October 30, 2003

Economic Boom!

It's official - the U.S. economy is booming now like it never did in the Clinton years. In fact, it's booming now like it hasn't since 1984, the year voters overwhelmingly re-elected a tax-cutting president in a 49-state landslide.

The U.S. economy "grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades," reports the Associated Press.

Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence. The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than double the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of 1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

I can't imagine there is any celebration in the campaign headquarters of anyone running for the Democratic Party nomination for president.

UPDATE: I checked some of the Democratic candidates' websites and official blogs and there is - gasp - no acknowledgment or discussion of the fantastic economic growth report. Why, it's almost as if they are ignoring the good news and wishing it would go away.

UPDATE: Yes, but where are the jobs? They're coming.

A report by the Labor Department on Thursday showed the number of Americans filing initial jobless claims fell 5,000 last week to 386,000 - the fourth straight week that claims were below the 400,000 mark, which economists consider a divide between an improving or deteriorating U.S. job market. "It is nearly impossible to believe that the economy is not setting itself up for a break to the upside on job creation sometime during the first quarter of 2004," said Anthony Chan, chief economist at Bank One Investment Advisors.

There's more on the non-existent housing bubble here from Susan Trimbath, a senior research economist at the Milken Institute and author of A New Kind of Gold? Investment in Housing in Times of Economic Uncertainty. Here's an excerpt:

This new business model - building homes only after they have been sold - has dramatically changed the financial performance of large development firms by dramatically lowering the risk of carrying an inventory of completed homes and by stabilizing earnings predictability.

Consider, for example, Pulte Homes, one of the largest builders of single-family detached homes in the United States. In 1991, Pulte had an operating profit margin of 4.5% and a return on assets of 1.07%. By 2002, Pulte had more than doubled its operating margin to 9.59% and raised the return on assets to 7.2%. Pulte's debt-to-assets ratio dropped from 83.6 to 35.9 during the same years.

The "build-to-order" model has changed the financial patterns for the home construction industry in ways that now set it apart "from many other types of industries," says F. Patterson Schiewitz, head of national homebuilding at Bank One in Chicago. Unfortunately, few people outside the industry have recognized this transformation, and that has resulted in underpriced securities, underrated credits, continued difficulties in home builders' getting financing and even speculation about a national "bubble" in housing.

UPDATE: Here's an interesting nugget about technology's share of the GDP:

Wesbury also points to higher-than-expected retail sales, which rose at an annualized 12.1 percent in June, July and August. And "high-tech spending and investment is once again leading the economy," Wesbury says. "We now see high-tech as a share of GDP [gross domestic product] at a higher level than it was back in 2000, so we're above the so-called bubble peak."

What Wesbury is referring to is the category in the U.S. Commerce Department's reporting of GDP called 'information-processing equipment and software,' which peaked at 6.4 percent of GDP in 2000, slumped to 5.7 percent during the recession, and now is at 6.5 percent. Wesbury says this is important because "that's the real driver of our economy, the entrepreneurial, innovative, creative side of things." He notes that new orders for computers and electronic products also jumped at a 38.4 percent annualized rate in June and July.

Bottom line - the election is just over a year away, and the economy is growing again at a strong pace. Democrats hoping to sail into the White House on a river of economic discontent are going to have to find another stream to paddle in.

October 29, 2003

Sabotaging the Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act

An editorial in today's Tennessean praises Sen. Lamar Alexander for trying to block passage of the Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act, which would make permanent a five-year-old moratorium on states taxing Internet access - and extend the ban to eight states that had such taxes in place before the ban was first enacted.

Alexander portrays the issue as one of states rights versus federal mandates, but that's a red herring. There's no federal mandate involved, simply a federal ban on a certain kind of taxes. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution clearly gives Congress the right to make laws governing interstate commerce, and the Internet clearly involves interstate commerce.

The real issue - the issue that The Tennessean editorial writers and Sen. Alexander don't address - is one of basic fairness. The issue is this: should a federal law that bans a certain kind of tax apply to all U.S. residents, or just some of them? Right now, it applies only to some of them. Meanwhile, people in Tennessee and seven other states are forced to pay taxes that Congress five years ago decided should be illegal.

Oddly, The Tennessean portrays the bill as "charity to the telecommunications industry," even though it would cut taxes that consumers - not the telecommunications industry - currently pay. And, despite what the Tennessean editorial claims, the ban won't cost Tennessee $360 million, or even $36 million. It will reduce state revenues by a mere $18 million - a flea on the woolly mammoth that is the state's $22 billion budget. Fact is, Gov. Phil Bredesen has assured the state's congressional delegation that Tennessee state government can live without that $18 million a year the state collects in sales taxes on Internet access

The $360 million figure is simply a lie, a scare tactic based on the false claim that the Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act will end taxes on all sorts of telecommunications services, not just on Internet access.

In the end, then, The Tennessean is editorializing against basic fairness and in favor of you and every other Internet user across Tennessee being denied the same protections that federal law gives taxpayers in most every other state. And the paper is opposing you getting to share in a tax cut worth $18 million a year. Why? Simple. They want state government - not you - to have the money to spend.

I have more on the issue - and how to contact Alexander and tell him to drop efforts to block the Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act - here.

UPDATE: A reader pointed out today's Wall Street Journal editorial on the issue. In case you don't have a subscription to WSJ.com, here's an excerpt:

The current moratorium, known as the Internet Tax Freedom Act, prevents taxes on Internet access; double taxation of Web purchases; and discriminatory taxes that treat online sales differently from offline sales.

In effect since 1998, these bans are working just as the bill's original authors, GOP Congressman Chris Cox of California and Democrat Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, intended: Internet use and electronic commerce are growing rapidly, while the digital divide continues to close. Families making less than $25,000 a year now comprise the fastest-growing segment of the Internet population, according to the Commerce Department.

But all of that will be jeopardized if the tax prohibitions are allowed to expire on Friday. A bill to make the provisions permanent passed the House in September but has stalled in the Senate, where GOP sponsor George Allen of Virginia is being thwarted by a few Republicans who have decided to dress up as tax-and-spend Democrats for Halloween.

