NPR's Daniel Schorr says that Amnesty International made a “technical error” in comparing Guantanamo to a Gulag. And then proceeds to compare it to the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II. Sigh.

Let's recap, shall we?

The internment of Japanese-Americans involved 120,000 American citizens who were going about their daily business when they were interned. Guantanamo holds 500 non-citizens who were taken prisoner on a battlefield.

Audio here (no transcript, unfortunately).

Needless to say, he accepts the AI report at face value, including the assertion that the US is the among the worst human rights offenders.

There is a "Plan B" After All
Boom Chicago has it all figured out in their "After the No: Smaller Unions Instead" video.

If you're looking for evidence... that the Euro is failing, look no further than this item from today's German News:

Failure of monetary union ruled out
The President of the German Federal Bank ("Bundesbank"), Axel Weber, has ruled out the notion that the European monetary union should be declared a failure. The issuing bank in Frankfurt (am Main) stated that it would not entertain such an absurd discussion. The federal Finance Ministry in Berlin had earlier issued a similar statement, that Finance Minister Hans Eichel definitively saw no danger that the economic and currency reform could fail. These statements came in response to a report in the Hamburg-based newsmagazine "Stern" that Eichel and Weber had discussed the topic.

You can practically hear the nervous giggle.

A word of advice to any three-year olds that might be reading this blog: If your father or mother tells you to stop doing something and your reply begins with "But I'm just...", you're about to get yourself into very big trouble.

Instapundit is perplexed by "Bush's stinginess regarding pardons." I have no strong opinion on the appropriate number of pardons for a President to issue, but I'm not at all surprised that Bush is low on the scale.

For better or for worse, Bush delegates responsibilities and then lets go of them, intervening only if there's a conflict or on matters of policy. He's not the sort to second guess, and a Presidential Pardon amounts to second-guessing the justice system.

Bush's style works well if the people you're delegating to are competent and pulling towards the same goal, but it can run into problems if too many are incompent or overly political. To remain effective, this sort of executive has to adapt as the organization changes, deciding who to trust and who needs oversight without just falling back into a trusted "inner circle" that might not really be trustworthy (past performance is no indication of future returns - the guy who gives 120% when the company and his paycheck were on the line could turn out to be a ruthless, backstabbing political operator when the situation isn't so dire).

Two of the most spectacular organizational failures I've seen were caused in part by this dynamic. Small product teams that had been functioning very effectively with distributed responsibilities grew or evolved to the point that some of the people involved could no longer be trusted, and management made some really bad choices about who they should rely on. It doesn't take long for the wheels to come off in a pretty spectacular way.

While were doing business archetypes for politicians: Whatever the faults of the hands-off executive, he's 1000 times better than the monomaniacal micromanager who knows better than everyone else (Al Gore) or the political schemer who says or does whatever he thinks will benefit him most, without regard to the consequences or to any sort of consistency or principle (John Kerry).

Seen at the Gym
The guy on the treadmill in front of me at the gym today was wearing a shirt with an absolutely huge "Bush-Cheney '04" logo. Underneath, also in large letters, it said: "A Person of Tolerance and Diversity Keyed My Car."

Oh Come, All Ye ... Faithful?
The elder tadpole and I had a strange and somewhat disturbing encounter with a Salvation Army bellringer last week.

We were entering a local supermarket and the elder tadpole bounded ahead with the energetic enthusiasm that only a three year old can muster, to give the bellringer a dollar. He wished the bellringer a chirpy "Merry Christmas" and was rewarded with a tart correction: "Happy Holidays," said the bellringer, "and a Happy Dr. King's Day on January 17th." He followed this pronouncement with a condescending smirk.

I'm not sure what's more disturbing: A Salvation Army bellringer who is openly hostile to Christmas, or a grown man who feels the need to haughtily demonstrate his lofty political awareness to an enthusiastic three-year old.

I have nothing against any of the holidays that fall at this time of year, but that's completely beside the point. His behavior was jarring and completely inappropriate, and Mrs. Tadpole is now reluctant to give to other bellringers. A small cynical part of me wonders if the bellringer is just clueless or if that reluctance to give is precisely his goal.

Wither the Netherlands?
I'm not surprised but I am a bit appalled at how little coverage the events in the Netherlands since the brutal murder of Theo von Gogh have received. The past week has seen arson and vandalism directed at both churches and mosques, infighting within the government and a crackdown that has already led to raids on terrorist cells and training camps within the Netherlands. It seems clear that opinion is shifting dramatically in the most tolerant country in Europe, and that is a very big deal.

For those who'd like information, insight and frequent updates, Zacht Ei is your one-stop shop.

Unlike some, I'm not surprised that the Dutch are cracking down. The Dutch are renowned for their tolerance, but that tolerance is actually a manifestation of a virtue they truly cherish: practicality

The Dutch tolerate pot and prostitution (and all manner of things) because they've judged that the consequences of doing so are less bad than the consequences of attempting to eliminate them. In essence, tolerance is a policy decision, not a first principle.

