Considerettes

Air America continues to be on the ropes:

In a sign that the privately held company’s financial woes have not fully abated, Al Franken, the network’s best-known star, said in an interview last week that he had agreed not to draw a salary, however temporarily, making him “an involuntary investor.'’

“We had some bad management,'’ Mr. Franken said. “Then we got some good management.'’

Still, Mr. Franken, his tongue only partly in cheek, added, “It’s a little fuzzy to me exactly who’s in charge.'’

Puts the lie to the aphorism, “You never know who’s right, but you always know who’s in charge”. Or perhaps liberal talk radio is the exception that proves the rule. Interesting that, after operating for a couple of month, and after all the planning that went into this, the chain of command is missing a few links.

But that’s only the beginning:

The turmoil has shed light on the network’s corporate culture, laying bare a mismatched collection of managers and investors, including Democratic Party fund-raisers, Internet entrepreneurs and radio veterans who, as it turned out, did not get along especially well. Even as the network was finding an audience with its blend of humor and commentary, many of the principals’ business relationships were dissolving in a flurry of charges and countercharges. The most serious concerned how much money Air America actually had on hand when it went on the air on March 31.

In early March, the network’s chief executive, Mark Walsh, said that the company had raised more than $20 million, enough to keep it broadcasting for months, if not years, before making a profit. At the time, Mr. Walsh said that the network’s primary backers included Evan M. Cohen, a venture capitalist who was the network’s chairman, and Rex Sorensen, a business partner of Mr. Cohen’s who was the chairman of Progress Media, the parent company of Air America.

But in an interview on Friday, Mr. Walsh said: “I was misled about that number.'’ Mr. Walsh refused to say who had misled him, but he said that he had resigned in April because “the company wasn’t transparent'’ and “I was unable to decipher how it was being operated.'’

<Insert “vast left-wing conspiracy joke here>

Less than a month later, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Sorensen, who had previously operated radio stations together in Guam and Saipan, resigned under pressure from the company’s other investors. David Goodfriend, who served as general counsel and later as acting chief operating officer of Air America, resigned about a week ago, having done his best, he said, to hold the company together in the wake of the departures of Mr. Cohen, Mr. Sorensen and Mr. Walsh. (Separately, Dave Logan, executive vice president for programming, also left, in late April.)

Jon Sinton, the president of Air America and one of the few top executives who remains from the day it went on the air, underscored Mr. Walsh’s comments by saying, in a separate interview, that he, too, had been misled about the company’s resources and that a cash crunch had ensued as a result.

“Financing wasn’t as available for operational issues as we’d thought it was,'’ he said. Reached on Friday, Mr. Cohen declined to comment on the state of the company’s finances under his watch.

Sinton isn’t just the president. As I noted in February of last year he’s the CEO of AnShell Media, the company that came up with the whole idea in the first place. If you want to believe that Richard Melon Scaife was the founder of the “vast right-wing conspiracy”, you’d be obliged to acknowledge that Sinton is at least one of the founders of a corresponding left-wing cadre. This is no patsy who didn’t know what was going on; this is an architect playing dumb to the cameras in hopes of shifting the blame when the building starts to collapse.

The Arbitron ratings, although still preliminary as the network hasn’t been around long enough for good numbers, do show that Air America could be holding its own for the moment.

For example, among listeners from 25 and 54, whom advertisers covet, the network estimates it drew an average listener share (roughly a percentage of listeners) of 3.4 on WLIB in April, from 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on weekdays, according to the company’s extrapolation of figures provided by Arbitron for the three months ended in April. (Arbitron, which does not provide ratings in monthly increments, said the network’s methodology appeared sound, although such figures were too raw to translate to numbers of listeners.)

By contrast, according to Air America’s figures, WABC-AM drew an average share of 3.2 during the same period in April for the same age group. That time period includes the three hours in which Mr. Limbaugh was pitted head to head against Mr. Franken.