Under pressure from the National Governors Association and others who see a digital cash cow in cyberspace, George Voinovich of Ohio and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee have bucked their President and party leaders by joining Democrats Maria Cantwell of Washington and Kent Conrad of North Dakota in holding up the bill. If these renegades are successful and the ban lapses, watch for the tax man to pounce.

"You will double-up the price of plain old Internet access faster than a dog can jump on a meat wagon," predicted Senator Wyden last week. But that's just the beginning. With no law to stop them, state and local officials can start taxing everything from spam filters to instant messages to Google searches. E-mail taxes alone would be a gold mine for free-spending politicians across the country. At a Senate hearing on spam in May, Minnesota Democrat Mark Dayton suggested "looking at some very, very small charge for every e-mail sent."

He's not alone. States and cities love the idea, and not just because of the potential for taxing, say, cross-country e-mails. Governors, mayors and county officials are thinking locally, too. A message sent by you to your neighbor per next Saturday's barbecue might easily pass through computer servers located in several of the nation's 7,600 different taxing jurisdictions.

"We have heard testimony repeatedly in Congress by representatives of states who wish to use that as a basis for taxation," says Congressman Cox. "The Internet by its architecture is innately susceptible to this type of multiple taxation. And it's because of the tyranny of multiple taxation that we enacted this ban in the first place."

Many states still in denial about their spending problems have continued to claim that they are revenue starved. Senator Voinovich, a former Ohio Governor, is being urged by his successor, Bob Taft, to oppose the moratorium on these grounds. This is the same Governor Taft who just raised the sales tax by 20% in Ohio, a state that has seen spending rise 70% over the past 10 years.

Mr. Alexander, another former Governor and one of the strongest proponents of Web levies, has been showing up at negotiations accompanied by lobbyists for state and local tax collectors. Their claim is that Internet taxation is a state issue. We're all for federalism, but if an e-mail transaction sent from Nashville to Phoenix via servers in Dallas and St. Louis isn't interstate commerce, then what is?

Digital Freedom Update

Tony Campbell, webmaster and forums administrator for the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network, sent the following email to myself and Glenn Reynolds, providing a recap of yesterday's Tennessee legislative hearing on proposed legislation that would give the cable industry the power to control what devices you connect to the cable plug. (For background click here and follow the links):

Dear Sirs:

Jody Leavell suggested that I forward my notes from today's Joint Committee hearing to you. I hope they're enlightening. Thanks for your tireless efforts to publicize this important issue.

The Joint Committee meeting started promptly at 1:00. Senators Trail, Bryson, Person, Norris and Cooper, and Representatives Odom, Briley, Coleman were in attendance. Senator Trail called the meeting to order and asked Stacy Briggs, Executive Director of the Tennessee Cable Television Association to the Podium.

Ms. Briggs stated that she was there to point out the information that her group had provided the Committee, and to introduce her speakers. She quoted from the provided material that the current level of analog theft nationwide was estimated at 11.5%, and that she'd seen levels of 5%-25% in Tennessee as of last week. She also claimed that $7.5 million in annual local & state revenues and franchise fees were being lost in Tennessee due to theft of "services we will hopefully continue to provide."

She then introduced the next two speakers, who she said "speak around the country on this specific piece of legislation." Senator Trail asked her why we needed this legislation at all since we already had laws that made cable theft illegal. She stated that the existing law only covers analog, not digital cable theft - giving the impression that, without this new bill, digital cable theft is legal. In responding to Senator Trail's continuing questions about this, she also admitted that the primary goal of the new legislation was getting stronger civil penalties.

The first speaker after Ms. Briggs was Brian Allen, Director of Corporate Security at Time Warner Cable. He began to list items that he claimed were not covered under existing law. After a few acronyms and bits of tech jargon (Wi-Fi, head end, digital filter) were bandied about, Senator Trail stopped him and said "As long as you're talking, pretend that none of us up here understand ANY technical term unless you define it first." Senator Person quoted Trail's great line from last session: "I feel like I'm at the U.N. and my earpiece has fallen out."

Allen explained digital filters, and how they can be used to get Pay-Per-View for free. He then went on to describe "Wi-Fi theft," and described a situation in NYC where a building superintendent subscribed to broadband, then ran a network of antennas through the building and charged tenants $20/month.

Prefacing the next statement by saying "This isn't why we're here, but," he mentioned hypothetical situations where a kiddie-porn addict would pull into the driveway of a Wi-Fi user, download a bunch of pictures, and drive away, leaving the law-abiding citizen to wait for the SWAT team to descend on him. He also said that terrorists could stand outside Wi-Fi user's homes with laptops and coordinate their attacks over the Internet without being traced.

Allen said that since 9/11, the Feds are so busy with anti-terrorism that "they won't even look in our direction," and that's why they turned to the state level with this legislation. They also don't want to have to deal with local prosecutors, he said; "We go after our subscribers civilly, and we will continue to do so." When one senator asked if the law would have to be constantly updated to allow for new technology, he said "No, the statute is broad. We won't be back."

Allen said that he had "toured the states" asking prosecutors how the industry could help with these prosecutions, and the answer was "show us actual damages!" He lamented that you can't show what or how much a cable thief has actually watched. He talked about dealing with the sellers of pirate equipment, and that when he entered a business with a search order, they sometimes already knew his name, and that they'd call other pirates and warn them to destroy their records. "They know that what they're doing is illegal," he lamented.

Allen said that in their Memphis office they have a division that does "tap audits." On the first incident, they cut off the person's cable and offer them service. If no service is established, they check back within thirty days and if the person has reconnected the cable, they disconnect it again and give them a warning. If it is reconnected again by the resident, Time Warner prosecutes. When asked, he did not know the scale of the prosecution or the current success rate of those prosecutions.

