OVER AT MY MSNBC SITE, GlennReynolds.com, I’ve got a post on the Spelling Bee documentary Spellbound. In the next installment, I’ll tie it to the outsourcing debate. No, really!

WYETH RUTHVEN and Jeff Quinton offer South Carolina primary roundups. New Hampshire? That’s so yesterday.

HERE’S A ROUNDUP OF BAD PRESS FOR THE BBC, whose management is described as “almost in meltdown.” They could have saved themselves a lot of grief by listening to bloggers!

UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis has multiple posts on this. And here, via Jarvis, is a link to Tony Blair’s statement on the issue, which is dignified, but very much of a put-down to his critics:

The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on WMD is itself the real lie. And I simply ask that those that made it and those who have repeated it over all these months, now withdraw it, fully, openly and clearly.

Will that happen?

A SPRING OFFENSIVE — in Pakistan?

UPDATE: Blackfive thinks that if this is true, the Chicago Tribune shouldn’t be reporting it.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Darren Kaplan has more on this. If it’s right, then Blackfive is right, too.

A GROWING — AND SURPRISING — BATTLE OVER NANOTECHNOLOGY: My TechCentralStation column is up.

UPDATE: Mark Modzelewski of the NanoBusiness Alliance, responding to an earlier post on this topic here at InstaPundit, puts down “bloggers, Drexlerians, pseudo-pundits, panderers and other denizens of their mom’s basements.”

Hmm. I’m going to nominate Modzelewski for the newly-created Purpuro Award for needless put-downs to potentially valuable constituencies. It’s not as if I’m not a nanotech booster, and I actually thought that the post he’s complaining about was pretty mild, under the circumstances. . . . But this just underscores the point in my TCS column: For shortsighted political reasons, the nanotech business community is going out of its way to try to marginalize people it will surely need as allies later. That’s just dumb.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Day by Day cartoonist Chris Muir, who did the Purpuro cartoon linked below, was so taken by the idea of a “Purpuro Award” that he sent the graphic now adorning the right side of this post. Thanks, Chris! It’ll probably see regular use. . . .

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Modzelewski sends this, which I find rather astonishing:

Clearly being educated man, I can hardly even fathom how you take Drexler’s fantasies and turn them into reality in your head. As far as our “pr strategy” as you call it-its not so much pr strategy as a “reality strategy.” I don’t promote nor spend much time worrying about science fiction and frankly don’t even view the zettatechnology/molecular manufacturing/Foresight folks thinking as on the table in the environmental debate. I am clearly not between two poles, as your misguided views on the subject frankly don’t constitute a pole in the landscape as far as I see it. I would say my skills as a long time political damage control specialist leave me -all ego aside – a little better skilled then Howard Lovy or yourself at these type of things. So just the same, I will actually be the one with a degree of sympathy here.

Keep fighting the -strange-if not good fight for your lost cause.

I’m not sure what he means by “lost cause.” (For that matter, I’m not sure what “zettatechnology” is). I’ve been calling — as have quite a few others — for serious discussion of nanotechnology’s implications, so as to prevent the nanotechnology industry from facing the sort of problems that have crippled the GMO food industry. (Here’s my about-to-be-published Harvard Journal of Law and Technology article on that, and here’s a more recent column from TechCentralStation. Here’s another TCS column on the subject.) I certainly hope that cause isn’t lost, and — speaking as someone who’s quite thorougly pro-nanotechnology — I don’t see why Modzelewski would want it to be.

I don’t think that Modzelewski’s public name-calling, or his email, is evidence of good political damage-control, either. But then, I’m not a professional damage-control expert, though I don’t live in my mom’s basement, either. . . .

DAN PINK has a lengthy piece on outsourcing that’s worth reading. He comments via email that:

my inbox has been filling for the last 24 hours but, perhaps surprisingly, I’m getting slightly more positive mail than angry screeds — though one fellow did accuse me of hosting an “asshat convention.”

I do think that this will be an election issue.

OH, THAT LIBERAL MEDIA: Colby Cosh is exploring contrasts in coverage.

THE GUARDIAN has a summary of the Hutton report: Bottom line: Blair exonerated, the BBC looking dreadful.

Will heads roll at the BBC? They should.

UPDATE: More here. And Josh Chafetz says “I told you so.”

And, in a related matter, read this.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Is there any profession that’s worse at admitting mistakes and taking criticism than the journalistic profession? I don’t know, but UK journalists are responding to the Hutton Inquiry by threatening to strike if disciplinary action is taken against the feckless Andrew Gilligan, who got the story so dreadfully wrong and whose errors may have contributed to David Kelly’s suicide. Of course, to some people, this isn’t a threat but a promise — the reader who sent the link observes: “Oh God! A journalists’ strike, how will we ever notice cope?”

MORE: Craig Henry has thoughts on journalism and mistakes.

