MIERS WON’T WITHDRAW. Here’s a FoxNews poll on the nomination: “A 37 percent plurality of Americans say they would vote to confirm Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, 32 percent say they would vote against her and 31 percent are unsure. . . . Among Republicans, 57 percent say they would vote for Miers, down 17 percentage points from the 74 percent that said they would vote for Roberts (July 26-27). Support for Miers among Democrats is 12 points less than it was for Roberts. It should be noted there is no gender gap on support for Miers as both men and women are equally likely to say they would confirm her.”

HERE’S AN INTERVIEW WITH RAY KURZWEIL from CBS. You can read my earlier interview with him here.

HUGH HEWITT: “I spoke to Karl Rove an hour ago. His support for the Miers nomination is not merely enthusiastic, but adamant and even vehement.”

UPDATE: On the other hand, like David Brooks,* James Taranto looks at Harriet Miers’ own words and actions and comes away unimpressed.

* Brooks writes a column for a private, subscription-only website.

MICHAEL YON, who’s in Baghdad to cover the referendum, has a post up about embeds.

THERE’S A NEW REPORT OUT FROM THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES warning that the U.S. position in science is eroding. Over at Slashdot most of the commenters seem to be taking the Chris Mooney position, but as I’ve noted before I think that’s a bit simplistic. Here’s some interesting perspective from fertility expert James Grifo in Discover magazine:

Given today’s political climate, what do you think will happen in the field of reproductive medicine?

G: Well, let me put it this way. If the environment today existed when IVF was started in 1978, we never would have had IVF. In the first two pregnancies with IVF, one was ectopic and one was a miscarriage. Our government would have stopped us right there. But IVF has resulted in a technology that is mainstream. Like IVF, the technologies we’re working on now are to help people with serious medical problems—not to create Frankensteins.

Would science be better off with Democrats in the White House?

G: I don’t know. I just don’t know. Democrats think you’re not smart enough to make your own decisions. They think they need to protect you from evil scientists. They will regulate everything that could possibly happen. Republicans, on the other hand, think regulation isn’t good, except when it comes to decisions people make in their bedrooms. Then it’s absolutely required.

The fact is that neither party is especially great on science. On the other hand, the “erosion” in the U.S. position is to some degree a reflection on improved capabilities elsewhere, which given that science is a positive-sum game is probably a good thing.

At any rate, while we’re certainly not going to improve our scientific position by teaching Intelligent Design in high schools, I don’t think that’s the source of our problems. We should probably look more closely at what’s happening in higher education, and in particular what’s happening in science and engineering education. I love science and engineering, and my friends from high school who went into those fields think I would have been good there. I don’t know if they’re right, but I’m pretty sure that I’ve had a better career in law. And much as I love law and lawyers, I suspect that a country that makes law a more rewarding career than science and engineering is likely to wind up with more and better lawyers than it has scientists and engineeers.

UPDATE: Reader Sabrina Chase emails:

I can confirm your suspicion — more US scientists would be available if they could find work. I have a PhD in experimental physics, did some of the early research on C60 (buckyballs) as a grad student and postdoc, and I could not find a *bad* permanent job, let alone a good one. I don’t think my colleagues have exorbitant salary demands (unlike lawyers — sorry, couldn’t resist!) but the positions simply weren’t there. My graduate education was partially financed by taxpayers, too, and it irks me that they are not getting much return on their investment. I’m working in the software industry now, which has better hours, better pay, and a much reduced risk of getting irradiated or electrocuted, but I wish I had had the opportunity to keep doing the fundamental research I loved.

If the jobs were better, and the education process less miserable, we’d have more scientists. And if we had less risk-aversion, litigation, and regulation, we’d have more research.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Scientist-reader Walker White emails that people are missing the real story, which is more about management than ideology:

I noticed that you posted on the article about our “eroding position in science” and a link to the Slashdot discussion. As a practicing scientist, I thought I would bring your attention to the one feature about that discussion that is not getting any attention right now: the grant situation (indeed, Chris Mooney specifically says he did not consider it important in his book, though it is the topic of most concern to us scientists).