Phil Boyce, the program director of WABC , cautioned against drawing conclusions from preliminary data. “If they end up doing that well when the final number is out, which is two more months, I’ll give them a congratulations,” Mr. Boyce said.

While the network is awaiting the release of similar figures from Arbitron for other cities, KPOJ-AM, the Clear Channel station that carries its programming in Portland, Ore., informed Air America executives by an e-mail message in late April that its ratings appeared to have tripled last month, according to the station’s informal survey. (A station executive, Mary Lou Gunn, did not return a telephone message left at her office on Friday.)

The network, which is also carried on the satellite radio providers XM and Sirius, has found an audience on the Internet. In its first week, listeners clicked on the audio programming on the Air America Web site more than two million times, according to RealNetworks, the digital media provider.

“It’s clear the audience is there,'’ Mr. Franken said.

Well don’t break out the champagne yet, Al. First of all, you might not be able to afford it. Secondly, the media blitz that went into the start of the network at least guaranteed that you’d have a lot of folks listening in to find out what this was really going to be like–if it could live up to the hype. And don’t discount the conservatives that use your shows as fodder for their blogs. It’s still a novelty at this point, so I see no reason why, other than problems with financing, the network couldn’t last past the election. However, my prediction of 2 years before it dies hasn’t been shaken by any of the news since it began.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Here’s a thought: Maybe bin Laden isn’t the al-Qaida main man anymore.

Pakistani officials say al-Qaida is becoming more decentralized and its top leader, Osama bin Laden, may not be running the organization, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

Instead, there is growing evidence al-Qaida No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahiri may be in charge of the terrorist network.

The officials also said Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, the Jordanian-based al-Qaida associate, is emerging as a new leader of the group.

This may or may not be true–it’s the first I’ve heard of it–but keep this in mind when you hear Democrats harping on the fact that we haven’t caught bin Laden. If he’s become irrelevant, that won’t matter one bit. As long as we don’t have him in custody or dead, it’ll be their “proof” that we’re losing the war on terror, in spite of all the other al-Qaida honchos we’ve picked up.

(Not to mention that if the left’s response to a bin Laden capture is anything like it was for Hussein, they’ll be beside themselves with grief.)

Popularity: 3% [?]

That was then (from Kos at Daily Kos):

If the voters defeat the bond measure (and it’s still too early to predict one way or another), Arnold will be in a world of hurt. He will have no choice but to raise taxes (perhaps even the hated car tax) and make DEEP cuts in spending.

And if that happens, Arnold may not finish out the year.

Yeah, I know, it’s the same “that was then” clip I used last Saturday. But it’s more relevant today (as a bad example) because of today’s “this is now” clip:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has solid backing from California voters who say in two new polls that his performance is better than expected.

After six months in office, Schwarzenegger is winning praise across party lines and up and down the state, the San Francisco Chronicle says. His 65 percent approval rating in a Field Poll released Thursday is among the highest for any governor over the past 45 years.

Meanwhile, a Public Policy Institute of California poll also released Thursday shows similar rising approval ratings for the movie hero turned politician, with 65 percent of all California adults surveyed and 69 percent of likely voters saying they support the way he is doing his job.

On Saturday, I mentioned that California’s credit rating was starting to see progress as a result of Arnold’s policies. But then I said,

In one sense, kos may be right; perhaps the people of California aren’t enjoying what it’s taking to get out of the hold Gray Davis dug for them. But few people really enjoy the consequences of their excesses (or at least the excesses of those they elect to office). So that’s not really surprising.

However, as it turns out, people really do like the way he’s getting the job done.

(Enjoy the crow, Kos. I hear root beer makes it go down easier.)

Popularity: 3% [?]

Now that American Idol voters have made their choice, let’s remember what Elton John had to say about them back in April.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - British Rock star Elton John, a guest judge this month on the U.S. talent hunt TV series “American Idol,” said on Tuesday that he found the voting by the national viewing audience “incredibly racist.”

