October 30, 2003 by s.z.

Iraq News the Media Isn't Giving You Earlier this month President Bush complained that the national press wasn't giving you the good news about Iraq.  They just wanted to focus on terrorist attacks, and cost overuns, and just who made "Mission Accomplished" banners, and such -- but there are other things taking place in Iraq.  Things that the President wanted you to know. So the President started telling his story to the more responsive regional media sources.  And that worked fairly well -- they mentioned the schools opening, and the shiny new jails, and how all the good Iraqi people were glad we invaded.  But there were stories that they weren't telling either.  Like that the schools were open again today.  And so Mr. Bush decided to tell his story to patriotic, right-minded bloggers, people who would be GLAD to share with you the positive things that are happening in Iraq, and not dwell on the hate, violence, despair, crippling injuries, incompetence, and war profiteering.  That said, here is my first report. What Is Happening In Iraq It's morning in Iraq.  There are schools opening; there are hospitals opening. Well, sure, they've pretty much been open for months now, but they're STILL open.  That is good. And there's electricity -- the Iraqi people have electricity now!  And safety pins!  And boullion cubes!  And pro-America books.  Think of it--little children, little children like YOUR children -- now have the kind of books we want them to read.  Books with no pictures of Saddam in them.  Books which will help them have better lives, and which will teach them useful, wholesome lessons, like "Good manners are very important; if a nice country helps you out in your time of need, you should always like them, and always give them oil at reasonable prices." And victory on the monsters front! And the American armed forces have virtually wiped out hideous monsters around the ancient ruins near Baghdad.  These creatures are trying to drive us out of Iraq by being frightening and alien.  They are thought to be either Baathists or foreign (possibly Venusian).  They don't like being shot with bazookas, and react by either retreating or dying.  Vice President Cheney believes they may have eaten Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, which is why these weapons can't be located.  And which is why the national media doesn't want you to know about them, and about how successul our men in uniform have been in neutralizing them. While these monsters obviously posed a pretty imminent threat to America, being ugly and stuff, they haven't hurt or even menaced a single one of our brave American troops, which is a major victory, and proof that the reconstruction plan is going very well indeed.  Another victory over terrorism! 6:05:51 AM

comment []