There has been quite a bit of press on the cuts in the NSF after an initial increase in 2002.

However, the real issue has been the change in focus of the NSF under this administration. Not anti-science, but anti-foundational science. In its submissions, the NSF is now requiring that the results of the research have some form of application in the short term. The NSF was supposed to be different from organizational grants, like DOD or NIH, in that it could support foundational research — the type that will not economically pay off for years or even decades.

There is a strong argument that the unique level of support the U.S. gave to foundational research is what made us such a world-wide leader. For example, engineering research at European universities has historically been funded by businesses. They worked on specific, classified projects and the results were not published or otherwise shared with other researchers. The graduate students had no way of proving their worth to the research community and had a hard time getting academic jobs. The openness of our research community attracted many overseas students here, and the best remained to become faculty; the dearth of funding opportunities with the universities in their home countries made their job prospects limited. With the rise of the EU, Europeans now have in place a central body with a lot of capital that can distribute grant money to encourage quality, publicly-available research. Asia is also now developing similar programs.

As a result, academic positions in other countries are becoming competitive with the U.S. And as other countries increase funding, we are continuing to cut back. I understand small government, but I have worked with business enough to know that — unless they are doing it for philanthropic reasons — they will not fund science that does not have immediate or short term applications. Only government or noncompetitive monopolies (like the original Bell labs) have ever funded foundational research (Microsoft’s recent competition from Google has forced them to retool their R&D division to make it more short term). And considering your job, you should know that university fees and tuition won’t cover the necessary expense. This is one area where government can make a unique contribution.

There is no reason to make the NSF focus on the short-term. We have organizations like DOD or NIH to support research in specific applied areas. In addition, this is exactly the type of research that industry will fund. The NSF served a unique position in this country and that is being lost right now.

Excellent criticism, and something worthy of more attention, though harder to fit into a political pigeonhole.

MORE: Reader Jim Hu emails:

I read your post on the crisis in science and I will probably post to my own blog about it at some point after I take a look at the report. However, I felt I should respond to part of the update right away. As someone who has been on the receiving and reviewing end of both NIH and NSF grants, I don’t think reader Walker White has it quite right. First, it’s simply not true that “In its submissions, the NSF is now requiring that the results of the research have some form of application in the short term. ”

In addition, while there are management issues with how science is funded at NSF and elsewhere in our Federal research portfolio (for example, see http://www.wi.mit.edu/news/archives/2004/cpa_1104b.html for some controversy regarding NIH and biodefense) , I don’t think that anything specific to this administration is at the root of any problems I have with now NSF distributes its funds to scientists.

Interesting. And though I’ve mentioned it before, be sure to read this column by Virginia Postrel on “criminalizing science.”

MUCH LATER UPDATE: But see this critique of the NAS study, from Carl Bialik of the Wall Street Journal.

SPEAKING OF PORKBUSTERS, it’s time for another PorkBusters Pork Response Update. So far, Congress isn’t covering itself with glory — or even with adequate constituent response. Reader Mary Ann Lomascolo emails about Senator Norm Coleman:

Following is Norm Coleman’s response to my query about cutting pork to pay for Katrina/Rita relief. In my message (put through on his website – I wish I had copied and saved it) I specifically noted the “ambivalent” response his office gave other constituents, and hoped that he would take this seriously. While I’m glad to hear he wants to address water toxicity issues, I’m not sure how that relates to cutting pork. Furthermore, I’m a religious person and an eternal optimist, and I think confidence and hope are more powerful than anything. Yet the little pep talk in this email rings a bit hollow…..

[Coleman’s response follows]

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lomascolo :

Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

It is critical we provide short and long term relief to the people struggling with the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina but we need to do so in a fiscally responsible manner. I strongly support legislation, currently pending before the Senate, which would create a Chief Financial Officer to ensure Federal funds are spent responsibly and effectively.