John, who heard the wannabe pop stars perform his songs during an appearance on the FOX TV show, added his voice to a chorus of dissent that followed last week’s shock exit of black vocalist Jennifer Hudson, considered one of the top talents among those vying for a recording contract.

To be honest, I don’t watch the show at all. The only reason I knew anything about it was because a local girl from Snellville, Diana DeGarmo, was the runner-up, and she was making local news here for weeks.

But the main point: Who did these supposedly “racist” voters pick as the best? Given that, can we stop having to listen to Elton John lecture us on racism? If they pick a white guy or girl next season, might it be just for the fact that the voters think they sing better than the rest?

Get over it.

UPDATE: Q&O agrees, and adds an additional note about the winners of each of the three seasons. See if you can spot the incongruency between them and Elton John’s comments.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Are gas prices the only economic news out there? Not so!

The economy grew at a 4.4 percent annual rate in the first quarter of this year, slightly faster than previously thought and fresh evidence that the recovery possessed good momentum as it headed into the current quarter.

The increase in gross domestic product from January through March reported by the Commerce Department on Thursday marked an improvement from both the 4.2 percent pace first estimated for the quarter a month ago and the 4.1 percent growth rate registered in the final quarter of 2003.

And that’s not all…

From April to June, the economy is expected to grow at a rate in the range of 4.5 percent to 5 percent, according to some analysts.

And there’s still more in the article. So now do you think we’ll be hearing about this generally good economic news in all these areas from the major media, or do you think they’ll harp on one bad number in a sea of good news?

I know which way I’m betting.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Singapore has relaxed some of its gum control restrictions.

Now, go back and read that again. No, there are no misspellings.

ULTRA-tidy Singapore is lifting its notorious ban on chewing gum after 12 long years – but only for registered users. Gum dealers face jail if they break the rules.

Before Singaporeans think about unwrapping a pack of the Wrigley’s Orbit gum that’s just started selling here – and only in pharmacies – they have to submit their names and ID card numbers. If they don’t, pharmacists who sell them gum could be jailed up to two years and fined S$5000.

Sort of the antithesis of our constitutional idea of limited government. Were we to start down that path with things like, oh, regulating the amount of water a toilet is allowed to use per flush, we’d be ripping apart our own tried-and-true constitutional republic and be well on our way to replacing it with this kind of onerous socialism.

Good thing we’re not doing anything like that. Oh, wait…

Popularity: 3% [?]

First, the background:

The Hill said a political controversy has been brewing over who approved the six controversial flights that carried 140 Saudi citizens.

At the time the members of the Saudi elite were allowed to leave, the Bush administration was preparing to detain Muslims in the U.S. as material witnesses to the attacks.

Democrat leaders, including Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, had been pressing members of the 9-11 Commission to find out, “Who authorized the flight[s] and why?”

A Democrat who attended a May 6 closed-door meeting of the panel quoted a panel member, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., as saying: “We don’t know who authorized it. We’ve asked that question 50 times.”

Most of the 26 passengers aboard a Sept. 20, 2001, fight were relatives of Osama bin Laden, whom intelligence officials blamed for the attacks almost immediately after they happened, The Hill said.

We’ll come back to this story and link to it in just a second, but first…

Indeed, who’s idea was that? Michael Moore’s adoring fans on Indymedia repeat his allegation in his new “documentary” Fahrenheit 9/11 that Bush made the decision.

AFTER the 9/11 attacks, why was the only plane to fly out of the US carrying 24 members of Osama bin Laden’s family?

IN the wake of the attacks, the US became a no-fly zone. Moore asks: “Why did Bush allow a private Saudi jet to fly around the US in the days after September 11 to pick up members of the bin Laden family and fly them out of the country without a proper FBI investigation? Might it have been possible that at least one of the 24 bin Ladens would have known something?”

Of course, this, to the Indys, is another “Bush LIED!” scenario, and is one of the reason Bush (allegedly) wants to ban the movie (although nothing in the article except the headline talks about Bush making any sort of statement for or against the movie).

