ED MORRISSEY interviews Kathryn Jean Lopez about the Thomas Smith retraction. Since some lefty bloggers and New Republic apologists are trying to draw equivalence between this story and the Beauchamp affair, let’s note two key differences: NRO quickly responded and retracted as soon as it learned of the problem, instead of circling the wagons and attacking its critics, and the story in question — though wrong — didn’t constitute a libel of American troops in the field. To some people, at least, that’s a significant matter.

GOING BROKE while driving a Lexus.

HYBRID COMPUTERS incorporating living brains to appear in 10 or 15 years? (Via Rand Simberg, who observes: “There are going to be some humdinger ethics issues to deal with along this road.”) For moth briains or mouse brains, not so much. Moving up the scale, a lot more.

A SOLUTION TO THE SUBPRIME CRISIS: Moving out of your apartment and into a life-sized dollhouse! “My real plan is to flip it, but for the time being it’s good.”

WELL, THAT’S CONVENIENT: “A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains on hold, contradicting an assessment two years ago that Tehran was working inexorably toward building a bomb.”

But what could have happened in 2003 that might have persuaded the Iranians to stop work on a weapon of mass destruction?

UPDATE: I just got an email with this story under the subject line “Your Zionist lies exposed.” But actually I think that’s a mistaken take, because I don’t think this story cuts that way at all. This story lets the Bush Administration take credit for pressuring Iran into stopping its weapons program by invading Iraq — meaning that the invasion really did end a major WMD threat — and also punt further serious action on the Iran issue to the next administration. Cui bono? I think it’s pretty obvious. . . .

ANOTHER UPDATE: Dan Riehl isn’t comforted: “I don’t find it the least bit reassuring. I can’t get too excited about the NIE given the recent bombing of what’s now being called a nuclear bomb factory in Syria. If those reports are accurate, it would make sense for Iran to be doing a rope-a-dope with facilities such as Natanz.” Yes, given the consistent unreliability of the “intelligence community” on these matters, alarmism might be more comforting than the reverse. Note, however, that while we can’t know — no one this side of Tehran can — whether the report is accurate, I think the Bush Administration’s decision to publicize it tells us something about what the Bush Administration thinks, as noted above.

And some related thoughts from Victor Davis Hanson: “After all, what critic would wish now to grant that one result of the 2003 war-aside from the real chance that Iraq can stabilize and function under the only consensual government in the region-might have been the elimination for some time of two growing and potentially nuclear threats to American security, quite apart from Saddam Hussein?” Yet that seems plausible, now.

MORE: Further thoughts from Norman Podhoretz: “These findings are startling, not least because in key respects they represent a 180-degree turn from the conclusions of the last NIE on Iran’s nuclear program.”

STILL MORE: Uh oh: “If these appalling imbeciles say that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, then I say it’s time to go long on bomb shelters.” Hard to argue . . .

And Tom Maguire — after a close analysis worth reading in full — sees a Hillary angle: “And does it defuse criticism of Hillary’s controversial support of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution branding Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization? If we have no basis for war then we don’t need to worry that Hillary has given some support for it.” Lucky for Hillary that the Bush Administration released this just as she got into primary trouble. . . .

Meanwhile, Shannon Love makes sense: “My cursory reading of the report suggest that Iran has just moth balled its nuke project and can restart it in short order once the heat is off. For conspiracy theorist I would point out that a lot of that heat comes from credible saber rattling and having two armies parked on either side of Iran. Keeping the pressure on Iran is exactly the right thing to do. I suspect they are waiting for a change in the winds like a democrat President or a shift in European leaders to a more pacifistic stance. They only need a window of year or two of dithering to make their nukes a fait accompli.”

FINALLY: A clueless reader emails to accuse me of shilling for Bush. But, you see, the post above, read properly, suggests that the decision to release this report was politically motivated. That’s not shilling. Er, unless you’re clueless. Jeez.

MORE DUBIOUS REPORTING, this time from Afghanistan.

GOOD NEWS: Amazon and Wal-Mart Push Labels to Ditch DRM Once and For All.

KARL ROVE’S SINISTER PLAN BEARS FRUIT? Dem registration plan backfires, new citizens choose GOP.

DREW CAREY defends poker.

LOOKING AT OBAMA’S KINDGERGARTEN ESSAYS? Jeez.

KINGSLEY BROWNE is guestblogging over at The Volokh Conspiracy about his new book, Coed Combat. Here’s his first post. There’s a lot of discussion in the comments, including — to my surprise — praise from Amy Alkon. Coming later — the other side of the issue from Capt. (& Prof.) Rosemary Mariner of the University of Tennessee’s Center for the Study of War & Society.

AUBREY DE GREY talks about life, death, and aging over at Cato Unbound.

“THEY’LL TURN US ALL INTO BEGGARS ’cause they’re easier to please.” I ain’t gonna eat no government cheese.

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SMART EDITORS: Charles Paul Freund — journalist, alternativist, comix scriptwright — has recovered from eye problems, and is looking for a gig. [ cfreund-at-rcn.com ] I’ve been a big fan of his work for years, and I’m glad to see he’s ready to get back in the saddle.

A LOOK AT BOB LEVY AND THE D.C. gun ban case. Our interview with Levy can be heard here. And some thoughts of mine on the case are here.

IN THE MAIL: Alfred Taubman’s Threshold Resistance. With a blurb from Malcolm Gladwell!

A REVEALING MOMENT of electoral inevitability.

More inevitability here.

LIVE- BLOGGING Don Imus’s return.

DID JUAN CARLOS help defeat Hugo Chavez?

THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIALIZES: “Muslims who wonder why non-Muslims are often baffled, angered, even frightened by some governments’ interpretation of Islamic law need only look to the cases of two women in Saudi Arabia and Sudan threatened with barbaric lashings.” Yes. Don’t want to be thought of as barbarians? Don’t act that way.

MELANIE SCARBOROUGH: Somebody’s lying about FISA.

CELEBRATING THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY of the transistor: “But here’s the too obvious example of how transistors have changed things: I’m a guy sitting in Louisiana commenting on an article in The Sydney Morning Herald to a worldwide audience. And I’m not Walter Cronkite.”

THOUGHTS ON JOHN HOWARD, from Mark Steyn.

MORE ON THE NEW REPUBLIC SCANDAL from John Tabin. And there’s also this observation from Roger Simon: “Four and a half months? After having been informed Beauchamp was married to his fact-checker? Yes, I know that’s not proof in and of itself, but it’s a red flag the size of Brooklyn.”

RON ROSENBAUM ON the return of World War III.