILATERAL, MY ASS.

EDWARD BOYD has an interesting post on Iraq / Al Qaeda connections.

PHIL CARTER tells a tale of “embedding” gone wrong, as two reporters file essentially the same story.

A PRO-LIBERATION RALLY, OF SORTS:

Game notes

Between the second and third periods, a portion of President Bush’s address to the nation was played for the crowd at the Continental Airlines Arena. Cheers erupted five times, the loudest when Bush announced that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to leave Iraq and when the president finished. Seconds later a chant of ”U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A” echoed through the building. …

Interesting.

FAIR-WEATHER HAWKS: Jeremy Lott is unimpressed with what Mickey Kaus calls “balking hawks,” those who were pro-war and are now waffling. Lott writes:

Read enough of Marshall or Friedman . . . or any number of other temporizing liberal hawks, and a sort of myopic utopianism will come into sharp focus. They want a world in which America is both loved and feared. That would, of course, be ideal. But sometimes you can’t have both.

Indeed.

GEORGE BUSH’S APPROVAL RATING IS AT 53% — in Britain.

As David Aaronovitch points out, British media groupthink gives the impression that opposition to war there is near-universal, when it’s anything but.

I think that a media-diversification effort in Europe would do wonders. What Europe needs is a talk-radio boom.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, in a stunning rebuke to the Dixie Chicks, support for war is up in the United States, too. And here — in line with predictions made on this site over a year ago — is the most important part:

A majority of women now back the invasion of Iraq. Two thirds of those surveyed said they support a war with Iraq, compared to about half in a poll conducted two weeks ago. Eight in 10 men supported a war.

The bellicose-women trend, described here (and here, and here) almost 18 months ago, was real, and it’s one of many reasons why the 9/11 attacks were such a staggering miscalculation.

FOR THE FRENCH, IT’S ALL ABOUT OIL. AND BRIBERY:

The most far-reaching financial scandal in French history reached court yesterday after eight years of investigation, the death and flight of several witnesses, and a concerted government effort to ensure the less savoury elements of France’s Africa policy are not exposed to public scrutiny.

For the next four-and-a-half months, the former top brass of Elf, the oil giant, will have to explain what happened to hundreds of millions of pounds diverted from company accounts for bribes and personal enrichment.

No major government figures have been implicated, but Elf’s history as a cover for all manner of Franco-African shenanigans is the backdrop for the trial.

President Chirac is reported to be deeply concerned that France is not embarrassed as it tries to establish itself as an alternative to America’s global leadership.

Heh. Still more reason — and opportunity — for us to follow Nick Denton’s advice and work to split off France’s African colonies and move them in a more democratic direction.

(Via Samizdata, which wonders if this trial will reveal an Iraq connection. Not if Chirac can help it. . . .)

UPDATE: Read this piece on the French corruption scandals, too. Also, this piece by David Ignatius from Legal Affairs last summer is worth reading.

Perhaps this issue will get more attention in American and British media now. . . .

JANET RENO SAYS that you don’t deal with a crazed, weapon-accumulating, charismatic leader by sending in tanks.

Sorry — I’m suffering an irony overload right now.

UPDATE: Heh.

IS THE EUROPEAN UNION DYING? Some people think so.

Meanwhile, Germany’s military is being called a “basket case:”

But even if Germany did want to take part in a war on Iraq, military experts say it would find it hard to fight alongside the modern United States military.

“They’re a basket case,” a senior NATO official in Brussels said.

The United States has urged Germany and other NATO allies to transform their traditionally static armed forces into high-tech, mobile services that can better share the task of policing the world.

Most NATO allies have followed Germany’s lead in letting defense spending languish since the end of the cold war, investing in rich social welfare programs instead. As a result, America’s annual defense budget is now nearly double that of the 18 other NATO countries combined.

And don’t even ask about the French. Welfare-statism doesn’t work. I suspect we’ll see that demonstrated again in the next decade or two. My worry has been that Europe wouldn’t be able to face the truth without a wrenching — and perhaps violent — transition. The good news is, they may not be able to muster much in the way of violence by then.

This brings me no pleasure, but I think that Old Europe, like an alcoholic, will have to hit rock bottom before it’s able to change.

HE’S RIGHT, OF COURSE:

Saddam has destroyed some missiles but beyond that he has done only what he thinks is necessary to keep the UN divided on the use of force. The really important issues relating to chemical and biological weapons remain unresolved. . . .

The veto threat did not help the diplomacy. It’s too bad, because if a majority of the security council had adopted the Blair approach, Saddam would have had no room for further evasion and he still might have disarmed without invasion and bloodshed. Now, it appears that force will be used to disarm and depose him.

Nice to see Clinton weigh in, even if it is a bit late.

JIM BENNETT WRITES that the United Nations was the training wheels, but the Anglosphere is the bike. Or something like that.

SHOCKING UNILATERALISM:

The French Bioethics Bill is particularly contrary to the Biotech Directive. Unlike the Biotech Directive, which allows the patenting of isolated gene sequences where some utility is shown, the Bioethics Bill forbids the patenting of gene sequences. The French bill will allow the patenting of a specific technical application of a function of an element of gene sequence.

But the French government has made no attempt to suggest that the two pieces of legislation are compatible. In fact, French Health Minister Professor Matthei, a sponsor of the bill, suggests that the best way forward would be for the Biotech Directive to be interpreted in accordance with the Bioethics Bill.

The absurdity of this suggestion is clear: a European Directive which was duly passed after over a decade of negotiations, and which was unsuccessfully challenged in the highest European Court, should now be effectively scrapped and replaced with the French Senate’s view.

Where now after the French “Non”?

One can only imagine the cries of outrage if it were the United States doing something like this.