At that point, Ann Carr was wildly mouthing to Senator Person that she wanted another of her speakers (Dean Dale, ex-CEO of Time Warner Cable Memphis) to take the Podium. Dale went to the mic and briefly stated that prosecutions were brisk, involving large piracy rings and investigations lasting as long as 18 months. He also said that in the Memphis area they believed there were around 60,000 people with illegal cable service.

Allen regained the floor and said that the $6 billion in cable theft losses mentioned in the material given to the committee did not include such items as illegal descramblers and uncapped modems. Senators Trail and Bryson continued to ask questions about the success of prosecutions under the current law, and Allen had no information on that. When asked if, since he had talked to so many prosecutors, if he knew of any who supported this bill, he could name none.

Senator Trail noted that if the Legislature gave the cable companies the power to get $500 civil settlements from each of the 60,000 offenders in Memphis, that $30 million might be a big incentive to come down hard on everyone, including ("and I'm not condoning theft," he said) poor college students who might not even know their cable connection isn't legal. Mr. Allen assured the Committee that that wouldn't happen.

Senator Bryson reiterated his belief that if the industry needed this update to the existing law which seemed (to most of the committee members) to already cover the cable theft issue pretty well, they'd probably be back again as soon as another technology was developed, wanting another change that would take a year or more to sort through. "It seems like we'll always be riding this treadmill," Sen. Bryson said.

At that point Senator Person made a short speech in which he said that it was obvious that the cable industry would have no problem proving actual damages, and that this issue was a complex one that needed to be resolved with legislation that protected the property rights of the cable industry, and the free-speech rights of folks like TNDF.

Mr. Allen continued by saying that the law would not have an effect on free speech, and that TNDF had not been able to provide a single example of how it might. He pointed to sites such as KCWireless.net which talk about wardriving and Wi-Fi sharing, indicating that their continues existence was proof that Time Warner supported free speech. He said the law would have no "chilling effects," because "an intent to defraud is required."

"We don't want to be sheriffs - we don't want to put our subscribers in jail," Allen said. He assured the Committee that FCC regulations preclude cable companies from restricting the connection of any device to their network, unless it damages the network or is used to defraud the service provider.

Senator Bryson made several rapid-fire points that were so good that I forgot to take notes, but it ended with Mr. Allen stumbling into admitting that the real goal was to get large civil settlements. "The reason we go civilly is because we have been successful," he said. As for their claimed problems getting criminal prosecutions, he said "I blame this on the relationship we have with law enforcement." Referring back to their aggressive civil actions, he said "We invest a lot in protecting our product."

The next speaker was Todd Flournoy, Counsel and Director of State Legislative Affairs for the MPAA. "On behalf of Jack Valenti, I thank you for this opportunity," he intoned. He explained that the MPAA's members were becoming increasingly involved with digital distribution of their content, and that "If we can't get a handle on Internet piracy, there won't be a content industry."

Senator Trail asked Flournoy what specific services were not covered in the current statutes. Flournoy replied that there wasn't specific coverage of Internet and digital services. Senator Trail answered that it didn't seem necessary to mention every possible service by name since the current law covers essentially all imaginable forms of electronic communication. At that point, Representative Briley (the bill's sponsor) said that for that matter, we could just abolish the whole criminal code and replace it with a law that said simply "Do no harm." Senator Trail responded that he advocated no such thing, only that the solution to a supposedly inadequate law was not necessarily more bad law.

Mr. Flournoy said that the industry was already testing the waters with services such as MovieLink and MovieBeam, and non-video services such as iTunes were growing as well, and the new law was necessary to protect them. Senator Trail quoted the current law's definition of a telecommunication service ("any service provided for a charge or compensation to facilitate the origination, transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, data, writings, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature of telephone, including cellular or other wireless telephones, wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical system") and asked how that definition could be construed to not cover those services. Flournoy said that their experience was, and their lawyers tell them that, those services are not covered under existing law in the states. When Trail asked if that applied to Tennessee's law or some other state's law, Flournoy said that Tennessee's existing law was the same as in the eight states where this law has been passed.

Flournoy went on to say that the proposed law "clearly does not affect any sort of legitimate behavior, nor does it - it doesn't affect anything that's not stealing, it doesn't chill research or other consumer behavior." and noted the "three or four different clarifying intent paragraphs" added to underscore just how clear the law was.

This great quote came soon after: "I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights, assuring you that we've taken every precaution including adding what we believe is redundant language to clarify that unless you're acting with an intent to defraud you're not going to be caught up in this act."

The next speaker was Jim Spears, Vice-President of Government Relations at BellSouth. He stated that BellSouth's issues were currently more narrow, but that "as time goes on, I think we'll be right there with those folks" supporting the new bill, as BellSouth hopes to move into cable TV. BellSouth invests over $400 million a year in their network, much of which goes to broadband support, and so that was Mr. Spears' focus. He said that the FCC defines and regulates BellSouth's DSL services as an information service, not as a telecommunications service, so BellSouth's only immediate concern is that the law's language is expanded to include pure information services. The Committee was almost unanimously dumbfounded that Mr. Spears did not believe that the existing law's definition of telecommunication service did not include an information service.

Senator Briley, however, made the following astonishing statement: "I think it depends on how you read that definition. It means 'any service provided for a charge or compensation to facilitate the origination, transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, data, writings, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature of telephone.' 'Of telephone.' So all those services or--or items have to be 'of telephone' in order to be telecommunications services. Now I think, you know, that the layman's understanding of plugging your computer into a wall and communicating with a computer somewhere else, that's not what I think 'of telephone' means."

Representative Odom pointed out, "Well, you've gotta read the rest of it: '...including cellular or other wireless telephones, wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical system,'" and Representative Briley fell silent. Odom went on to express his misgivings in terms of the concern that was being expressed by people statewide over the far-reaching effects of this bill.

Ross Loder, representing the Tennessee Municipal League, was next to speak. He stated a desire for the League to be involved in crafting this legislation and the three concerns that the League members had:

1) The effect of cable theft on franchise fees and taxes
2) The role of local law enforcement, and the need for clear definitions
3) The expansion of power-utility-operating municipalities into cable and broadband services, under Public Chapters 531 of 1997 and 481 of 1999.