An article on Democrats.com says the same thing:

Regarding the curious fact that the flight had taken place when all other air traffic was still grounded, Dan Grossi said “he was told that clearance for the flight had come from the White House after the Prince’s family pulled a favor from former President Bush.”

A quote that says that the “White House” authorized it must mean that it was the President himself, ya’ think?

Well, more folks than just these have argued that Bush himself was personally responsible. So now let’s rejoin the original news story, already in progress:

Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke says he is solely responsible for allowing members of Osama bin Laden’s family to flee the United States immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again,” Clarke told The Hill newspaper yesterday.

…

Clarke told the paper responsibility for the Saudis’ departure “didn’t get any higher than me.”

“On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

The conspiracy theorists all seemed to miss that, oddly enough, almost as if they’d made up their minds first and later looked for evidence to confirm it. (Look up any article about the 9/13 flight of the bin Laden family, and you won’t find Richard Clarke’s name in connection with it. Let me know if you do, though. I’d be pleasantly surprised.)

But it doesn’t stop there. Mr. Clarke has some explaining to do:

But this new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke’s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March, The Hill said.

“The request came to me, and I refused to approve it,” Clarke testified. “I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the – at the time – No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight.”

Panel member Tim Roemer said yesterday in response: “That’s a little different than saying, ‘I claim sole responsibility for it now.’”

Moreover, the FBI has denied approving the flight, according to the Capitol Hill paper.

Sounds like grandstanding to me. Sort of like publishing a book about 9/11 just days before you testify about it, eh Mr. Clarke?

Popularity: 3% [?]

A little sanity is returning to the same-sex marriage issue.

Two state supreme courts dealt same-sex marriage a pair of setbacks today, as the Arizona panel refused to hear a case brought by two homosexual men, and California justices, in hearing arguments in a San Francisco case, appeared to disapprove of the city’s mayor issuing licenses to couples of the same gender.

Arizona make the common-sense determination that the Massachusetts courts don’t make Arizona law. Questions posed by the justices in the California case make it sound like they disapprove of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s actions.

Questions from the justices during the two-hour session lead observers to believe the panel would not rule to approve Newsom’s action, saying such a decision would give local officials the option of choosing which laws they want to follow.

“Wouldn’t that be setting a problematic precedent?” asked Justice Joyce Kennard. “Presumably, other local officials would be free to say … I don’t like that particular law, be it a ban on guns” or another issue.

These are pretty obvious rulings that shouldn’t have gone anywhere in the first place. But gay activists will just keep trying until they find a sympathetic judge.

“Although the majority of Americans consistently oppose same-sex ‘marriage,’ homosexual activists have filed lawsuit after lawsuit in an attempt to find radical judges who will tear down democratically enacted laws and impose a radical, nation-changing agenda on an unwilling public,” [Gary] McCaleb [of the Alliance Defense Fund] said.

And check out this quote:

One lesbian activist put a positive spin on the court session.

“I am very hopeful, based on the nature of the court’s questions and their sensitivity to this issue, that they could craft a solution where they would find the mayor exceeded his authority without finding that the marriages are invalid,” Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the Associated Press.

Basically she’s hoping for a multiple-personality ruling; he broke the law, but he should be allowed to get away with it. Thank you Ms. Kendell for your commitment to the rule of law.

Popularity: 3% [?]

An entry in this week’s “Carnival of the Vanities” covered a new scientific theory about the production of oil; that it might not be a fossil fuel after all, but the result of an inorganic process deep within the earth. It intrigued me, but figured that if I heard more about it later I’d mention it.

Well, “later” came sooner than I thought. Today in WorldNetDaily there’s an article that explains what this process may actually be like, and how this theory has emerged. Very interesting reading. It’s just a theory at this point, but a link off the CoV entry shows that they’ve found oil in places that shouldn’t have had it, and there are oil reservoirs around the world refilling themselves to the tune of 3+ times their low-end output.

Wonder how the environmentalists will take this?