JOHN PODHORETZ: “The results last night in New Hampshire represent a humiliating disaster for the mainstream media. The political reporters and editors who have been judging this race for a year have made utter fools of themselves.”

UPDATE: RealClearPolitics is scoring the pollsters — and scroll up for an interesting assessment of what’s next. And David Adesnik is unimpressed with Robert Kaiser’s answer to this question: “Mr. Kaiser, as the fourth arm of government, how would you rate the performance of the media during this primary season?”

UBIQUITOUS WEB JOURNALISM just keeps getting easier. Here’s a 4 megapixel digital camera for under $400 that records video with sound in .avi format and that is small enough to fit in an Altoids tin.

FRANCE IS LOSING INFLUENCE TO AMERICA in Francophone Africa. Hmm. Sounds like the strategy is working. . . .

WINDS OF CHANGE has a truly gigantic summary of what’s going in in Central Asia.

DANIEL DREZNER has more on outsourcing.

WOW, THAT DIDN’T TAKE LONG: Wonkette has so infuriated the Rittenhouse Review that it’s adopting a “choose me or choose her!” approach. (“If you link to ‘Wonkette’ through your blogroll you cannot and will not enjoy, for what that might be worth, a link from The Rittenhouse Review.”) Is that wise?

UPDATE: Will we see more things like this? Or this? Could be.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Aaron Cutler emails:

Not only does Rittenhouse make linking threats about Wonkette, they call her an Andy-Grove-esque gossip. Uh, I think they mean Lloyd Grove.

I wondered about that. If Andy Grove has a reputation for gossip, I’m unaware of it. Meanwhile Porphyrogenitus challenges me to blogroll Wonkette, and risk the Wrath of Capozzola. Do I look that brave?

MORE: Hmm. Now he’s taking it back, in an update dated January 26, which wasn’t there last night. I guess if you can confuse the Groves, you can confuse the date, too.

LOOKS LIKE KERRY, followed by Dean, with Edwards third and Clark fourth. This would seem to bode poorly for Clark’s prospects; Dean and Edwards can try to pull a first-place in South Carolina, but where’s Clark? Ahead of Lieberman. (LATER: Now the word is that he’s ahead of Edwards, after all).

But there’s only one candidate that Al Franken is afraid of!

Lots more news at the Command Post election page.

UPDATE: (NOTE that comments are open on this post, at least until they fill up with trolls or penis spam. I know it’s nothing important, like cookware, but if you’ve got anything to add, here’s your chance.)

The Jeff Jarvis summary: “Kerry is winning. Dean’s ‘temperament’ is hurting him. Dean and Edwards are running in the others’ tails. Lieberman is off-camera. Clark keeps the oxygen tent, running head-to-head with Edwards.”

Matthew Yglesias: “It’s interesting how much in the dubious ‘momentum’ sweepstakes hangs on whether John Edwards finishes third or fourth even though we know for sure that neither he nor Clark will win any delegates either way.”

Will Saletan: “[M]aybe Democrats should ask what they’re getting in Kerry. After watching him for a year and seeing him work New Hampshire, here’s my warning: You’re getting a guy who has plenty of selling points but can’t make the sale himself.”

Jacob T. Levy: “But the odd truth about the New Hampshire primary is that it doesn’t pick Presidents anymore. It doesn’t even pick nominees. What it does is put a good scare into the eventual nominee.”

David Adesnik: “My guess is that the subtleties of the Edwards-Clark finish won’t matter much, since both are depending on a strong showing in the South.”

Chip Griffin: “The Kerry team really has beautifully orchestrated this. The Curtain Cam shot on CNN all this time, waiting for Kerry, is priceless.”

Hugh Hewitt: “Dr. Dean is welcome to be my co-host any or all days from now until the 2nd.” I’d take that offer!

Kos: “Dean has enough money to limp on, but by all indications, he’s through. . . . Watch the establishment rally around Kerry to end this thing as quickly as possible. ”

Jack O’Toole: “It’s been almost half a century since the Democratic party has elected a president without a Southern accent. Is that just an electoral fluke? Or does it tell us something important about what it takes for Democrats to win national elections?”

Dave Cullen: “A sizeable plurality would love to have Howard Dean as their president, but they’re convinced that they’re alone, so they have to vote for someone else that they think will appeal to other people.”

Wonkette: “This is our punishment for publishing exit polls. Kerry by double digits! And still Dean’s grimacing that spooky rictus. How much would Dean have to lose by for him to call it a loss?”

Donna Brazile: “I think Edwards is the sleeper. . . . More and more, people are looking at him now as the alternative to Kerry.”

Atrios: “I think people who are writing Dean’s obituary yet again are dead wrong. . . . How long before Clinton won his first primary in 1992? Who was the presumed nominee at this point? A certain Senator from Mass. if I remember correctly.”

Roger Simon: “It’s still bad news for those of us who wanted to see Edwards get a shot, but at least Kerry won’t have to pretend he’s Dean.”

John Ellis: “Back to Sunday’s script! Where did they leave that? Probably at the hotel!”

