IS THE BLOGOSPHERE HALF-EMPTY, OR HALF-FULL? Ed Driscoll looks at the numbers.

EUGENE VOLOKH points out that the Spanish election makes “multilateralism” even less appealing:

Those voters’ position would be understandable — perhaps not terribly sound in the long term, but understandable: The deaths were caused by Aznar’s policies, since if he had not supported the Americans (over the opposition of most Spaniards, as I understand), the bombings probably wouldn’t have happened; therefore, let’s punish Aznar, and send politicians a message to prevent this from happening again.

But if that’s so, then doesn’t it show that we can’t allow our foreign policy to be vetoed by other nations? After all, if we agree that we may not do what we think is right and necessary for our national security if any one of England, France, Russia, or China says “veto,” then our enemies can paralyze us simply by influencing one foreign country. The influence might be exerted by bribes (more here), or by threat of terrorist violence. But one way or another, an enemy that couldn’t break down our resolve could still stop us from doing what needs to be done by breaking down the resolve of one of the veto-owning countries. (The same applies if we just generally agree not to go ahead without the agreement of “our European allies” generally — if the threat of terrorist retaliation cows several of those allies, that could be enough to stymie our plans.)

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: The Financial Times reports:

The Socialist party had been less tough on Eta but diplomats expected the new government to take a tough line on al-Qaeda.

The issue of counter-terrorism issues has been catapulted on to next week’s summit agenda, instead of the June summit.

Diplomats said member states were in no mood to suggest that only those countries that supported the US-led war in Iraq were vulnerable. “Terrorism affects every country. Terrorist networks use countries in which to ‘sleep’,” said a senior EU diplomat.

Let’s hope that the “tough line” expectation is met, in deeds, not just words. Zapatero is promising a tough line: (“‘My most immediate priority is to beat all forms of terrorism,’ said Zapatero, asking for a minute’s silence in honour of the 200 people killed in the bombings on four packed commuter trains.”) Let’s hope.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Mark Steyn offers a guide for the perplexed. And SWLIP says that Zapatero is engaging in doublespeak.

Andrew Sullivan has more. He also links to this assessment of how the overall war is going, which is worth reading, especially for those depressed about the Spanish elections.

MORE: Tacitus has a lengthy post on why appeasement won’t work for Spain, which has been an Islamist target for some time.

REVOLT IN IRAN? More here.

KERRY PULLS A HOWARD DEAN:

The town meeting was contentious at times, with 52-year-old Cedric Brown repeatedly pressing the candidate to name the foreign leaders whom Kerry has said are backing his campaign.

“I’m not going to betray a private conversation with anybody,” Kerry said. As the crowd of several hundred people began to mutter and boo, Kerry said, “That’s none of your business.”

Is Cedric Brown Kerry’s Dale Ungerer? Probably not, but Kerry’s signature arrogance isn’t going to help him on the campaign trail.

TERRORISTS HAVE SUCCEEDED IN TOPPLING THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT. Jeff Jarvis observes: ” In any case, it’s a damned shame that terrorists can have an impact on the election and can help bring in the side they apparently wanted.”

Eric Olsen has more thoughts on what is, I’m afraid, a bad day for the forces of civilization.

UPDATE: Roger Simon:

I walk out on my deck, looking across the Hollywood Hills at Runyon Canyon, but my mind is in Madrid, at its splendid Puerta del Sol where I have spent so many wonderful days and where sadly fascists have walked before and for too long. But this time they are not under the flag of Generalissimo Franco. This time, ironically, they rally behind the words of a man, Osama bin Laden, whom El Caudillo would have reviled. But of course the cry of both men is the same: Viva la muerte!

Indeed. Meanwhile Mark Aveyard notes a contradiction: “Remember being told by the left that Saddam’s regime and Al Queda had no relationship, that they actually hated each other? Now they’re saying that Al Queda attacked Spain because the US ousted Saddam!”

And Eric Kolchinsky emails: “Al Queda (or any other terror organization) will rightly perceive that they can influence elections through violence. This vote has greatly increased the probability of a pre-election attack — here and in Europe.” Yes. And it’s reduced the likelihood of addressing this problem without major bloodshed. The Spanish electorate has made what seems to me to be a very shortsighted and cowardly decision, and the world may suffer as a result. As Will Allen emails:

To recall Churchill, the election in Spain indicates that many still hold to the belief that feeding the crocodile sufficiently will result in their being last on the menu. They would be proven wrong, of course, if it came to that. In this instance, it won’t come to that, given that that this crocodile will be utterly annihilated if it bites hard enough. Unfortunately, such an act of utter annihilation will also entail the annihilation of many innocents. I fear that today’s events have brought that grim scenario ever closer, and that what has taken place in Spain could be a harbinger of dangerous developments. I’ve never wanted to be wrong more than I do now.