Popularity: 3% [?]

Thank you, Mr. Zapatero and all those Spaniards who voted for him:

Federal officials have information suggesting that al Qaeda has people in the United States preparing to mount a large-scale terrorist attack this summer, sources familiar with the information said yesterday.
…
That information dovetails with other intelligence “chatter” suggesting that al Qaeda operatives are pleased with the change in government resulting from the March 11 terrorist bombings in Spain and may want to affect elections in the United States and other countries.

“They saw that an attack of that nature can have economic and political consequences and have some impact on the electoral process,” said one federal official with access to counterterrorism intelligence.

As I said back in March, the more folks give in to terror, the more of a threat terrorists pose, and not just to those who capitulate, but to everyone. Emboldening terrorists, in essence rearming them, is a lose-lose situation for civilized people. In that March post, I noted an op-ed piece at the Command Post by Michele Catalano, that speaks to today’s news.

Unfortunately, their votes spell certain doom for other countries, other innocent people. It’s not hyperbole, it’s not some form of right-wing histrionics to cry that the terrorists have won, because they certainly did.

This is the further results of appeasement.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Apologizes to my regular readers (both of you) for the dearth of posts of late. Work and personal demands have been higher of late, and (no offense intended, but) they get priority. It’s a temporary condition, but I’ll still at least try to get something in each day, even if it is, like today’s, a round-up of things I’d like to comment on but haven’t had the time.

We’ll start with the attack on an Iraqi wedding recently. Civilian casualties are always something to be avoided, and are tragic when they happen. A wedding party, a time of great joy, is especially so. For some good information on this event, the Belmont Club has a great post, starting with a bit of Iraqi history that is pertinent. It also has a good in-depth analysis of the disparity in reporting on this event.

I have an entry in this week’s “Carnival of the Vanities”. This is always a great place to find new bloggers (whether or not I’m in there. >grin<)

Given how bad the news has been out of Iraq, you’d think Bush’s numbers should be tanking, but they’re merely slipping, if that. John Hawkins does the electoral numbers, and if the election were held today, not only would Bush win, but by a bigger margin than in 2000!

Go read Cox & Forkum. Just do it. I’ve always loved the political cartoon medium, and these guys are spot on.

Popularity: 3% [?]

>yawn<

Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew’s latest study released today.

While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as “moderate,” a far higher number are “liberal” than in the general population.

At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.

The survey of 547 media professionals, completed this spring, is part of an important study released today by The Project for Excellence in Journalism and The Committee of Concerned Journalists, which mainly concerns more general issues related to newsrooms (an E & P summary will appear Monday).

Sneak peek of the next set of Pew Research Center findings: Sky is generally blue during the day (although confirms that “red sky at morning, sailors take warning”).

UPDATE: By the way, that shouldn’t be read as a slam against Pew. It’s just that results that say “The media folks are generally liberal” isn’t really new.

Popularity: 3% [?]

That was then (from daily Kos):

Arnold campaigned on balancing the budget by rooting out “waste” in Sacramento. He ridiculed Davis for leaning on bond measures to balance the budget. He promised to protect education spending from cuts.
Well, Arnold couldn’t find $14 billion in waste, hacked education spending, and floated the big bond measure. Yet the voters don’t seem to be in the mood for further debt.

If the voters defeat the bond measure (and it’s still too early to predict one way or another), Arnold will be in a world of hurt. He will have no choice but to raise taxes (perhaps even the hated car tax) and make DEEP cuts in spending.

And if that happens, Arnold may not finish out the year.

It’s full of “ifs” and dire predictions based on those suppositions. One can’t help but hear the glee in kos’ voice (who, it appears, would rather have handed a new shovel to Davis and encouraged him to keep digging that hole he was in).

But this is now:

A leading Wall Street ratings agency on Friday raised California’s credit rating, citing an improving economy, the first such upgrade in four years and a move that promised to bring down the state’s borrowing costs on $44 billion in debt.