The murder of Theo von Gogh and its aftermath raises serious questions about the practicality of tolerating fundamentally antagonistic elements of society. If the Dutch decide that intolerance is more practical in this case, they will move decisively to neutralize the threat. I hope they'd be as decent as possible about it, of course, but appeals to tolerance as a principle will fall on deaf ears.

Consensus is also very important and takes time to achieve. But if the scales of opinion continue to tip in the direction they appear to be heading right now, some very dramatic changes in Dutch domestic and foreign policy just might be on the horizon. For better or for worse.

Tadpole Number One was engrossed in a book this morning and didn't insist on hearing his favorite song ("Im Orient" from "Gute Laune, Gute Fahrt") over and over and over again, so I was able to catch a bit of NPR on the radio. I was a bit surprised by the callers during the segment I heard.

Instead of the expected litany of complaints about "Red" America and promises to move to Canada, several callers in a row were Bush supporters expressing their hope that the anti-Bush crowd would finally shut up about the "unelected" stuff and start cooperating again.

I'm guessing the ABB crowd are still in shock and that they won't be calling in with the "I'm moving to Canada" stuff until they get to the depression stage of the grief process. Note that the next stage includes anger along with the depression, so if you live in a True Blue area you might want to get the Bush stickers off of the car.

Hopefully they'll make it all the way to "acceptance" this time around. I suspect that the messy end to the 2000 election left a lot of people trapped between "denial" and "anger" which lead to a lot of the over-the-top Bush-bashing of the past few years.

At least I hope that's what's going on. Otherwise, the ABB crowd is likely to get even more extreme. The last thing we need is an anti-globo Weather Underground. I'm fairly optimistic at this point, but I'll be keeping an eye out for signs one way or the other.

Slate wants you...
...to commit a felony. Slate's article about voting twice is subtitled "A sudden crackdown on an old trick" but if you read it all the way through, the author (Bill Gifford) comes to the conclusion that the so-called crackdown isn't very effective:

For all the new concern about double voting, though, the odds of getting caught remain minuscule. Comparing voter databases county by county and state by state is a needle-in-haystack undertaking, even with the aid of computers. Why not vote twice then? Michael Moore probably shouldn't do it. But you probably could.

Just don't tell any reporters.

"Why not vote twice then?"?!

I may be old-fashioned, but when the question is "Should I do something that is uncivil, unethical and a felony?" my answer doesn't hinge on whether or not I'm likely to get caught.

Attention Washington Bloggers. Be on the alert for four patronising idiots with an entourage of "journalists" on a boondoggle (via Tim Blair):

The paper said it had closed the website where readers collected an address to write to and had abandoned plans to take four "winners" to visit voters in Clark County. Instead, the group would be taken to the "more tranquil" area of Washington.

It's a shame, really. I'm sure Robert Fisk was looking forward to another beating at the hands of primitive locals. He's long overdue.

As long as I'm mocking Eurocrats, I may as well go for a trifecta. It's nice to see that those highly paid functionaries in their weird expensive building don't just have really good ideas -- they also focus like lasers on the truly important issues:

There were arguments over who should properly be dubbed "Mr Euro", after the appointment of Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker as the President of the group of finance ministers from the 12 euro countries.

Mr Juncker has been widely dubbed "Mr Euro" in the press but, as the overseer of euro zone monetary policy, Mr Trichet has jealously demanded the title back.

"As far as the currency is concerned, I am evidently 'Mr Euro'", said the Frenchman, according to AFP.

I really should go through my EUObserver messages more often.

Your tax Euros at work:

Little signs in the building are supposed to help officials find their way around the maze of corridors in the 241,515m² building.

But they are not your everyday signs, instead they are colour-coded with various symbols on them.

For example, one coloured triangle contains three black dots, another contains one dot; still another is a different colour altogether - but the onlooker is clueless as to what they mean.

And there are around 40 of these symbols. Anticipating the chaos they will cause, a little booklet has been issued internally to officials to decipher them.

There's something almost poetic about this.

Can anyone explain what the European Commission was thinking when they commisioned this?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for mocking the Eurocracy -- I just never expected to see them mocking themselves. At least not intentionally.

I'm also rather taken with the "Axis of Reflexive Atlanticism," which is what happens when you let Eurocrats attempt to craft a pithy saying.

Free debate advice for President Bush (and worth every penny)
Hold Kerry's gaze, grin (the one that Bush-haters call a smirk), and say that you have some memory that is "seared - seared" into you.

In all probability, Kerry will either miss the reference to his discredited Christmas in Cambodia testimony before the Senate or he'll just let it lie, but...

There's a small possibility it'll goad him into doing something really stupid, since Kerry is exquisitely sensitive to appearances and lashes out reflexively and inappropriately when he feels he's challenged or off-balance (literally or figuratively). Being openly mocked on live television might just push him over the edge (it wouldn't be smart, but neither is insulting the guy who's job is to take a bullet for you).

And there's no downside, since any complaint about the comment would also call attention to Kerry's visit from the Ghost of Christmas' Imaginary. So in the worst case, you'll give your supporters a chuckle and your opponents a touch of dyspepsia. What's to lose?