I hope that Will is wrong, too. I fear that he’s not. It’s worth reading what Lee Harris wrote on Friday:

Perhaps this was a sheer coincidence, and the terrorists had no intention of causing people to change their minds about which candidates to vote for. But if it wasn’t a coincidence, then this would compel us to recognize a potentially horrendous new development, namely, the use of catastrophic terror to “persuade” the Spanish people vote against the pro-America policy of Prime Minister Aznar’s party.

If this is the case, then the Spanish election Sunday will carry a significance that will transcend the borders of Spain, and which could make it one of the most decisive elections in the short history of modern democracy. For if the Spanish people vote against Aznar’s party, then it will appear to the terrorists that they have succeeded in manipulating the domestic policy of an independent nation through an act of catastrophic terror. They will have succeeded in making a nation change its mind about who is to lead them — and that would be a setback from which our world might never recover.

Factually this may not be the case: the vote may conceivably go against Aznar’s party for reasons having nothing to do with today’s terror. But to the terrorists, such a doubt will not exist. If Aznar is defeated, they will be convinced that it was their act that produced this result; and, God forbid, they may well be right.

This conclusion is the last conclusion that anyone could possibly want the terrorists to draw, because if they believe that they can alter the outcome of an election in Spain, it will inevitably tempt them to try to alter the outcome of future elections in other nations of Europe by a similar use of catastrophic terror.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that they might not also be tempted to use catastrophic terror to affect the next national election in the United States. Indeed, it is all too easy to concoct nightmare scenarios in which a series of coordinated attacks immediately before the election created a climate of such fear and anxiety that a serious question might be raised about the validity of the national election itself.

There are answers to such an approach, but they are ugly ones. And Reader Barbara Skolaut observes: “I wonder if the Spanish people have thought of what message they’ve just sent to the Basque separatists, whom they’ve been fighting for many years: Wantonly kill enough of us and we’ll appease you, too.”

It never ends. Unless, that is, you stand up to it. And reader Paul Young observes:

I think what needs to be mentioned is the fact that Iraq could have recently been thrown into a civil war but instead its leaders and people understood the situation and did not let the terrorists succeed. So Iraq “gets it” but Spain does not. Why am I supposed to believe that only the U.N. can legitimize Iraq’s new government? It seems that Iraq has more to teach Europe than vice versa.

Indeed. And Belmont Club observes: ” A division of labor has been established in which the Left provides the paralyzing injection on Western society leaving the jihadis a clear field within which to operate.”

On the other hand, reader Paul Harper emails that he thinks the real problem was that voters felt Aznar was playing politics with the bombing, blaming ETA when the evidence favored Al Qaeda. Perhaps so. I don’t think, though, that the terrorists will take that message from these events.

I’m deeply disappointed with the Spanish decision, and so are a lot of other folks, obviously. But it’s worth noting that democracies make bad decisions sometimes — just like every other form of government — and that this decision, though deeply wrong in my estimation, is only one decision among many, by many nations, and that it’s subject to revision later. (And hey, I could be wrong about its negative impact. I certainly hope that I am.) So don’t plunge into despair. It’s disappointing, and it’s certainly not a good thing, but it’s not the end. And as events develop, the Socialists may very well find themselves adopting a less conciliatory approach than they currently anticipate.

MORE: Dave Ross, on the other hand, thinks Aznar doomed himself:

But on the short term, remember this: Mr Anzar loudly leapt to the conclusion it was ETA, at the very onset of the investigation. Evidence soon mounted that this was done by al-Qaida sympathisers. Aznar is guilty of manipulating a tragedy for political advantage. And if I may say so, he did it in the most clumsy manner I have seen in years.

Worse, by going off on that tangent, Aznar impeded the investigation. That means: even from a pro-War perspective, he was ineffective at prosecuting the European front of it. That is unforgivable.

The voters punished him for his sins. Justly. “Capitulation” doesn’t even come into it. Yes there were some terrorist appeasers and sympathisers voting for the Socialists, but I bet the majority of anti-Aznarites feel as I do.

I suppose we’ll find out. Iberian Notes isn’t very happy.

Meryl Yourish isn’t happy either — but she has some optimistic observations that are worth reading.

KERRY GETS IT RIGHT ON CASTRO, BUT THEN BLOWS IT:

”I’m pretty tough on Castro, because I think he’s running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,” Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.

Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: “And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.”

It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote — as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton’s reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.

There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.

D’oh! Too “nuanced” for me, Senator. Mickey Kaus also notes an Elian Gonzalez straddle.