In addition, as the region devastated by Hurricane Katrina begins to rebuild, the Federal government should not simply spend money without a comprehensive urban re-design plan. This can be accomplished by bringing together the best practices of current environmental science to deal with water, toxicity, and flooding in a permanently sustainable manner; deal with the social problems associated with relocation and those which existed before Katrina to revitalize the sense of community and common purpose in the region; and finally, maximize the cultural and historical strengths of the devastated areas. When I was the Mayor of St. Paul, we used a simple formula: hope plus confidence equals investment. The victims of Hurricane Katrina need to feel this sense of hope and confidence in order to make the rebuilding and revitalization efforts a success.

Thank you once again for contacting me. I will keep your concerns in mind as we work together to address this tragedy.

Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate

Meanwhile, I finally heard from my Congressman, Jimmy Duncan. He writes:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the federal costs of Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. Hearing from those I serve in Congress is always a pleasure.

Within days of Katrina making landfall and the New Orleans levee system’s breach, Congress passed more than $62 billion in emergency spending to assist with recovery efforts and rebuilding. Because our nation is nearly $8 trillion in debt and continues to run annual budget deficits, many in Congress and across the Country have raised questions concerning the manner in which the federal government will cover the costs associated with Katrina (and now Rita). Numerous proposals have come forward and I am confident the Budget and Appropriations Committee will weigh this matter carefully before proceeding.

As you are aware, eliminating all high priority projects from the highway legislation recently passed by Congress is one suggestion being discussed. Each high priority project in the Second District was requested by local officials who have structured budgets that assume federal funding is forthcoming, and each is considered important to the local economy. Consequently, I have serious concerns related to this approach and its possible impact on local governments across East Tennessee and the entire Nation.

I have argued for years that the federal government must enact more fiscally conservative policies, and I believe there are a number of areas ripe for savings. One example is the proposed lunar mission, which carries a price tag of $104 billion. Another is imporper payments to federal contractors, which the Government Accounatability Office estimates tataled a staggering $45.4 billion in fiscal year 2004.

Please be assured that I will continue to follow this matter in the coming weeks. Your thoughts and those of every constituent who has contacted me concerning this topic will be foremost in my mind during that period.

The good new: Unlike Tom Delay, he admits that there’s fat in the federal budget. The bad news: He’s sure that none of it’s in his district. Sigh.

Keep sending me your responses from members of Congress — and be sure to put “Pork Response” in the subject line so I won’t miss them. And don’t be depressed — there’s steadily more green on the PorkBusters page. It’s progress.

UPDATE: Reader John Richardson sends the response he got from Sen. Mitch McConnell:

Mitch McConnell’s response:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the United States Gulf Coast and the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. I appreciate your taking the time to share your views on this national tragedy and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

On August 29, 2005, a massive hurricane with 155 mph winds slammed into the Gulf Coast of the southern United Sates leaving hundreds of thousands displace over a 90,000 square mile area. This devastating tragedy is one of the worst natural disasters in American history.

The Federal government has an obligation to help victims of Hurricane Katrina and make sure FEMA and other federal agencies have sufficient funding to undertake the enormous challenge facing New Orleans and the Gulf coast region. On the the evening of Thursday, September 1, the Senate reconvened to pass a 10.5 billion bill in emergency funds to help with disaster relief. The House of Representatives reconvened on September 2, and approved the same bill. This will be the first payment in a multi-year federal commitment to relief and recovery. The President will request further funding when the full scope of damages becomes clearer.

I share your strong support for streamlining and downsizing government and have worked diligently with my colleagues in Congress to pass a responsible budget that limits the growth of government spending. During this budget cycle, I have worked with colleagues in the Senate to defeat dozens of irresponsible proposals to bust the budget and increase spending. We must evaluate every program and make sure the taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollar. You can be certain that I will continue to fight government waste, and will keep your views in mind when federal spending issues are considered in the Senate.