Of Weasels and Stalkers Tee hee.  Check out the mighty TBOGG's Tonight we take up the Common or Least Weasel . As you've no doubt heard by now, Donald Luskin (some NRO bore with a fixation on the NYT's Paul Krugman), is emulating thin-skinned bully Bill O'Reilly by trying to use the law to punish somebody for hurting his feelings.  It seems that Luskin didn't like Atrios using the world "stalker" in reference to Luskin, even though Luskin himself wrote a piece about, um, not stalking Krugman, and titled it "We Stalked. He Balked."  But even worse, per a letter sent to Atrios by attorney Jeffrey J. Upton, several Eschaton readers made comments which contained "false assertions that Mr. Luskin has committed the crime of stalking. Such a statement constitutes libel per se, an actionable tort subjecting both the author and the publisher to liability for both actual and punitive damages."  Poor Luskin.  It seems that everyone is "falsely" accusting him committing the "felony" of stalking.  He makes the same charges against Krugman in his column of the 28th.  He also said this about Krugman when he was on "Hannity & Colmes" last week.  (When Hannity asked him if he was going to sue Krugman, Luskin said his attorney said to "respond to a question like that by saying that I can't respond to a question like that" -- which means, of course, "I want to hold that threat over his head, but no sane lawyer would actually take such a stupid case to court..")  Do a Google search for "Donald Luskin" and "stalker" and you'll get (as of tonight--the number will probably double by tomorrow)  289 hits.  Some of them are Luskin saying that he's not a stalker, just a "critic" (which is like saying that Javert wasn't hounding Jean Valjean, he was just a concerned friend).  Some items on the list are posts by conservatives chiding Krugman for overreacting to Luskin's creepy interest in him.  But most of the Google items are people saying stuff like "an increasingly over-the-edge Donald Luskin is falling into stalker territory," noting such clues as Luskin posting Krugman's book tour dates, and offering his readers suggested "debating strategies"--different varieties of pie to throw at Krugman.  I imagine all these individuals outed by Google will be getting letter from lawyer Upton too -- because writing that Luskin is a stalker is a libel, an actionable tort (but not the kind you can throw at him at HIS various public appearances).  Of course, per Media Libel: In most states, public officials or figures as plaintiffs are required to prove negligence or actual malice on the part of the publisher. To prove actual malice, a person needs to show that at the time of publication or broadcast, those responsible for the story either knew it was not true or had a reckless disregarded for the truth. And then all one would have to do is show all those Google entries and say, "Hey, EVERYBODY says he's a stalker, so I had every reason to think it was true.  And I didn't say he was a stalker out of malice, I said it out of love, because I just wanted Don to get help before it was too late.  Oh, and judge, wouldn't YOU say he was a stalker?"  And the judge would have to agree all the behavor, as made public by Luskin, seems pretty stalkerish to him too, and the case would be over. But anyway, back to Atrios's legal communcation.  In it, Upton says that Atrios has 72 hours to remove the Oct.7 item which contains the word "stalker" and all its associated comments, plus all the comments from an item from October 10th.  Atrios is warned that he faces:"personal liability for their distribution," and unless he complies by the deadline, "further legal action will be taken, starting with a subpoena to Blogspot.com to get his identity," for the purpose of making service of process."  Nice, huh?  And what makes all this especially interesting is that in August 2000, Luskin wrote a piece (Yes, Message Boards Are Used to Manipulate Stocks -- By the Pros) for RealMoney.com.  Luskin's solution to the problem of such attempts at stock maniupulation was to propose making it illegal for professionals to post anonymously about stocks.  He said in part: The worst solution to the problem of manipulation on discussion boards is to shift the responsibility for enforcement from the regulators to the board sponsors. The host of an online discussion board is no more in a position to monitor and assure the quality of every posted message than a "common carrier" such as AT&T is to monitor every utterance made over its telephone network. . . . But let's not do anything draconian that might have the effect of inhibiting the freewheeling, empowering nature of online discussion boards. Let's not destroy the village in order to save it. So back then, when Luskin ran investment discussion site, a board sponsor or "host" such as blogspot.com wouldn't have been responsible for the content.  I bet that's not what Luskin will tell them if he tries to subpoena Atrio's information, though.  And back then, he didn't want to inhibit the "freewheeling, empowering  nature of discussion boards."  But of course, that was before people were saying bad things about HIM.  Anyway, Luskin followed up this column with one in September 2000 (More on Cleaning Up Discussion Boards )which included some comments he'd received about his idea..  Luskin noted that a W.Grant Ellis said that "the investing public" wasn't much disturbed by comments on message boards, but rather: The folks bothered, as I see it, have either been personally attacked via the boards or have their own manipulation game hanging in the balance. Here's some advice that I think would be more beneficial than any kind of additional regulation: Ignore the boards (pass the word). Sadly, while the word was passed, Luskin apparently didn't heed it.  (And Ellis so nailed him --  especially the part about "having their own manipulations game hanging in the balance.").  Luskin goes on to tell about "Sherman," who said that companies can use lawsuits to "to suppress legitimate debate on discussion boards," and said that Yahoo! had turned over his personal information under subpoena.   The ease with which plaintiffs gain access to your information is surprising ... and not widely understood. The cost of filing a suit is negligible. Once done, throwing around a few subpoenas costs next to nothing; they are faxed to Yahoo! (proper legal service is not required). Fifteen days later, you are toast. The number of these suits multiplies daily. Commenting on this was one Jeffrey Upton," a partner with the law firm Hanify & King."  He "sympathizes" with Sherman, and says: Message board posters may be unaware of the risk that they take when they post a message about a company, and that the qualified anonymity they enjoy may lull them into a false sense of security ... Many computer users probably don't see the difference between expressing their opinions in a bar and expressing them in a chat room or on a bulletin board. In the eyes of the law, there really is no difference. But as a practical matter, because the statements are in a more permanent written form and are published to a much larger audience, the potential for litigation and damages is much, much greater. But through the comments to his piece he learned how easy it is to intimidate and silence critics by getting their personal information by filing an inexpensive subpoena.  And he made the acquaintance (if they weren't already buds) of lawyer Jeffery Upton.  And the rest is history. Anyway, this is the first time I'd ever mentioned Luskin, because I find him basically boring and creepy.  And I probably won't mention him again -- unless he does more stupid, and funny-in-a-pathetic-way things like threaten to sue people because somebody said mean things about him in the comments section of their blog.  And thanks, TBOGG, for the lesson about weasels and other rodents.  It made it all worthwhile. 3:56:44 AM