ERIC ALTERMAN DOESN’T LIKE IT, but Andrew Breitbart’s and Mark Ebner’s book, Hollywood, Interrupted — a devastating report of just how crazy, mean, and crooked the folks at the top of the celebrity heap are — has broken into the New York Times hardcover bestseller list at number 15. I think it’s the InstaPundit cover blurb that did the trick. . .

CHALK ONE UP FOR INTERNET HOAXES:

ALISO VIEJO, Calif. (AP) – City officials were so concerned about the potentially dangerous properties of dihydrogen monoxide that they considered banning foam cups after they learned the chemical was used in their production. Then they learned that dihydrogen monoxide – H2O for short – is the scientific term for water.

(Via Blogosferics). Read more about the deadly threat of DHMO here and here.

RALPH LUKER has more on what appears to be a debacle at the University of Southern Mississippi.

It’s hard enough doing faculty recruiting for a school with a good reputation. I can’t imagine what it’s going to be like for the University of Southern Mississippi after this.

KEVIN DRUM on the New York Times’ effort to shut down The National Debate:

This goes beyond mere bullying and descends into paranoid — and hypocritical — lunacy. The Times certainly has the right to protect its copyright, but at the same time you’d think the publisher of the Pentagon Papers would show a little more respect for free speech and a little more tolerance for criticism.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Indeed they should.

Robert Tagorda adds: ” Through its lame threat, the Times makes itself look not only petty but also unresponsive. It misses an opportunity to reexamine its policies, improve its product, and strengthen relations with customers. That’s bad business. It’ll suffer accordingly.”

UPDATE: A different kind of Times correction problem is discussed here. Congratulations to Daniel Okrent for addressing it.

PHILIP BOBBITT has an interesting essay in the Financial Times on charges of U.S. imperialism:

It is not simply that current international law and the institutions it has created cannot assure international security, it is that they are a positive barrier to such security because they are used to hamstring the one state with the power and willingness to intervene on behalf of world order. The reason imperialist Othellos are drawn to hegemonical daydreaming is not that they actually want to take up imperial responsibilities for economic development and governance, nor because they relish sending American youths to hostile and unpacifiable provinces, but because they know that international institutions are currently incapable of maintaining, much less achieving, stable security environments. The reason the imperialist has faith in unilateralism is because he has no faith in multilateralism and, after Bosnia, Lebanon and Palestine, who can blame him?

Read the whole thing.

JEFF JARVIS:

I want to see defense and homeland security as issues in this campaign. But when I go to Kerry’s site, and look at the box on the upper-right of the page, listing big issues — Economy & Jobs, Education, Health Care… — defense isn’t even listed.

Homeland Security is listed but going there gives you ideas about expanding Americorps and its role in Homeland Security but nothing about defense.

In other words, there’s nothing about going to get the bad guys where they fester. . . .

I want to hear the guy say he will not rest until he gets the bad guys. I want to hear the guy say he will spare nothing to defend us. As [Josh] Marshall says, I want to see him talk defense. Now. But the talk is spare and hidden. . . .

Kerry is still acting as if he’s up against Howard Dean, scared of his own military shadow.

Jeff agrees with Josh Marshall that Kerry’s got to do more on defense.

UPDATE: Kerry may want to unsay some things about Spain, one of the countires he called “window dressing.”

Meanwhile Matt Stoller says that this should be a liberal war. I agree.

DAVID ADESNIK on the New York Times’ effort to shut down The National Debate:

That’s just pathetic. If the NYT cared so much about its integrity, perhaps it should’ve kept an eye on Jayson Blair. On the other hand, this sort of vindictive behavior is an implicit admission of just how vulnerable professional journalists are to the criticism of intelligent amateurs. Viva el blogosphere!

Indeed. Go here for more.

ARE ATTITUDES CHANGING IN EUROPE? Roger Simon, Tim Blair, and Bjorn Staerk have thoughts.

UNREST IN SYRIA:

Syrian security forces killed dozens of people and injured hundred during violent clashes over the weekend, in the north of the country, according to reports that reached Haaretz on Saturday. According to the reports, by relatives of witnesses, the violence started during a soccer game and later spread to demonstrations throughout the Kurdish regions in the country.

Stay tuned.

MEMRI HAS AN ANALYSIS casting doubt on the authenticity of the letter taking “credit” for the Madrid bombings on behalf of Al Qaeda. Several readers have suggested that ETA might have good reasons to deny responsibility publicly. I have no idea, but it’s a lot easier to take credit for doing things than it is to actually do them.

UPDATE: On the other hand Jeff Jarvis has reports that Islamists are behind the bombings. (The same ones who sent the letter? Or different one? Beats me). As always, early reports tend to be wrong, so stay tuned.

FIVE ARRESTS IN SPAIN connected to the Madrid bombing.

