It is terrific that Iraqis just had another free and fair election and that some 11 million people voted. Americans should be proud that we helped to bring that about in a region that has so rarely experienced any sort of democratic politics.

But what's still unclear is this: Who and what were Iraqis voting for? Were they voting for Kurdish sectarian leaders, who they hope will gradually split Kurdistan off from Iraq? Were they voting for pro-Iranian Shiite clerics, who they hope will carve out a Shiite theocratic zone between Basra and Baghdad? Were they voting for Sunni tribal leaders, who they hope will restore the Sunnis to their "rightful" place - ruling everyone else? Or, were they voting for a unified Iraq and for politicians whom they expect to compromise and rewrite the Constitution into a broadly accepted national compact?

The Measure of Success - New York Times

A court in the US has ruled against the teaching of "intelligent design" alongside Darwin's theory of evolution.

good

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | 'Intelligent design' teaching ban

The Army has approved a new, classified set of interrogation methods...

The techniques are included in a 10-page classified addendum to a new Army field manual...

Army and other Pentagon officials raised concerns that Mr. McCain would be furious at what could appear to be a back-door effort to circumvent his intentions.

"This is a stick in McCain's eye," one official.

Mr. McCain's measure, which the Senate has overwhelmingly approved, would require that only interrogation techniques authorized by the new Army field manual be used on prisoners held by the military....

So, if I understand this.. We have banned torture, but there is no way to actually tell if we just said we banned torture while classifying the information that pertains to how we torture... Or, ideally, if we have a good set of guidelines for interrogation that actually bans torture, but are keeping them secret so our interrogation methods are not publicly known so they can be trained for.

McCain is the only one who even has the appearance of being an honest broker here. Does he have access to see what the current guidelines are? This issue just can't fall off the radar without something happening that convinces the world, or at least many people like me, that we did in fact ban torture. So far, I'm not convinced.

New Army Rules May Snarl Talks With McCain on Detainee Issue - New York Times

Grainne Close and Shannon Sickles stepped out of a black taxi and into history.

The two women had become "engaged" in New York three years earlier but it was the city of Belfast which was to offer them the first opportunity to "tie the knot".

Holding hands and in the full glare of the waiting media, Ms Close, wearing a black trouser suit, declared: "This is for all the people who went before us ... "

Ms Sickles, wearing a white trouser suit, finished her partner's sentence like any true "married" couple: "... and all the people who would like to come after us."

congratulations to them

BBC NEWS | UK | Out of the ceremony, into history

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

Please tell me this is some nut-job exaggerating the accuracy of his sources. So far all references to this point back to the writer of this article. I will maintain my doubts as to it's validity, if just to maintain my own calm. I don't want to believe Bush said that in the Oval Office, regardless of how much I dislike him.

This should be examined further. Bush took an oath to uphold that "goddamned piece of paper." Even in a fit of anger, making a statement like that is going way too far.

Update: More about this fellow's sources here. I hope some more media outlets look into this. I have trouble buying into any story where the single point of failure is one reporter and media outlet I know little about.

Capitol Hill Blue: Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."

The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.

The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.

"I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said. "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."

This is over the top. Mao? They sent out federal agents because a college student was reading Mao? Are we really worried about a communist movement in America these days? What the hell is going on?

I'm at a loss for words.. I have to resort to pulling out John Locke's greatest hits: "The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it."

UMass Dartmouth senior visited by federal agents for checking out Mao's 'Little Red Book'

WHAT if they held a culture war and no one fired a shot? That's the compelling tale of "Brokeback Mountain." Here is a heavily promoted American movie depicting two men having sex - the precise sex act that was still a crime in some states until the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws just two and a half years ago - but there is no controversy, no Fox News tar and feathering, no roar from the religious right. "Brokeback Mountain" has instead become the unlikely Oscar favorite, propelled by its bicoastal sweep of critics' awards, by its unexpected dominance of the far less highfalutin Golden Globes and, perhaps most of all, by the lure of a gold rush. Last weekend it opened to the highest per-screen average of any movie this year.

Two Gay Cowboys Hit a Home Run - New York Times

Over the past few years, the Iraq war has morphed from a war of liberation against Saddam into a civil conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. And when you look at this civil conflict - or civil war if you want to call it that - you see how typical it is of many of the civil wars we've seen in the world over the past six decades. Over that time, there have been 225 civil wars, and many of them have featured the same sort of insurgency and counterinsurgency, the same ethnic feuding and the same pattern of elections intermingled with violence that we see in Iraq today.

Taking a Long View of the Iraq Conflict - New York Times

There is a stupid notion going around that the news media would be better off if anyone and everyone got to make a contribution to it. Blogs and podcasts are examples of this and reader-generated electronic "newspapers" are beginning to spring up. People who should know better see this as democratizing the flow of news and information...

I have been concerned about this new, online "citizen journalism" becoming the source of more disinformation than truth, a concern that actually extends to most of the Internet.

Some people in the media are absolutely giddy about the opportunity to pile a complete and total indictment of the entire Internet on top of this incident. Oh my god! People can express their own views without control from the 4th estate! How will we ever know what is true anymore?!

Check out the headline on this article:

For all its wonders, the world-changing effects of the digital civilization contains a slimy, anarchic undercurrent of democracy run amok.

There is so much that is broken about the perspectives being offered around this incident:

The idea that Wikipedia and encyclopedias are the same kinds of things and their value should be judged by the same criteria.
The idea that Wikipedia must either be 100% reliable or completely useless for any purpose.
The idea that people are not capable of critical thinking and should not be responsible for doing it.
The idea that the alleged connection to the Kennedy Assasination would have been viewed as credible by anyone who isn't nuts.
The idea that internet anonymity is a bad thing.
The idea that "supporting freedom of speech" is compatible with "demanding accountability." (Haven't you people ever heard of the Federalist Papers?!)
The idea that the highly reliable totally awesome 4th estate should be the arbiter of the truth, when in their articles about this VERY incident they have repeatedly twisted this guy's voluntary resignation from his job (which he had to do because of the pressure THEY would put on his employer if he hadn't) so that it appears as if he was fired. "Man looses job over wikipedia prank..."

The biggest problem here is the idea that a national press campaign and the threat of lawsuits are a reasonable way of dealing with a problem on a publically editable wiki! This notion is so irrational that one suspects John Seigenthaler of taking advantage of the opportunity because he wanted to launch a broder attack on the Internet. You gunna sue me for suggesting that, John? Go ahead. Make my fucking day.

Internet Backlash

Richard Pryor, the caustic yet perceptive actor-comedian who lived dangerously close to the edge both on stage and off, died Saturday. He was 65.

Pryor died shortly before 8 a.m. of a heart attack after being taken to a hospital from his home in the San Fernando Valley, said his business manager, Karen Finch. He had been ill for years with multiple sclerosis, a degenerative disease of the nervous system.

I will miss him.

Comedian Richard Pryor Dies At 65