Analysts saw the unexpected credit upgrade by Moody’s Investors Service as an endorsement of the steps Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken to bring California back from the brink of a fiscal crisis that drove its credit ratings near junk levels and had threatened to effectively shut the state out of the bond market for new borrowing.

Citing an “established trend of recovery,” Moody’s raised California’s rating to A3 from Baa1, reversing a downgrade it made in December out of concern over continued political deadlock and a move by Schwarzenegger to cut car license fees.
…
Employment in California’s private sector and personal income in the state have resumed a “moderate pace of growth,” and tax collections signal an economic recovery, Moody’s said.

California’s credit rating may be in line for additional upgrades, said Evan Rourke, a municipal strategist at Popular Securities in New York. “I would expect that barring some kind of disaster or extraordinary event, you’re likely to see further improvement. It’s a reflection of the improved economy and credit conditions,” Rourke said.

Not all analysts have done this, and California’s still not out of the woods. Most analysts are waiting to find out what the state budget will look like. But regardless, things are beginning to look good for Arnold’s policies.

In one sense, kos may be right; perhaps the people of California aren’t enjoying what it’s taking to get out of the hold Gray Davis dug for them. But few people really enjoy the consequences of their excesses (or at least the excesses of those they elect to office). So that’s not really surprising. Arnold wasn’t elected to create good photo-ops for California politicians, he was elected to fix things. Yeah, maybe among those wishing to replace Davis he was the more popular candidate, but the reason someone was elected was to turn the state’s economic condition around. He promised that, and he’s delivering.

He’ll last the year. Easily. And he’ll just keep on going.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Hey, I did this first, except with an issue that more people are truly interested in.

>grin<

Popularity: 3% [?]

The stifling of dissent among those protesting the stifling of dissent.

Untold however, was the ironic story of a similar struggle within the anti-war camp, where some leaders, activists and writers who voiced opposition to leadership say they were stigmatized and labeled “red-baiters” and “McCarthyists” in an alleged attempt to intimidate and silence dissent within protest ranks.

Take Nathan Newman as an example.

Newman, former vice president of the New York City chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, is a union lawyer, political activist and frequent contributor to Technology Review, Progressive Populist, and American Prospect.

A political activist and former union organizer, he also was the project director at NetAction, a consumer technology advocacy group and wrote “Net Loss,” a book addressing Internet policy and related issues of economic inequality.

Newman’s offense? He repeatedly has described the ANSWER [Act Now to Stop War and End Racism] coalition, a prominent organizer of the anti-war rallies, as a front group for the neo-Stalinist Worker’s World Party, or WWP, a group he describes as supporters of “mass murderers,” “morally reprehensible,” and “not fit to associate with.”

Is that some sort of trumped-up charge, or can he back up that allegation of a tie-in?

To those who questioned his characterizing of ANSWER as a front group for the WWP, Newman responded, “I’ve worked with the WWP in various coalitions. You may not know how front groups work, but when the website was created by, the office is run by, and the main spokespeople are all from a single group like the Workers World Party, it is fair to characterize the group as being derived from that group.”

He added, “And as a member of the leadership of the National Lawyers Guild, which has endorsed ANSWER - against my vote - and who has key people doing their legal work, I know pretty well the role of the WWP in organizing this stuff. ”

“If the main group leading ANSWER supports mass murderers, ” Newman concluded, “those working with them have some responsibility for disassociating themselves from those views.”

Pretty convincing stuff. A “conscientious objector” in the ranks of those who would (normally) wear that label as a badge of honor. Newman says he’s just trying to hold the folks on his side to the same standard they apply to the conservatives.

Newman called for consistency, saying the left rightly had condemned Trent Lott for his association with “neo-confederate racists,” but added, “The same principle applies to the left not casually ignoring its own association with supporters of authoritarian butchers.”

There’s more in the article, but you get the idea. I disagree with him on the anti-war stance he takes, but you’ve got to admire a guy who’s willing to take a long look at his own side and use the same standard of measurement with them. Well, apparently, some folks wouldn’t admire that.

