DON’T FORGET THAT CHRIS MUIR’S DAY BY DAY CARTOON IS BACK!

CNN DUPED BY PENTAGON: Heh.

UPDATE: Austin Bay says it’s not just satire: “The thing is, when CNN gripes about the Pentagon using them, it’s a pretty hollow gripe. . . . Didn’t CNN dupe us, after a fashion? As I recall, Saddam let CNN keep its Baghdad bureau open in exchange for ‘suppressing’ or ‘sugar-coating’ stories that would have exposed the depravity and evil of his regime. Didn’t a CNN executive admit this (though not so bluntly) in a NY Times op-ed?”

Yes. That was Eason Jordan, and CNN — along with the rest of the institutional press — would much prefer that you forgot about it.

THE TOY BATTLEFIELD IS as ethnically varied and diverse in its composition as any old war movie. Hell, it’s more so! Even the ski troops aren’t clearly caucasian.

I haven’t paid close attention, but it seems to me that the militarization of the toy market — which I noted shortly after September 11 — has continued. Am I right?

WHAT’S WRONG WITH LIBERALISM, AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT: Peter Beinart says that liberals need to take a lesson from the 1940s:

By 1949, three years after Winston Churchill warned that an “iron curtain” had descended across Europe, Schlesinger could write in The Vital Center: “Mid-twentieth century liberalism, I believe, has thus been fundamentally reshaped … by the exposure of the Soviet Union, and by the deepening of our knowledge of man. The consequence of this historical re-education has been an unconditional rejection of totalitarianism.”

Today, three years after September 11 brought the United States face-to-face with a new totalitarian threat, liberalism has still not “been fundamentally reshaped” by the experience. On the right, a “historical re-education” has indeed occurred–replacing the isolationism of the Gingrich Congress with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s near-theological faith in the transformative capacity of U.S. military might. But American liberalism, as defined by its activist organizations, remains largely what it was in the 1990s–a collection of domestic interests and concerns. On health care, gay rights, and the environment, there is a positive vision, articulated with passion. But there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda–even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.

When liberals talk about America’s new era, the discussion is largely negative–against the Iraq war, against restrictions on civil liberties, against America’s worsening reputation in the world. In sharp contrast to the first years of the cold war, post-September 11 liberalism has produced leaders and institutions–most notably Michael Moore and MoveOn–that do not put the struggle against America’s new totalitarian foe at the center of their hopes for a better world.

He’s right, and I think it’s why Kerry lost. This is a problem that Anne Applebaum identified in yesterday’s Washington Post:

At least a part of the Western left — or rather the Western far left — is now so anti-American, or so anti-Bush, that it actually prefers authoritarian or totalitarian leaders to any government that would be friendly to the United States. Many of the same people who found it hard to say anything bad about Saddam Hussein find it equally difficult to say anything nice about pro-democracy demonstrators in Ukraine. Many of the same people who would refuse to condemn a dictator who is anti-American cannot bring themselves to admire democrats who admire, or at least don’t hate, the United States. I certainly don’t believe, as President Bush sometimes simplistically says, that everyone who disagrees with American policies in Iraq or elsewhere “hates freedom.” That’s why it’s so shocking to discover that some of them do.

I used to be shocked by it, but I’m over that. The real question is whether there’s a figure in the Democratic establishment who’s willing to take on the Michael Moore / MoveOn aspects of the party — or whether those aspects have become, in some important ways, the soul of the party today. If the latter, then the Republicans will achieve the kind of decades-long dominance that Karl Rove seeks. And they’ll deserve it. As for the Left elsewhere in the world, well, Theo Van Gogh’s murder is just one of many wakeup calls that have left many still desperately hitting the snooze button.

UPDATE: Reader Chuck Fulner emails:

This particular passage from your blog resonates with my own thinking about the Democratic Party. I live in a Purple community (Louisville KY) in a Red State and run across a lot of elitist Democrats in my daily life. When they ask how I could possibly be a registered Republican, I generally respond by saying that I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me when Scoop Jackson died, Wendell Ford retired, the party dissed Bob Casey and then drove away Zell Miller. If any major Democrat tells Michael Moore, Move On, George Soros and the Holloywood elite that they have no place in the Democratic Party, then I might go back to my political roots.