Political Expression in the Seattle Area
I'm still seeing about as many bumper stickers for Bush as for Kerry on the Eastside (Seattle itself is a completely different story) and my car (with a relatively discrete W'04 sticker) hasn't been vandalized.

That said, the half-life of a roadside Bush sign appears to be less than a day. Driving home last Friday evening, I noticed four or five Bush signs by the side of the road. Saturday morning, all but one of the signs was gone. Signs for other Republicans were not disturbed, for whatever that's worth.

We went to the new Bellevue Whole Foods on Sunday. It's a great store, but the aisles were crawling with granola grannies wearing anti-Bush buttons and sour expressions. Interestingly enough, pretty much the only people I've seen wearing political buttons in this area are older women with sour expressions (another such was handing out "Patriot for Kerry" buttons in Starbucks last week).

Climate of Fear Update
I noted a climate of fear here in greater Seattle back in June. Actual attacks on Bush supporters (including one particularly vile incident) are now being reported around the country.

That said, the situation seems to have taken a turn for the better here on the Eastside. Bush stickers (mostly the relatively inconspicuous W'04 stickers) started appearing a few weeks ago and today they're nearly as common as Kerry stickers. I've had one for more than a month, without incident.

I've been assuming that we just reached the critical mass necessary to coax Bush supporters into risking a sticker on their car. If, on the other hand, all of these new stickers actually represent a surge in support for Bush, Kerry is a goner. If he's struggling in this area, he's dead in most of the country.

Update: Well, Kerry doesn't seem to be in trouble in Washington. Mrs. Tadpole's alternative theory is that the bumper stickers we're seeing are a show of defiance by beleaguered Bush supporters and that complacent Kerry supporters don't feel the need to show their colors.

Blogospheric Intuition
Trust your intuition. I sat down to blog this and found similar sentiments here and here. A storm is brewing.

The news that CBS will go to the mat in defense of the Killian forgeries left me curiously glum. This just isn't funny any more.

This is no longer the slapstick tale of an eager-to-believe Dan Rather (and friends) duped by clumsy forgeries. Something deeper and darker is going on.

CBS seems to be aiming for a "we'll just agree to disagree" resolution, despite the fact that pretty much everyone is on the other side of the fence. Credibility is the most important asset for a news organization and it seems unlikely that CBS would be willing to subject it to the kind of body-blow that's coming unless the alternative is far, far worse.

I don't know what CBS is afraid of, but I'm pretty sure we'll find out. The hounds have the scent and the real story will break. I'm starting to worry that it will be much, much, uglier (and much, much bigger) than any of us have been expecting so far.

Update: Beldar doesn't think this is funny any more, either.

Update: Roger Simon has gotten Tim Blair speculating, too. I keep coming back to similar scenarios though I don't have anything but a gut feeling to back it up.

Update: Rather's "Fake but accurate" defense is the surreal and sad concoction of a confused man in denial. Daniel Wiener's speculative timeline now sounds about right to me.

Update: Mark Steyn thinks there something huge lurking behind CBS' stonewalling.

I'm astounded at how frequently I've heard left-of-center commentators respond to the Ra^thergate forgeries with (something like): "These documents might be forgeries but let's get back to the real story -- George Bush's National Guard Service.

Okey doke.

The real story is that there is so litle substance to the accusations about Bush's National Guard service that his accusers have had to resort to crude forgeries to keep the story moving.

The real story is that major media figures (and left-of-center Bloggers) are so in love with the anti-Bush Narrative they've constructed that they no longer apply even a sniff test to information that fits the Narrative. Anything that contradicts the Narrative is dismissed without consideration.

The real story is Big Media's doomed attempt to stonewall the accusations and disparage their detractors as a bunch of anonymous loons in Pajamas and/or paid operatives. I know the names of Rather's accusers, and their reasoning and sources are posted for all to see. In conrast, Rather's sources are anonymous and his reasons for believing them are completely opaque; the few that were actually named have abandoned ship or been told to shut up.

So, yes. Let's get back to the real story.

Spin, Baby, Spin!
The spin from the Seattle P-I and AP is just unbelievable. As right now (9 Sep 2004 11:59 PDT), this is the banner on the PI's main page:

It links to an article (last updated at 10:01 PM) that admits the documents are questionable but still tries to spin them as some kind of evidence against Bush:

But the authenticity of the memos was questioned Thursday by the son of the late officer who reportedly wrote them. One of the writer's fellow officers and a document expert also said Thursday the documents appear to be forgeries.

Still, the documents marked the second time in days the White House had to backtrack from assertions that all of Bush's records had been released. They also raised the specter that Bush sought favors from higher-ups and that the commander of the Texas Air National Guard wanted to "sugar coat" Bush's record after he was suspended from flying.

Um. If they're forgeries, they don't "raise specters" for anyone but Dan Rather, the forger, and the MSM that accepted them uncritically. And the Kerry campaign, unless they're really quick on their feet (time to push Tom Harkin overboard and hide Susan Estrich's keyboard).

This is my favorite bit, though:

There was no explanation why the Pentagon was unable to find the documents on its own.

Um, because they're forgeries, maybe? I'm just a lowly blogger without big media fact-checkers, though, so make your own call.