I look forward to working with President Bush and my colleagues in the Senate to assess the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina and the floods that followed it and provide the relief to the thousands of people still in need.

Again, thank you for contacting me, I hope that you will keep me informed of other issues that are important to you.

Sincerely,

Mitch McConnell

Richardson adds: “I took it as positive in principle, yet suitably vague to be political.”

Meanwhile, reader Chris Bahr emails:

I went to look up how to contact my representative, John Culberson, and I found on his webpage that he has a written statement up that specifically addresses paying for katrina by cutting spending and postponing the prescription drug plan. Additionally he advocates reorganizing FEMA. I’ll copy the relavent part of his statement which can be found at his website:

“As your congressman and a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I will do everything I can to ensure that state and local taxpayers are reimbursed in full for the costs we have incurred in helping our neighbors while at the same time looking for spending cuts in other federal programs to pay for the hurricane recovery effort. FEMA should be completely redesigned into a federal ATM machine whose sole responsibility is to operate phone banks and computer servers and reimburse local and state governments and individuals who have legitimate and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses due to a national emergency.

“In particular, I think the Medicare prescription drug benefit must be postponed until we are able to balance the budget, and I will also be filing legislation to make all federal grant programs voluntary so that state legislatures must decide on record vote whether to accept money with all the strings attached. This will help restore the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and save vast sums of money. Over $400 billion a year is sent out by Congress to the states in various federal grant programs, and we need to put our locally elected officials squarely in charge on the record before these grant programs are accepted in a State.”

Could use some specific projects to cut, but sounds like a start to me.

This is progress — at least they’re no longer shouldering each other aside to be the first to throw money at the problem. But I think we should start pressing people for more specifics, and in particular asking them how they feel about the Republican Study Group’s proposed cuts.

Meanwhile, reader Russ Mitchell reports on his contact with Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas:

Spoke in the local office with “Sandy,” and attempted to find out whether there were specific offsets he’d be willing to cut. (Am under the weather, and thus was sufficiently tonguetied that I didn’t attempt to get her full name.) Was told that ~”Congressman Sessions is very dedicated to cutting the budget, but we’ll have to get in touch with the D.C. office for specifics.”

She promised a timely reply after taking down my home address and daytime phone number. (Of course, if this goes on your ongoing list, it might make that list rather timelier…)

Or not.

PORKBUSTERS MAKES WIKIPEDIA: But some people want to delete the entry.

FUEL AND BRAINS: The latest Carnival of Tomorrow is up!

NEAL BOORTZ reports unhappiness with the President’s tax reform panel.

I wonder if anyone will be able to come up with an alternative approach?

MAJOR CHECHEN TERROR ATTACKS, with ongoing gun battles: Gateway Pundit has a roundup.

A NEW MIERS POLL (free link) in the Wall Street Journal:

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Americans are reserving judgment on Ms. Miers, the White House counsel, who last week became Mr. Bush’s choice to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is retiring. Some 27% support her confirmation and 21% oppose it, while 51% say they don’t know enough to say.

Such reluctance extends to Mr. Bush’s political base, as 46% of Republicans say they don’t know enough to have an opinion. The results explain why administration officials yesterday continued their campaign to regain the initiative on the nomination from conservative critics who have complained that she lacks a clear judicial philosophy and credentials. . . .

The effort marks a dramatic contrast from the tenor of the campaign for Chief Justice Roberts, who was elevated from the federal appeals court amid widespread praise for his experience and acumen in constitutional law. In July, President Bush nominated Mr. Roberts for Justice O’Connor’s seat on the court; in September, he named him to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. On the eve of the Roberts confirmation hearings last month, supporters outnumbered opponents by 38%-20%.

Part of the difference appears to stem from concerns about how and why Mr. Bush selected Ms. Miers. While the poll shows respondents applauding her background as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, they question the fact that she hasn’t served as a judge or made her positions on legal issues known.