Joe Lieberman has gone about as far as anyone has in telling the nut-wing elements that Anne Applebaum wrote about to kiss off and all it got him was an early exit in the last presidential primaries. He doesn’t have a loud enough voice.

Here is my nominee: Hillary Clinton. In fact, I think she will do it because it is the best way to become President in 2008. If she tells the coastal cultural elites that they are the ones who are out of step with the country, then tones down her socialistic one payer health insurance scheme from 1993-4 and repeats her husband’s line about abortion (safe, legal and rare) she could win in 2008.

I would not be happy with that outcome, because I wouldn’t believe her if she said those things, but it is a distinct possibility she could say them and win.

UPDATE: Well, some have predicted that she would be “the most uncompromising wartime president in the history of the United States!” It’s worth reading this column on future elections by Austin Bay, too.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Illustrative post here. Remind me never to get this guy mad at me.

“YOU CAN BLOG, BUT YOU CAN’T HIDE:” Eugene Volokh has an excellent op-ed in today’s New York Times, on the First Amendment, confidential sources, and journalism today.

PERSPECTIVE, from King Banaian.

HEH: The Ten Least Successful Holiday Specials of All Time: My favorites are Ayn Rand’s A Selfish Christmas (1951) and The Lost Star Trek Christmas Episode: ‘A Most Illogical Holiday’ (1968) — though you’ve got to love The Village People in Can’t Stop the Christmas Music — On Ice! (1980) (“in which music group the Village People mobilize to save Christmas after Santa Claus (Paul Lynde) experiences a hernia”).

SOME THOUGHTS ON THERAPEUTIC CLONING AND LEON KASS, at The Speculist.

UPDATE: Daniel Moore has different thoughts.

UNSCAM UPDATE: LAST YEAR I WAS SKEPTICAL of claims that fugitive financier (and Clinton pardon-recipent) Marc Rich was involved in the oil-for-food scandal. But now ABC News is reporting that Rich was involved after all:

Former American fugitive Marc Rich was a middleman for several of Iraq’s suspect oil deals in February 2001, just one month after his pardon from President Clinton, according to oil industry shipping records obtained by ABC News.

And a U.S. criminal investigation is looking into whether Rich, as well as several other prominent oil traders, made illegal payments to Iraq in order to obtain the lucrative oil contracts.

Sounds like there’s something to it after all — and this is bound to be a bit embarrassing for the Clintons.

UPDATE: Reader Pete Brittain emails:

I’ll bet you dinner at your favorite Knoxville chow hall that the connection between Rich and the scandal dies a slow death…it’ll get buried somewhere and forgotten. Heck, I’ll even fork over dinner at any good restaurant of your choice
in the continental US if I lose. Deal?

Do I look like a sucker?

SIGH. There’s always next year.

LEFTIES CALLING FOR THE DRAFT: I got the same email. But the facts seem a bit more, um, nuanced: “Hundreds re-enlist at Fort Carson:

FORT CARSON, Colo. — More than 400 soldiers of Fort Carson’s 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment re-enlisted in a mass ceremony Wednesday with another tour of duty in Iraq barely four months away. “I am doing it because of him,” said Spc. Chad Mobley, pointing to Spc. Josh Soelzer. “He’s like a brother to me.”

Meanwhile, Phil Carter notes the military’s new effort to accommodate disabled veterans who want to stay in the service.

BLACKFIVE REPORTS that Richard Daley’s son Patrick Daley, who just enlisted in the Army, is a Republican.

UPDATE: Of course, Daley pere has some tough love for the Democrats himself. Hmm. . . .