The last speaker, subbing for the absent Jeff Yarbrough, was Curtis Person III, son of Senator Person and head of Charter Cable's West Tennessee operation. He gave a brief description of the astonishing amount of cable theft that he saw on a regular basis. In Jackson, Charter is involved in 5-10 prosecutions each month for theft of service. He stated that his concern was for service that were not listed in the existing legislation.

There was a lot of joking around the Committee when Mr. Person stepped up to the Podium that the situation was like an episode of the old game show "To Tell the Truth" ("My name is Curtis Person." "No, MY name is Curtis Person!") After Mr. Person spoke, Senator Person took a moment to express his pride in his son's accomplishments, and that the suggestions of impropriety made by TNDF regarding his familial relationship to Charter were unfounded.

At that point I addressed Senator Person directly from the floor. I apologized, and said that TNDF had never stated that Senator Person had acted improperly. Early in the last session, a TNDF member had found a Curtis Person listed on the Internet as an employee of Charter Cable and thought that it was Senator Person. I had replied that it was not him, but his son, Curtis III. Another Internet writer had read the posts on TNDF.net and had made his own judgments, but TNDF had made no such statements. Senator Person then said that he was already aware of that, but appreciated me repeating it.

The hearing was adjourned at about 3:30pm.

Here's the scenario that shows how bad that could be: Your cable company starts marketing a digital video recorder. It decides it wants you to stop using you TiVo and start using its DVR instead, even though its DVR costs more per month than your TiVo. So it declares all DVRs other than its own to be "not authorized" and, boom, if you have a TiVo plugged into your cable outlet, you are demonstrating "intent to defraud." Next thing you know, the cable industry sends you (and every other subscriber) a personalized letter stating that you are risking a civil suit, big penalties and even possible criminal action if you don't unplug your TiVo - and offering to drop the matter if you'll just rent the cable company's "authorized" DVR instead.

I wrote extensively about this facet of the proposed legislation here way back on May 13.

Also, I am not sure if am the "another Internet writer" who Campbell refers to near the end of his email, but I did write about Sen. Person's son being a cable industry executive. I still think Sen. Person should recuse himself from these proceedings. He has a conflict of interest because of his family connection to the cable industry. Full disclosure: Sen. Person once sent me a check for $100 to support this weblog, back during the days of the battle over the proposed state income tax, an issue on which the senator and I agreed. It helped pay for the PC on which I am writing this post.

And finally, I sure wish I knew what those points Sen. Bryson made that were so good. Sen. Bryson, I'd welcome a guest commentary on the issue.

October 28, 2003

WMD Hunt: Did Saddam Ship 'Em to Syria?

The New York Times has just posted a report on the very plausible possibility that Saddam shipped parts of his weapons-of-mass-destruction stuff to Syria just before the U.S. invasion in March.

The director of an American spy agency said today that he believed that material from Iraq's illicit weapons program had been transported into Syria and perhaps other countries as part of an effort by Iraqis to disperse and destroy evidence immediately before the war last spring. The official, James R. Clapper, Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said that satellite intelligence showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria just before the American-led invasion in March had led him to conclude "unquestionably" that illicit weapons material was moved outside of Iraq.

How Blogs are Altering the PR Game

Richard Bailey says weblogs are a mistake. Writing at PR Studies, a blog produced by the faculty of the Centre for Public Relations Studies at Leeds Business School at Leeds Metropolitan University in, believe it or not, Leeds, England, Bailey says blogs "have come about because one important aspect of Tim Berners-Lee's vision of a shared information space was missing when it came to be realised. He had envisaged it being as easy to edit as to read on the web. Instead, from Mosaic onwards, browsers have been just that. Browsers. Individuals participanting in the web space have most typically been passive consumers of content, not its active creators."

But blogs are changing that - and that is changing the media and the public relations profession, says Bailey.

In the realm of public relations, we're starting to ask similar questions about the effects of online debate on the role of PR. Here's my take. If the world were an entirely predictable and controllable place, we'd all be marketing managers or directed by marketing teams.

Yet the coming of the internet has served to remind us that people are not always persuaded by top-down, hierarchical communications. They will seek to find the truth from other sources, and check facts for themselves. They may even band together to disrupt the goals of an organisation.

In this anti-authoritarian culture, third party endorsement has more value and importance than ever before. Hence the efforts of PR practitioners to persuade journalists and opinion formers - yes, even some bloggers - of their messages.

In an uncertain and fast-changing world, the PR adviser does not hold all the trump cards. But he or she is accustomed to unpredictability through experience of handling the press, and so should have the adaptability needed to cope with the challenge of new voices.

If nothing else, in a new world where members of the public are gaining a voice, the phrase public relations begins to make more sense. PR begins to mean more than press relations.

It is not weblogging that is the radical departure. Weblogs are an extension of the bulletin boards and newsgroups that have pioneered individual and community participation online. Yet it is through weblogs, through the breaking down of barriers between readers, writers, editors and publishers, that we are beginning to see fulfilment of Tim Berners-Lee's vision of the world wide web.

I don't have much to add, 'cept to say Bailey is on target. Before blogs and the Internet, you had little choice but to be a news consumer. Now you are - if you chose to be - a participant in the news process. You can be a news fact-checker. You can be a news commentator or news analyst. You can even be a news reporter. Blogs and the Internet put the power of the press in the hands of the masses. It's a liberating thing.

Like a Bad Penny

Those folks who want to give the motion picture and cable TV industries the authority to outlaw digital video recorders like TiVo and control what devices you plug into the cable outlet haven't given up. The Tennessee Digital Freedom Network has the details on Tennessee legislative hearings scheduled for today and Wednesday. If you want to see everything I've written about the subject - and it's a long list - go here and scroll down to the weblogs section, which also lists coverage by Instapundit, Copyfight, the Business Law Weblog and other blogs. [Hat tip: Instapundit].