By 40%-24%, Americans say her long service to the president makes them feel less positive about her potential court service. First Lady Laura Bush suggested this week it’s “possible” that sexism has played a role in the Miers controversy, but the survey shows men and women hold similar attitudes toward her nomination.

I can’t link to it because of TimesSelect, but David Brooks’ column on Miers today is quite negative.

VIDEOBLOG PODCASTING: Yes, I think it’s about time.

WHEN YOU SHILL FOR DAVIS-BACON, you’re shilling for Halliburton!

UPDATE: And for the Klan!

UNSCAM UPDATE: An editorial:

Slowly but surely, the investigative circle grows closer to Kofi Annan.

Monday, the former French ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Bernard Merimee, was arrested in Paris on suspicion of having taken kickbacks from Saddam Hussein in the form of vouchers from the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food program.

From 1999 to 2002, Merimee was Secretary-General Annan’s special assistant for European affairs. And there’s a possible Oil-for-Food connection to Annan’s son, Kojo, and brother, Kobina — themselves under investigation for their alleged involvement in the program.

(Via Newsbeat 1).

JOHN FUND offers a rather unflattering account of the Miers vetting process.

JAY ROSEN has more on the New York Times and Judy Miller. I said on “Reliable Sources” Sunday that the Times (or Miller, and as Rosen notes it’s sometimes hard to tell who is calling the shots) is acting more like a defendant than a journalistic organ, and I certainly find their behavior mystifying. Jay, however, offers some armchair speculation.

UPDATE: Here’s an article from tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal (free link) on Miller.

DANIEL DREZNER HAS THOUGHTS ON GAME THEORY, and a correction for Fred Kaplan.

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON says that things seem to have gone badly for Judith Miller.

A POLL ON THE MIERS NOMINATION:

I’ll be interested to see how this turns out. (View results without voting, here. Discuss the poll here.)

UPDATE: Bainbridge has a poll, too.

KEN MEHLMAN DID A CONFERENCE CALL WITH BLOGGERS on the Miers nomination. Prof. Bainbridge blogged it. So did Patrick Hynes, and so did Mark Coffey.

I wasn’t on the call — I got an email, but I’m crunching on the book — but here are two thoughts: (1) They should have done this the day of the announcement, not the following week; and (2) It doesn’t seem to have been enough to win people over.

UPDATE: RedState has a post on the call, too.

ANOTHER UPDATE: The Ice Age cometh?

HARRIET MIERS: “conservative on social questions and liberal on economic issues.”

Yeah, that’s gonna win me over. Sheesh.

A SAVAGE, NATIONALIST TIRADE AGAINST FOREIGNERS FROM THE GERMAN CHANCELLOR: Luckily, it’s the outgoing Chancellor . . . .

THE REPUBLICANS ARE HAVING A BAD WEEK, but as Michael Barone notes, the Democrats have problems of their own.

ONE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE TITLED NOBILITY was its immunity from some legal rules laid on the commoners; that’s why such titles were an important boon that the King could bestow on favorites. Reading this statement by Richard Lugar on the proposed journalists’ shield law, which probably won’t cover bloggers, I wonder if we’re getting into the same territory:

In other remarks about the legislation at IAPA’s 61st General Assembly, Lugar acknowledged that the legislation could amount to a “privilege” for reporters over other Americans.

“I think, very frankly, you can make a case that this is a special boon for reporters, and certainly for their role in freedom of the press,” he said. “At the end of the day what we will come out with says there is something privileged about being a reporter, and being able to report on something without being thrown into jail.”

I think that such special privileges are a bad idea, as I’ve said here before. But to the extent that they apply only to Registered Official Journalists (as the story suggests is the intent) rather than to the activity of reporting, I think that they’re also deeply troubling. The government is bestowing a special privilege on the press. Will it, like the King, expect loyalty in return?

BILL QUICK REPORTS on how he’s done by publishing his latest novel on the Internet instead of going the dead-tree route. Short answer: Very well!