A LOOK AT AMNESTY IN IRAQ, from UPI correspondent Pamela Hess. In one of our podcast interviews, Jim Dunnigan noted that a lot of what’s going on with the Ba’athist part of the insurgency is basically a dicker for amnesty. Properly handled, this issue could split and shrink the insurgency. I’m not, however, sure what’s the best way to go about it.

HERE’S VIDEO of Murtha challenger Diana Irey on FoxNews earlier this afternoon.

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Charles Babcock reports on the project that wouldn’t die:

Over the past decade Vibration & Sound Solutions Ltd., a small Alexandria defense contractor, has received a steady flow of federal contracts to work on “Project M” — $37 million in all from annual “earmarks” by congressional supporters such as Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.).

Project M, a technology involving magnetic levitation, was conceived as a way to keep submarine machinery quieter, was later marketed as a way to keep Navy SEALs safer in their boats and, in the end, was examined as a possible way to protect Marines from roadside bombs.

All the applications have one thing in common: The Pentagon hasn’t wanted them. . . . Moran received $17,000 in campaign contributions from Conkling and his wife over the years.

Read the whole thing, which puts it in the context of the larger earmarks issue.

OVER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW FACULTY BLOG, Richard Posner and Geoffrey Stone are debating civil liberties and national security.

I’ll add this comment, which is only somewhat on-topic: Not so much nuanced discussants like Posner and Stone, but press coverage and political rhetoric generally, tend to suggest that there’s a “trade-off” between national security and freedom. But that’s misleading. You don’t buy national security by getting rid of freedom; you may, in fact, wind up less secure. (This is a point I was making back on September 13, 2001). Nor is it necessarily the case that improvements in national security burden freedom. They may, in fact, have no impact at all, or even result in more freedom in some ways. It just depends. Programs have to be judged on their merits.

IN THE MAIL: Walter Laqueur’s new book, The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism : From Ancient Times to the Present Day. From the blurb: “The book reveals that what was historically a preoccupation of Christian and right-wing movements has become in our time even more frequent among Muslims and left-wing groups. Moreover, Laqueur argues that we can’t simply equate this new anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism and write it off as merely anti-Israel sentiments. National and religious minority groups have been systematically persecuted from Indonesia, to Bangladesh, Rwanda, and beyond, but their fate has not generated much indignation in Europe and America. If Israel alone is singled out for heated condemnation, is the root of this reaction simply anti-Zionism or is it anti-Semitism?”

I’m pretty sure I know the answer.

FROM NOBODY TO SOMEBODY: Murtha challenger Diana Irey — who I don’t think I’d even heard of before this weekend — will be on FoxNews Live at 12:45 today. The more Murtha talks, the more attention she gets!

JUST THE OTHER DAY, I got a reader email asking what had happened to French libertarian firebrand Sabine Herold. I didn’t know the answer, but now, via Captain Ed, I see that she’s running for office:

Sabine Hérold, who sprang to fame when she led a protest movement against French workers’ readiness to go on strike, now hopes to exploit growing disillusionment with her country’s political elite by winning a seat in parliament.

Miss Hérold, 25, who regards her French media nickname – Mlle Thatcher – as a compliment, also refuses to rule out standing as a candidate to replace Jacques Chirac as president next year. . . .

Miss Hérold claims that neither Nicolas Sarkozy nor Ségolène Royal, the presidential front-runners from the main parties, will be able to impose the reforms France needs to shake it out of “trade union dictatorship” and excessive state control.

Her own politics, she says, would transform France.

They would, and for the better. And blogospheric France-bashing notwithstanding, the world would be a better place if France were stronger, richer, and more confident along the lines she proposes.

DUKE LACROSSE UPDATE: “The Durham Republican Party will field a candidate to run against the district attorney leading the investigation in the Duke lacrosse rape case in the November election, ABC News’ Law & Justice Unit has learned.”

NOT EXACTLY A “CHAIRBORNE RANGER:” Michael Fumento reports from Ramadi.

Plus, a Bill Roggio post from southeastern Afghanistan. And Michael Totten posts a report from Lebanon, along with this note:

I’m trying to put together enough money for trips to Iran (if the Mullahs let me in), Afghanistan and Algeria — the most under-reported post-Islamist place in the world.

Make a contribution if you’re so inclined. And here’s more on Michael Yon’s ongoing dispute with Shock magazine and HFM.

TROUBLE IN OAXACA: Austin Bay looks at politics in Mexico.

TOM MAGUIRE gets musical over Murtha, and notes Frank Rich’s despair.

UPDATE: John Fund has a must-read piece on Democrats’ problems with the war.

THE GLENN AND HELEN SHOW has been downloaded over 10 million times now. If we got just a dollar per download. . . .

NET NEUTRALITY UPDATE: Richard Bennett says that claims that Cox Cable is blocking Craigslist are false. And Andy Kessler has some thoughts on the general topic: “this is one of those bizarre issues where both sides are off their rocker.”

UPDATE: More on net neutrality from Patrick Hynes.

THE CARNIVAL OF THE CAPITALISTS IS UP: So is the Blawg Review.

INSIDE HIGHER ED reports that law schools are being scrutinized by the Civil Rights Commission for racial discrimination:

The United States Commission on Civil Rights took up affirmative action at law schools during a five-hour session Friday highlighted by political posturing, jousting over statistics and moments of incivility.

Meanwhile, LaShawn Barber notes a successful lawsuit by white professors who say that their University paid minorities more money on account of their race. I suspect that there’s room for a lot of lawsuits along these lines. The combination of deep pockets and easy proof may well lure a lot of plaintiffs’ lawyers to the field; the harder part will be finding plaintiffs willing to bring suit.

Plus, Michael and Raphael Rosen look at Larry Summers’ last graduation as President of Harvard:

He is greeted by the College students’ stentorian chants of “Larry! Larry! Larry!” — a fitting bookend to the throngs of crestfallen undergrads who surrounded him during his resignation announcement.

What endeared Summers so much to students was his fundamental commitment to restoring the noble values of academia — namely, ensuring that professors actually taught students engaging, challenging material, partook of truly open-minded intellectual inquiry, and resisted the fatuous enticements of simplistic political sloganism.

The commitment to academic integrity that Summers urged upon Harvard transcends the impetuous politics of right and left. Summers himself, who served as President Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, is an iconic New Democrat. Yet his calls for reform were met with implacable hostility from the most reactionary elements at Harvard.

Read the whole thing.

THE D.C. EXAMINER says goodbye to Freedom of Speech.

Apparently, it’s in short supply even at the ACLU these days.