UPDATE: Jody L. of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network emailed the following regarding the hearings:

I just wanted to send a reminder about the hearings going on today and tomorrow concerning the "Theft of telecommunications service", a.k.a. "Super DMCA" legislative efforts. They will be hearing from proponents of the legislation today which include Bell South, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), BMI Records, Time Warner Cable, and the Tennessee Cable Association.

Tomorrow legislators will hear from us (TNDF), American Library Association, and Radio Shack with our objections to the proposed legislation.

From the list of proponents who will present it is becoming clearer that this legislative attempt is about content control. Back in the spring the proponents abjectly denied that. Remember that Senator Person's son is on the board of one of the cable companies who initiated this legislation.

An assumption among many of the representives is that these media giants are suffering and some sort of bill is needed to remediate the harm caused them. We are trying to overturn those assumptions and convince the legislators that they are being asked in this bill to provide special market protections for companies which either operate in a monopoly, or are structured much like a cartel, thus neutralizing the threat of competition that current technologies are providing.

A lot is at stake for both consumers of information technology and these legacy media giants, that's why they are going for the throat.

October 27, 2003

WMD: The Hunt for the Truth

South Knox Bubba says I'm lying about this. But David Kay has been in Iraq, while SKB hasn't, so I think David Kay has a much better idea of the extent of Saddam's weapons programs than SKB does.

The Bush-haters will do anything to discredit the president and the War on Terror - even try to make you think that because two chemical weapons experts downplay one small portion of David Kay's interim report on the search for Saddam's WMDs, the whole report is a lie.

So here's the truth. In the Los Angeles Times story that SKB links to, two chemical weapons experts say the finding of a vial of C. botulinum Okra B is not that significant. But SKB doesn't bother to mention that another chemical weapons expert thinks it is too early to dismiss the vial's significance - and that, at any rate, Kay's report contained other information about Iraq's work in other areas of bio-weaponry:

Terence Taylor, another former U.N. biowarfare inspector who now heads the Washington office of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, said it is too early to dismiss the discovery of the vial.

"Just because botulinum B has not been used in a weapons program elsewhere, and we never found evidence of it in the 1990s, that does not necessarily rule out" transforming it into a weapon, Taylor said. "There's not enough detail in Kay's [unclassified] statement. And there's a lot we still don't know about their weapons programs."

Bubba also doesn't link you to the full text of Kay's report. I do. Because I think that, along with my commentary, you should be able to have the full report - so you can decide. Bubba just gives you selective spin.

October 23, 2003

Chief Wiggles Toy Drive Update

The grassroots toy drive for the children of Iraq is getting lots of press coverage - and sending lots of toys to Iraq. Amazing for something that just bubbled up from one soldier's mention on his website of an encounter with a poor, ragged Iraqi girl.

Here are links to news reports from KSL and KTVX, two Utah television news programs, as well as the Deseret News and WorldNetDaily, and an excerpt from the latter...

Wiggles' heartfelt account generated 1,000 e-mails over the next 24 hours from readers wanting to know where to send toys, Scott Evensen a friend of Wiggles, told their hometown newspaper in Utah, the Deseret Morning News.

This outpouring of support for Chief Wiggles' campaign last month spawned Operation Give, through which more than 500 boxes of toys have been shipped to Baghdad and more tens of thousands of dollars have been contributed to finance the drive, according to the Morning News.

As Evensen described, volunteers lined up warehouse space in Baltimore and made arrangements to ship donated items to Kuwait at a cost of about $3,500 per shipping container. Evensen told the paper they got word from orphanages in Iraq that the children were in particular need of school materials and underwear.

"My sphere of influence is small in comparison to the task at hand, but who knows what the ripple affect will be of my small effort to calm the tears of one sweet little girl," Wiggles had wondered in his Internet journal last month.

Who knows, indeed.

That's sad. And revealing. I'd bet the children of Iraq are far more interested in crayons and toys, and their long-term views of America (and, thus, our success in the War on Terror) will be far more influenced by a package of crayons or a box of toys than whether Bush said Iraq was an "imminent" threat or said the opposite, or what bloggers think about Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, WMDs, and the Rumsfeld memo.

I searched the September and October archives of South Knox Bubba's blog for any mention or promotion of Chief Wiggles and the toy drive. Nada. Then, for fun, I searched the September and October archives of another prominent Lefty blogger, Atrios. No mention of the Chief Wiggles toy drive. Surely, I thought, some prominent lefty blogger has endorsed the toy drive. So I ran a search on Kevin Drum's CalPundit, for the same thing. There was no mention of it.

Three prominent Lefty blogs. Zero promotion of the toy drive. Not a scientific sample, sure, but you would think one thing the entire blogosphere could agree on is that it's a good thing to send toys to the poor children in Iraq, a nation beset by war for decades and formerly ruled by a mass-murdering tyrant, and give the toy drive a few promotional pixels. Yet so far it is the hawks of the blogosphere who are busy promoting the toy drive for the children of Iraq.

Huh.

Incidentally, you can participate in the toy drive by visiting Operation Give.

Lamar Pushes for Higher Taxes

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander wants you to pay taxes on your Internet access. He's fighting legislation that would roll back taxes for millions of Americans - including every Tennessee resident who pays for Internet access - and would ban such taxes forever in the states where they are already temporarily banned.

UPDATE: The bill to make permanent the ban on taxing internet access passed the House last month and has the votes to pass the Senate. The only thing that is preventing it from becoming law is to schedule a Senate vote. Alexander has placed a HOLD on the bill which makes it impossible to schedule a vote. The bill has already been passed out of committee and is ready for a floor vote.

PLEASE email Senator Alexander and tell him to stop blocking this bill, which will cut taxes for every Tennessean who has Internet access. Tell Sen. Alexander to support final passage of S. 150, the Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act of 2003.

You can also call the numbers below and leave a message with his staff. Please contact him today, the temporary ban on taxation expires on Novemeber 1.