Armed Liberal: “I’m impressed that Dean could mount such a strong comeback … but then he gets up and makes his speech.”

Andrew Sullivan: “Dean gave arguments. Kerry spoke in packaged Shrumisms. Dean has a vision. Kerry has ambition. If I were a Democrat, I’d vote for Dean over Kerry in a heartbeat.”

Donald Sensing: “Among ‘military households’ (not further defined), Kerry got 35 percent, Dean 26, Clark 15 and Edwards 13 percent. So Kerry the lieutenant pulls more than twice the vote of Clark the general. General, you’ve just been further demoted.”

Oliver Willis: “Huge win for Kerry. Dean’s only around still because he has money, but he may push things down to the wire. Edwards may suddenly be vulnerable in South Carolina. Dead: Clark (had NH to himself and has squat to show for it), Lieberman, Kucinich, Sharpton (all three DOA).”

Kevin Drum: “Presumably Lieberman will now drop out, and for Clark and Edwards the next two weeks in the South and Midwest are make or break.”

Josh Marshall: “Dean said that New Hampshire had ‘allowed our camp to regain its momentum’ and that ‘we did what we needed to do tonight.’ And I think that’s right. But just barely. I think they’re in desperate shape. And I think they know it.”

NOTE: Some people say the comments aren’t working for them. I closed ’em and reopened ’em in the hopes it would help. I had a server outage earlier, and things are still a bit slow on my end, so that may be the problem; beats me. I hope they work now. They’re obviously working for some people.

MORE: People want to know what I think. I pretty much agree with Atrios, actually, at least on how hard this stuff is to predict — at this point in 1992 I thought Clinton was toast. That shows what my predictive ability is like.

With that said, here’s one more: People are still talking (see the comments, and this Jeff Jarvis post) about a “brokered convention.” Although it would be a political junkie’s dream, it won’t happen. This’ll be settled in not much more than a month. And probably sooner.

Meanwhile, if you’re already looking ahead to South Carolina, I’ve got some useful links over at GlennReynolds.com.

And comments are closed now. Sorry — otherwise I’ll forget and they’ll fill up with crap when I’m not paying attention. Very interesting stuff, though! Sorry to those who had problems posting.

ERIC SCHEIE is still wondering about various reports of an Iraq / Al Qaeda connection.

LE MONDE IS NAMING NAMES (article here, Google translation here) of politicians who were paid off by Saddam. And it sounds as if the Iraqis may prosecute some of them. That could get interesting.

UPDATE: Here’s a BBC story.

WONKETTE CLARIFIES her position regarding the credibility of MediaWhoresOnline:

Somewhere below Drudge and above a Ouija board. More politically motivated than either.

Ouch.

UPDATE: But hey, MWO has its defenders, too!

VIRGINIA POSTREL looks at the role of economics at the FDA. In the process, she argues a better argument for voting Republican than any the Republicans have advanced. . . .

MICKEY KAUS is busy with the New Hampshire primary now, and he’s likely to stay busy with the followup tomorrow. (Prediction: One way or another, Chris Lehane will come off badly!)

But once that settles down, I hope he’ll look at this story reporting that “The teen birth rate in Massachusetts has reached an all-time low.” Could welfare reform be the reason? [Will John Kerry take credit? — Ed. Shouldn’t you be helping out Mickey? It’s cold in New Hampshire! — Ed.]

DAVE KOPEL points to some important legislation protecting privacy and civil rights that just passed without fanfare.

EVERYBODY IS PAYING ATTENTION TO POLITICS, but the bird flu epidemic is looking worrisome.

THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE LIED: People died.

An August 2002 report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said Iraq “almost certainly does have large numbers of chemical weapons and some biological weapons.”

Okay, not many died, and far fewer than would have died if Saddam had stayed in power, but. . . .

So why is the CEIP changing its tune now?

THE WIRED PROFILE I mentioned earlier is now online here. I don’t know why they made me a cartoon — they sent a photographer to Knoxville who took pictures that, judging from the Polaroids, were very good. But heck, I’ve never been a cartoon before, though I’m not especially crazy about this one.

UPDATE: Reader Karl Bade emails:

I wouldn’t consider it a cartoon, or even a caricature. More like a vectorized portrait. Very hip, very now. I can almost see you with an I-pod around your neck.

As long as it’s not playing Ian Van Dahl.

HERE’S AN INTERESTING REPORT ON EMPLOYMENT, from the Joint Economic Committee. Some highlights:

* Job markets are strengthening. Initial claims have fallen
repeatedly and substantially over the last eight months to levels not
seen since before the recession.

* The terrorist attacks of 9/11 had a significant impact on
employment. Initial jobless claims spiked up to almost 500,000 in the
aftermath of the attacks.

* Labor markets began to weaken in 2000; initial claims began to
increase early in the year, growing from below 300,000 to around 350,000
per week.

Sounds like good news.