Newman’s public expression of disdain for the WWP and ANSWER soon set him at loggerheads with the Guild, which maintains a cozy relationship with the groups.

Newman reported the Guild’s National Executive Committee rebuked him and the New York City Guild chapter he led for their strident criticism of these key groups that wrested organizational control of and led the recent anti-war rallies.

At the time of his rebuke, Newman told fellow activists, “At the moment, I am being denounced by name within the National Exec Committee of my own organization, the National Lawyers Guild, for being critical of the WWP’s connection to ANSWER on my personal blog, and a resolution is being voted on to denounce all such criticisms as red-baiting … denying that ANSWER can in any way be described as a front group of WWP, thus making any accusation of such ‘unfounded’ and a ‘vicious attack.’

It’s getting personal, but here’s comes the clincher.

“Our executive director wanted to add part of the resolution that no local chapter could criticize the WWP’s role or otherwise deviate from the national line (something the NYC chapter already has done in its own resolutions), so this ‘anti-red baiting’ position is turning into its own form of authoritarianism within various left organizations and publications.”

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, here’s the liberal answer to “McCarthyism”: More “McCarthyism”, but this time featuring the question, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a critic of the Communist Party?” John Ashcroft is not forbidding these folks from protesting publicly, he’s not stifling dissent, but leftists themselves are doing far worse than they accuse him of. And this is not coming from some moderate, or some Blue Dog Democrat.

“I consider myself a ‘leftist,’ he said, “even Marxist in some vague ways, and have been member of softer left groups like Democratic Socialists of America and the Committees of Correspondence. So my opinion is not ‘anti-left’ or ‘anti-Party’ per se, but anti a particular kind of sectarianism.”

There’s a lot more in the WorldNetDaily article; a lot of background. Well worth the read. And it looks like Mr Newman has read it and generally approves of the article. (Instapundit would jokingly quip “Cats and dogs living together!”) On his blog, Newman writes:

Rightwing on Me and WWP

WorldNetDaily, the popular rightwing online news site, has a full-fledged story on the attacks on critics of the WWP-ANSWER within the left, with a lot on my history within the National Lawyers Guild. They seemed to have combed every email list and web site to piece together the story. Although they didn’t bother to even contact me for comment, a pretty shabby failure.

It’s not too slanted, since it emphasizes how isolated ideologically the WWP is on the Left and distinguishes the vast numbers who opposed the war versus the tiny clique around WWP-ANSWER who were pro-Saddam.

The article even points out why the media pays more attention to fringe rightwing groups than to Stalinist groups like the WWP– the rightwing groups are actively murdering people in the US. Quoting one source:

“The far right becomes relevant when it’s shooting abortion doctors or blowing up courthouses,” he said, “There aren’t a lot of leftists blowing things up.”

Which of course highlights why the rightwing is kind of silly to itself spend too much time talking breathlessly about fringe groups, when it tolerates Klan allies and abortion doctors in its midst. I wonder how many exposes WND has done on those?

To which I’d add a few things.

• While the shootings and bombings mentioned are tragic and should not happen, any group (fringe or not) that finds moral equivalence between that and the hundreds of thousands in North Korean gulags where thousands die every year is seriously overdue for some introspection.
• Oh, and there are leftists blowing things and people up too. (Anyone remember the Unabomber who was a big Al Gore fan?)
• And finally, while there may have been just a “tiny clique” in the WWP-ANSWER movement who were morally pro-Saddam, the rest of crowd, marching to keep him in power and continue his skimming of billions (with a ‘b’) of dollars from the UN Oil-for-Palaces Food program, were effectively pro-Saddam, regardless of their intent.

Anyway, just something to think about when you hear the left complaining about the “stifling of dissent”. Again, as Instapundit would jokingly quip, “I blame Ashcroft”, except this time it could read “I blame the Ashcroft protestors.”

Popularity: 3% [?]