Washington, DC Phone: (202) 224-4944
Chattanooga, TN Phone: (423) 752-5337
Jackson, TN Phone: (731) 423-9344
Knoxville, TN Phone: (865) 545-4253
Memphis, TN Phone: (901) 544-4224
Nashville, TN Phone: (615) 736-5129
Tri-Cities, TN Phone: (423) 325-6240

Blogs and Journalism

Here are four interesting articles about blogs and journalism from Jay Rosen, who writes the valuable PressThink blog:

Emerging Alternatives: Terms of Authority

Blogging is About Making and Changing Minds

What's Radical About the Weblog Form in Journalism?

What's Conservative About the Weblog Form in Journalism?

October 22, 2003

Church in the 21st Century

Forbes takes a look at megachurches, which are defined as non-Catholic churches with at least 2,000 members. Huh. The church where I and my family are members qualifies, though compared to the "megachurches" on the Forbes list of the ten largest, it doesn't feel "megachurch-y." We have around 2,500 members, but three Sunday worship services, so even with visitors included there are never more than about 1,000 people at each service. But we do have the video screens and most of the other accoutrements of a megachurch - the broad menu of church programs, the contemporary music, casual feel, and use of drama, video clips and other modern media.

On the other hand, we're not broadcast on teevee (though services soon will be webcast) the two men who share the preaching role do not preach a "prosperity" gospel (grace is the most common topic) and the music, thanks to the tradition of the congregation's heritage, is a cappella.

Last Sunday's sermon was excellent, by the way. You can read it here or listen to it here.

It's interesting to note that the top-10 list of largest megachurches includes several non-denominational churches - including The Potter's House in Dallas, Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., and Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, Calif. (Although as Donald Sensing once pointed out, many churches in the "community church" movement still have denomination ties - they just downplay them. Which is what my church has done.)

We're living in a post-denominational world - one where the authenticity of the worship experience and the transforming impact of a church on its members will increasingly be more important to church-goers than the name on the sign and the denominational affiliation and traditions it implies. Many of the largest churches downplay their denominational ties and focus on sharing the authentic and transforming Christian gospel with the community in a positive and impactful way.

I've thought for years, and believe the data will increasingly prove, that strong denominational ties hold back churches from growing, as such "brand names" carry the baggage of traditions and stereotypes. Does it really matter what is on the sign outside if the gospel is preached - and lives are transformed by God's grace - inside? No. I've heard the gospel preached at small, traditional churches and at the contemporary and semi-megachurch I attend. I've heard it preached in a very traditional southern African-American Church of Christ in Atlanta - sorry, I forget the name - where the pews still were stocked with funeral-parlor fans and the songs were sung in call-and-response style rather than with words on a video screen.

I've also read it in the writing of Donald Sensing, who preaches for a decidedly non-megachurch church, and heard it preached by T.D. Jakes from The Potter's House on teevee.

We come from different denominational backgrounds and traditions, yet we all believe the same thing - salvation by grace through faith in Jesus and his death, burial and resurrection. I am not a "Baptist" or "Presbyterian" or "Methodist" or "Church of Christ" or "Church of the Nazarene" or "Assemblies of God" Christian. I am just a Christian.

Michael Williams has more thoughts on megachurches. Says Michael:

Christian churches need to operate in the world, even though we aren't of the world. Methodologies and programs need to be malable and dynamic, even though the gospel of Christ is unchanging and the message remains the same. Using technology and business-savvy to spread God's Word is no different in spirit than when Jesus fed the crowds who came out to listen to him with fish and bread, or when he sent his followers out to the surrounding towns, two-by-two, to share his good news.

And just what is the good news?

It's captured well in the lyrics of a song, How Deep the Father's Love For Us, by British songwriter Stuart Townend:

How deep the Father's love for us
How vast beyond all measure,
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure.
How great the pain of searing loss;
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the Chosen One
Bring many sons to glory.

Behold the Man upon a cross,
My sin upon His shoulders;
Ashamed, I hear my mocking voice
Call out among the scoffers.
It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished;
His dying breath has brought me life-
I know that it is finished.

I will not boast in anything,
No gifts, no power, no wisdom;
But I will boast in Jesus Christ,
His death and resurrection.
Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer.
But this I know with all my heart:
His wounds have paid my ransom.

October 15, 2003

BREAKING NEWS: TENNESSEE SURPLUS GROWS!

Tax revenue continues to pour into Tennessee state government, and the state, creating a large and growing surplus. After two months of revenue collection for the 2003-04 fiscal year, Tennessee has a $30.2 million revenue surplus. The state collected $836.9 million in tax revenues in September, some $19 million more than the budgeted estimates, according to data just released at 11 a.m. Wednesday day by the Tennessee Department of Finance & Administration. You read it here first.

Strong growth in sales tax collections - an indicator of a growing economic recovery - generated $10.8 million more than was projected in September, and for the two-month period, the sales tax has generated $21.9 million in surplus revenue.

Sales tax collections in September were up a strong 4.31% over September 2002, and for the two months of August-Septmber, revenue from the sales tax was up a very healthy 8.49%.

As I said last month, such a large gain in sales tax revenue driven by a growing economy effectively destroys the notion pushed by those who favor creating a state income tax that the sales tax is an obsolete tax that can not keep up with the economy. Fact is, the sales tax is now bringing in more revenue than expected by the state's economic advisers, and more revenue than necessary to fund the state budget.

The year-to-date surplus includes $24.2 million in surplus in the state's general fund and $6 million in to other four funds.

For coverage of last month's surplus, go here and then here.

UPDATE: The Tennessean posted an AP newsbrief on the tax revenue data at 4 p.m. Wednesday, only 4.5 hours after I published the news.

October 13, 2003

Irresponsible, Indefensible and Idiotic

Tennessee Congressman Jimmy Duncan of Knoxville thinks the United States should snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and abandon the people of Iraq, in order to save a little money.

Rep. Jimmy Duncan maintains he has found little reason to change his opposition to the war in Iraq, so it comes as no surprise that he plans to reject President Bush's request for $87 billion to finish the job.