I’M BLOGGING THIS VIA A NEW VERIZON DATA CARD that seems to be working pretty well so far. Knoxville is still a “national access” area, with 115kbps (really more like 80-90) speed but it’s supposed to go broadband at 256-512kbps in the next few months. Anyway, lately I’ve been forced to hang out in places where there’s no wi-fi, so I decided to give this a try.

FRITZ SCHRANCK got a fundraising appeal for the Washington gubernatorial recount that, er, has some problems.

READER IAN ROBERTS EMAILS: “I read your blog every day and I have often seen you recommend the Carnival of the Vanities blog. Well, it’s taken me about a year, but I finally checked it out and it’s great!”

But of course! Still, for anyone who hasn’t checked it out, here’s the link again. And for new readers, it’s a collection of blog posts from all sorts of bloggers. The topics and participants vary from week to week, but it’s a good way to branch out in your blog reading. And if you’re just hanging out at InstaPundit and a few other blogs, you probably should branch out.

WINE WARS: Here’s a paper on interstate wine shipment and the Commerce Clause from the Pacific Research Institute.

UPDATE: More here and here. The latter post mentions an issue that deserves more attention than the PRI paper gives it — the role of the 21st Amendment.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s a piece by Brannon Denning on the subject that’s very much worth reading, too. And here’s a much longer article by Denning on the same subject, from Constitutional Commentary.

LOOKS LIKE GOOD NEWS on the Ukraine situation.

UPDATE: For some reason, the permalink above is iffy. You can go straight to The Postmodern Clog too — though the whole site has been up-and-down today.

ASHCROFT V. RAICH isn’t a case about marijuana, really. As Jonathan Adler explains, it’s really a test of whether the Supreme Court takes the constitution seriously.

CNN.COM wants to know if you read blogs regularly. There’s a poll at the lower right corner of the page. Right now 19% say “yes,” which actually seems like quite a few to me. Especially given that blog readers probably tend to follow links to individual stories, not go to the main homepage.

UPDATE: They’ve replaced it with a poll on U.S./Canada relations.

JUST FINISHED JOHN SCALZI’S OLD MAN’S WAR and liked it very much. It definitely did remind me of Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, — along with a bit of John Steakley’s Armor. If you like those books, you’ll certainly like Scalzi’s. I was quite disappointed when it was over, which is a good thing indeed. (It would also make a good movie — something that occurred to me at several points, especially the ping-pong scene.)

I wish I could say the same for David Weber’s The Shadow of Saganami, but although I’ve enjoyed earlier books in this series, this one just dragged — because, I think, the politics were too realistic. It’s space opera, and that means it needs action, and character development. This was like reading a Horatio Hornblower novel (on which the series is modeled) and having 3/4 of it taken up by diplomatic maneuverings surrounding the Peninsular Campaign. No, no, no. (But it made number 16 on the NYT Hardcover Bestsellers list, so I’ll bet Weber doesn’t care what I think. But bear in mind that I didn’t find Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle too long and discursive . . . .)

UKRAINE UPDATE:

KIEV (Reuters) – Ukraine’s opposition scored a victory on Wednesday in its drive to overturn what it says was a rigged election, when parliament sacked the government of Prime Minister and president-designate Viktor Yanukovich.

Bravo. It’s not over, but this is exceptionally good news. More here.

MICHAEL TOTTEN IS BACK FROM LIBYA, and although you’ll have to wait to read his full account in the L.A. Weekly, he’s posted a lot of interesting photographs.

JIM GERAGHTY slams Brian Williams for his put-down of bloggers:

Look, Human Chin, you work in a medium where you would still be doing the traffic report back in Elmira, N.Y. if you looked like Dennis Kucinich. In other words, you’ve got your job because you’re pretty. I’m not sure you should be shooting your mouth off about other people’s qualifications to do the news.

Ouch. By the way, I’m glad to see that Geraghty’s blog is still running at NRO, and I hope they’ll keep it even though the election is over. I guess it’ll need a new name, though.

RICH, BLOGGY GOODNESS: Ashish Hanwadikar is hosting this week’s Carnival of the Vanities. Check it out.

THE BLOGOSPHERE: An implausible, but amusing future.