Has Kerry said anything about the Madrid bombing yet? At first I thought that this Campaign Blog entry was on point: “Carry the battle to them. Don’t let them bring it to you.” Sounds good at first — but on further reading it’s about fighting Republicans rather than terrorists.

His campaign website has nothing. And I can’t find anything on Google News either. Does Kerry have anything to say? Or does he just think that major terrorist attacks aren’t important?

UPDATE: Ah, here it is:

“I would like to express my sincerest sympathy to the Spanish people and the families of those killed and injured in today’s horrific terrorist bombing in Madrid. As a country which has also experienced tragedy at the hands of these cowardly killers, our thoughts and prayers are with you.

“In addition to words of condolence and condemnation, America should offer every assistance to Spain in dealing with the aftermath of this tragedy and in bringing those responsible to justice. We must remember that all civilized nations are joined as one in the global battle against terror. While these attacks remind us that the fight is far from over, they also strengthen our resolve to stand together for the right of free people to live in a peaceful world.”

Not bad. I really did have trouble finding it, though, and a lot of people were emailing me wondering why Kerry hadn’t said something. My fault: I should have found it when I looked the first time but I didn’t look that hard as I expected it to get top billing — I’m surprised it didn’t.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Not everyone agrees that it’s a decent response. Brian Rogge emails:

The key words Kerry uses are “bringing those responsible to justice.” Kerry doesn’t get it. It’s a ‘War on Terror’, prosecuted by the military intent on eradicating an enemy, not a ‘Crime Scene Investigation of Terror’, prosecuted by attorneys.

I see the point. But justice can come in many forms.

JEFF JARVIS:

Donald Rumsfeld is getting crap for having a piece of the debris from the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon in his office.

Well, I say he should keep it there. And he should give it to his successor, who should never forget whom we’re fighting and what we’re protecting. And I’ll go farther:

Take a piece of debris from the Towers and put it in the lobby of the FBI under a sign that says, “Remember.”

Read the whole thing.

REVENGE OF THE BLOGS: The New York Daily News has a report on the latest involving Robert Cox’s parody of a (sadly nonexistent) New York Times oped corrections page on his website, TheNationalDebate.com:

Ten Web sites in the U.S. and one in Germany yesterday picked up and posted a New York Times parody that the paper had sought to remove from TheNationalDebate.com after alleging copyright infringement.

Asked if The Times planned to challenge the new Web sites, spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said, “We are evaluating our next steps.”

Disturbingly, the Daily News also reports that: “Cox is facing a possible Monday shutdown of his site by Verio, his Internet service provider, unless he removes other Times-focused material.” It’s not clear what that means, but the Times charges seem rather grabby and unfocused. As Cox notes: “The print-out are 16 pages from my web site with no markings or specific indications of what The Times considers infringement. Am I supposed to guess?”

The Times is being a bully here, and should be ashamed. It should also, of course, be ashamed on the underlying issue addressed by the parody — that it has failed to correct egregious factual errors by its oped columnists — and perhaps this bullying constitutes a tacit admission that it’s in the wrong there.

Note to Ms. Mathis: Your “next steps” should be an apology to Mr. Cox and to the blogosphere, and the institution of a reasonable oped corrections policy. Just FYI.

UPDATE: Uh, oh — it’s snowballing.

A LOT OF KNOXVILLE EXPATS have been asking for more pictures, but I haven’t really had time to take any new ones. Sorry, but I’ve been busy with my real job and everything. . . .

But here’s one of the Law School from last spring. (Click for a larger one). I’ll see what I can do in the next few days.

It’s interesting to me that people who grow up in Knoxville are often anxious to get out and see the wider world — but once they’re out there, they tend to miss the place rather intensely. Well, why not? I did. And my wife (who, like me, isn’t actually a Knoxville native) wound up returning to the place after 7 years in New York. I think you appreciate Knoxville more after you’ve lived other places.

GEITNER SIMMONS points to an Omaha World Herald editorial accusing John Kerry and the Democrats of a smear job on Bush appointee (and Nebraska businessman) Tony Raimondo. “The claim was nonsense. But it was enough to set off a train of demagogic attacks on Raimondo from Capitol Hill Democrats.”

At least they didn’t accuse him of being related to Justin. . . .

RANDY BARNETT: “Blogging about the great outdoors makes me feel like Glenn Reynolds.”

WINDS OF BLACK HATE: Don’t miss this post from Michele Catalano.

SABINE HEROLD STRIKES AGAIN: Heh.

BOGUS CHARGES OF FRAUD directed at Skeptical Environmentalist author Bjorn Lomborg have been withdrawn after being discredited. “No word of an apology nor headlines declaring Lomborg vindicated.” Go figure.