Duncan, a fiscal conservative, worries that the cost of the war will continue to mount. He said it was unconscionable for lawmakers to approve additional funding when the nation's economy remains unstable. He said the president should declare the war over and bring the troops home.

''Most of my constituents believe that the first obligation of the United States Congress is to American taxpayers and citizens,'' Duncan said. "I don't think we should be spending billions in any country except our own.''

Duncan noted that so far there has been no discovery of weapons of mass destruction or credible evidence of programs to produce them. That along with an absence of any firm connection between Iraq and al-Qaida, the terrorist group deemed responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, reinforces his belief that he made the right decision last October, he said.

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization and Saddam Hussein's regime shared direct contact as early as 1998, according to top-secret Iraqi intelligence documents obtained by the Star. The documents, discovered yesterday in the bombed-out headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's most feared intelligence service, amount to the first hard evidence of a link long suspected by the United States but dismissed as fiction by many Western leaders.

The handwritten file, three pages in all, relates to the arrival of a secret envoy sent by bin Laden to Iraq in March, 1998, apparently to establish a clandestine relationship with the Iraqi regime. The purpose of the trip was "to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden," according to the final page of the Iraqi document, a handwritten letter dated Feb. 19, 1998.

October 11, 2003

The Imminent Lie

Andrew Sullivan reveals, powerfully, how the anti-Bush Left is lying when it says President Bush claimed Iraq presented an "imminent" threat. In fact, Bush said just the opposite, and Sullivan has the pre-war quotes - from Democrats! - that proves it.

The next time someone on the Left tells you Bush was lying when he said Saddam was an imminent threat, tell them no, it is they who are lying because Bush never said any such thing. In fact, as Sullivan notes, in his State of the Union Address before the war, Bush said:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

UPDATE: Sullivan has more on the topic, including a revelation that the NYT may be backing off the claim that Bush said the threat was imminent. And, says Sullivan, If the Democratic candidates want to argue that they would have taken the risk and allowed Saddam to stay in power, then they need to say so clearly. Howard Dean already has. He would have left Saddam in place and hoped that the nightmare of terrorists with Saddam-provided WMDS wouldn't take place. After 9/11, I consider that an act of gross irresponsibility. But some do not. Let's debate that, shall we? It's still the critical question in the coming campaign: whom do you to trust to protect us?

Also, Cori Dauber, Professor of Communication Studies and Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina, has this to say about the "imminent threat" lie, and why it matters:

As I've argued before, this distinction, between whether the argument was "it's an imminent threat" and the argument "we can't wait, in a post September world, for it to become an imminent threat" is a vital one. Not only does it explain why what Kay found so far still justified the war, it also explains why the use of September 11th, in an argumentative sense, is part of an argument about comparative risks, not some sort of manipulative game.

October 10, 2003

The Imminent Lie

John Weidner examines the imminent lie that is "being pushed really hard right now" by the Left. Don't miss it.

A Blog on Blogging

I invite you to check out my other blog, Re: Blogging, where I blog exclusively about weblogs, the Internet, academia, journalism and related topics. No partisan politics, just a discussion of how weblogs and related Internet grassroots publishing and one-to-one and one-to-many communications tools are altering journalism, education and society.

October 8, 2003

Greed is Reason to Abandon Iraqis, Says "Thoughtful" Man

From a commentary in today's Nashville City Paper:

Whether you endorsed the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant. For now, we are there with our fists in the tar baby. The Iraqis want to govern their own country, the United Nations wants to be in control, and the French and Russians want a piece of the pie. We should accommodate them by withdrawing immediately. Let them explain any failure and pay for it. There will be no loss of face for the United States. Unlike Vietnam, we did not lose. We won big time in the war. Our armed forces prevailed like the Super Bowl champions taking on the University School of Nashville football team, which does not exist.

If we want to protect this country from terrorists, bring back the armed forces and use them at our borders and spend our money here. We cannot afford nor should we want to be policemen of the world.

Incidentally, Kemper's trail-hike diary was titled the "Journal of a Thoughtful Fool." I guess they were lying about the thoughtful part.

Feel free to disagree directly with Kemper via email.

October 6, 2003

On Blogging

San Jose Mercury News columnist and blogger Dan Gillmor is writing about how "a small but growing number of news makers - the people and institutions that have been the subjects of traditional journalism [are] learning how to use the tools of modern communications for their own purposes," including weblogs and posting interview transcripts online.

Weblogs aren't the only thing in the tool kit. The direct-to-anyone web has much wider possibilities. The Pentagon, for example, started something several years ago that may reverberate for a long time to come: posting full transcripts of major interviews with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. The practice has benefits for all concerned. It adds context to the journalism. And, if the news reports don't fairly reflect the substance of the interview, the interviewee can point to the transcript for amplification. Call it journalistic judo.

In other blogging news, USA Today has a short report on how the business world is increasingly embracing blogs.

An explosion in online diaries by workers is creating headaches, and opportunities, for employers. But few companies have blog policies, and they run a risk should their employee divulge confidential company information or make statements that compromise it financially or legally.

October 3, 2003

Lack of Income Tax Attracts Portland Company HQ to Nashville

The Portland Oregonian newspaper says Oregon's high income tax played a role in the decision of a major timber company, Louisiana Pacific, to move its HQ to Nashville.

Companies will continue to bolt until Oregon does something about its burdensome income tax, a chief proponent of tax reform said Tuesday, responding to Louisiana-Pacific's decision to pull up stakes.

October 2, 2003

The Plame Game: More Questions

Seattle blogger Bob Mong wonders: if Valerie Plame was really a covert CIA agent, how come the Los Angeles Times knows this: Wilson's wife works with Foley in the CIA's Nonproliferation Center. And then there's this from the LA Times:

...But David Manners, a former CIA case agent in the Middle East, said such concerns were probably unnecessary. 'If the implication is she ran clandestine operations around the world using her true name, then the real story is: What kind of crazy operation was she running? Because if you're operating clandestinely under your true name, you're a fool.' And one administration official said it was possible that the leaker did not realize that he was unmasking a clandestine CIA officer by naming Wilson's wife."

UPDATE: Okay, I downloaded the latest version of RealPlayer and then watched the speech. And ya know, I was right. Wilson was against the war.

He starts talking about 8:45 into the video (after long-winded introductions) and then spends the first 8 minutes of his speech making a few introductory remarks of his own, before getting the meat of his presentation. But when he does, he starts with a bang. Some choice excerpts below, with a few comments of my own:

What I want to talk today about what I think is a real dangerous road upon which we are embarking and that is the road to war in Iraq.

I want to talk a little bit first about conquest, which is the preferred route that seems to be taken by the administration, and then offer up an alternate scenario which would be focused principally on disarmament without the need to deploy 250,000 troops, occupy Iraq, destroy the government, and try and resurrect it as a thriving Middle Eastern democracy, as is the wont of some of these people who are promoting and driving this particular policy.

But of course, he thinks Saddam was a bad man.

He heads one of the two most horrible regimes in the world, the other being North Korea. ... The world will be far better off when he and his thugs are gone. The Arab world will heave a collective sigh of relief, as will our European allies, as will we - because nothing could be worse than Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq over the long term.

After he goes there may well be dislocation, there may well be civil war, there may well be ethnic strife but over the long term nothing could be worse than the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The question is not whether Saddam Hussein is a good man or a bad man. The question is whether or not we're going to act in our vital national security interest or whether we are going to act on a substantially different agenda.

Regime change is code for an American ground invasion of Iraq for the purpose of destroying Saddam Hussein and his government, occupying the country, pacifying the country, and recreating the country in our own image.

I have been doing democracy for 25 years and I can tell you that the democracy business is really tough sledding. It is even tougher when you try to impose democracy at the point of a bayonet. It is in my judgment a bridge too far and it is not in our interest to use our precious resources, our 250,000 soldiers, our treasure, and our political capital and our standing as a global leader in this fashion.

[Ever since the first Gulf War] there has been a small cabal of zealots in Washington who have been driving an agenda designed to overthrow Saddam Hussein, not because he has weapons of mass destruction, not because he may or may not be linked to terrorism, but because they want to establish a beachhead in the Arab world from which to work to change the political map of the Arab world and essentially ensure Israel 75 more years of security by enfeebling the Arab governments that are arrayed against it."

Please note Wilson preferred we focus on disarming Iraq, and opposed a policy aimed at peace in the Middle East and enhanced security for Israel. What? He think Middle East peace is a bad idea?

The shorthand for this is the road to Middle East peace goes through Baghdad. In my judgment and in the judgment of a lot of people who do this for a living, including those people who've been involved in the mediation effort for any number of years, the Middle East peace process still goes through Jerusalem and will for the foreseeable future.

Sounds to me like Wilson has grown so used to the the peace "process" that he doesn't mind that it never seems to produce a peace result.

September 11 occurred and on September 12 these people very callously seized the opportunity to make the case based on the simple thesis that September 11 was a horrible event, Saddam Hussein is a horrible man, ergo, two horribles equal kill Saddam Hussein - and that has been the driving thesis for this ever since.

If you've read Bob Woodward's book, he makes very clear that within two days of September 11, Don Rusted and Paul Wolfowitz were trying to figure out ways to use September 11 as a way to get at Saddam Hussein and effect this policy of regime change.

Not because Saddam Hussein had anything to do with September 11, not because we were worried about weapons of mass destruction, not because we were worried about a potential linkup between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups...

Wilson then goes on to lay his alternative - UN inspections backed by the threat of force - and then makes an astonishing claim:

We need to remember in all of this that Iraq did not build weapons of mass destruction because the United States was an enemy - Iraq built weapons of mass destruction because it was surrounded by a nuclear armed Israel, a Turkey that had occupied it for 400 years and has 75 million people, and an Iran with which it has been at war for the last 150 years and which also has twice the population of Iraq. Saddam or no Saddam, there is still going to be a desire amongst the national security apparatus to have weapons that allow a relatively small population to defend itself against larger rapacious neighbors and aggressive neighbors.

Please also note that Wilson describes Israel as "rapacious" and "aggressive." He blames the Jews for Saddam's seeking weapons of mass destruction. Who, I wonder, does Wilson blame for the chemical gassing of thousands of Kurds? Maybe he blames Israel - after all, if the Jews weren't so rapacious and aggressive, Saddam wouldn't have had to develop chemical weapons and wouldn't have had to test them on the Kurds to make sure they worked...

Let's continue. No, never mind. I won't subject you to any more of the "apolitical" Joe Wilson. Just answer me one question if you can. Why did the CIA send this Saddam-coddler to Niger to find out of Saddam had tried to buy uranium for bombs? After all, he thinks Saddam had a good reason to want weapons of mass destruction. Surely a man with that viewpoint would not be the most likely person to find evidence in Niger that could be used to justify a war which he vehemently opposed.

October 1, 2003

If This is True...

If This is True...
...then all those Lefties teasing about the lack of WMDs in Iraq will have to find something else to talk about.

UPDATE: Is it true? Donald Sensing says watch how the Bushies deal with that question tomorrow. And Sparkey over at Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing finds the story a bit strange.

Update: Later reports indicate the earlier report may not be valid.

From Portland to Nashville

A major corporation moves its HQ from Portland, Oregon, to Nashville. Here's what it looks like from the Portland perspective.

The move is a big blow for Portland, which has lost a series of headquarters recently and where officials courted Louisiana-Pacific executives. The move will leave one of the country's most timber-dependent states without the head office of a timber company.

Do Journalistic 'Ethics' Require Protecting a Criminal?

The Tennessean opines on the Plame name leak 'scandal' with an over-the-top headline that calls Plame a "CIA spy," as if she is doing James Bond stuff in hostile foreign countries. C'mon, folks. She worked a desk job at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

But that's not the part of the editorial that raised my ire. This is:

Reporters respect the confidentiality of their sources. That confidentiality, which is crucial for investigative journalism, will likely protect the leaker.