BITCH, BITCH, BITCH. If you turn to page E13 of today's Boston Globe, you'll find this where Doonesbury usually appears:

To our readers

The Globe has decided not to publish today's installment of "Doonesbury" because the strip includes language inappropriate for a general readership. The strip's creator declined to change the wording or offer a substitute. "Doonesbury" resumes in tomorrow's comics pages. Today's strip is available online at www.boston.com/ae/comics/.

Now, I already knew that B.D.'s leg had been blown off in Iraq. When I saw the disclaimer this morning, I figured cartoonist Garry Trudeau must have had him let loose an F-bomb. So I was more than a little surprised when I learned the offending phrase was "son of a bitch." Pretty mild stuff.

Romenesko's got a round-up of newspaper reaction. To me, the proof that the Globe overreacted was the decision by the Tallahassee Democrat to run the strip unedited.

A couple of additional observations:

- Adam Gaffin, the Roslindale guy behind Boston Online, did a quick search and found that the Globe published 12 articles last year that used the word "bitch." His suggestion: if "bitch" is too rough for the funny pages, move Doonesbury to the op-ed page. (He also suggests moving Mallard Fillmore and maybe Boondocks to op-ed, but, uh, don't you need room for columns and stuff?)

- The Globe's wimp-out suggests that the Internet has made it too easy for editors to err on the side of hypercaution. Doonesbury has always been controversial, and a number of newspapers have pulled it from time to time over the years. (And, kids, you're not going to believe this: Doonesbury used to be funny, too. It was during a time called the '70s.) Ten years ago, an editor would have to think long and hard before dumping that day's Doonesbury, since it would have been very difficult for readers to see it elsewhere. Today, not only can Globe readers find it on the Web, but the Globe gives them the URL.

The good part is that even if something like today's Doonesbury gets dumped, it's still widely available to almost everyone. The bad part is that this encourages fuzzy thinking: the consequences are much lower for an editor who decides not to run a cartoon if he or she knows that readers will be no more than mildly inconvenienced.

ANOTHER MAGIC WOODWARD MOMENT. The reason that the Bush-Cheney website recommends Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack is that George W. Bush is running for re-election and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld isn't.

In September 2002, according to Woodward, Bush met with congressional leaders and outlined the reasons he was considering going to war. By Woodward's account, it went well. Then it was Rumsfeld's turn. Woodward writes:

In the "Night Note for September 4," Christine M. Ciccone, a young lawyer who covered the Senate for [Nicholas] Calio [Bush's congressional liaison], reported on Rumsfeld's one-and-a-half-hour briefing. "You have already heard it was a disaster and [Trent] Lott views it as having destroyed all of the goodwill and groundwork that the president accomplished during his meeting this morning. I found myself struggling to keep from laughing out loud at times, especially when Sec. Rumsfeld became a caricature of himself with the 'we know what we know, we know there are things we do not know, and we know there are things we know we don't know we don't know.'"

Senators had expected that the briefing, coming on the heels of the president's meeting that morning, would begin the process of making the administration's case, she reported. "Instead, Secretary Rumsfeld was not prepared to discuss Iraq issues, was unwilling to share even the most basic intelligence information, and wasn't having a good day.... There is a lot of cleanup work to do here."

Obviously the senators didn't realize that Rummy was reciting poetry.

WHAT THE POST DIDN'T TELL YOU. Here's an intriguing tidbit from Bob Woodward's new book, Plan of Attack. In December 2001, the CIA - following up on information from Britain's MI6 - learned of Pakistan's role in nuclear proliferation. CIA director George Tenet reportedly had a meeting with Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, in which he "peel[ed] back the eyeballs" of his host.

Among other things, the CIA feared that nuclear technology had fallen into the hands of Al Qaeda.

The Washington Post learned of this as well. Woodward explains why you didn't read about it:

Two reporters at The Washington Post had got wind of the possible nuclear or dirty bomb threat and a story was about to be published on Sunday, December 2, with some of the details. With Tenet out of the country, a very senior CIA official called me at home hours before the story was to be printed and urged it be delayed.

Of Musharraf, the official said, "We leaned on him heavily" and were "turning the screws." The official said, "We just reached the point where they [the Pakistanis] will work with us. A story would cause them to clam up and they would see it as an attempt to pressure them" through the media. The information was sketchy, he said. "What we have is more suggestive than conclusive."

Len Downie, the executive editor of the Post, spoke with the CIA official and decided to hold the story.

Two days later, Woodward writes, the Post ran a watered-down version.

This is reminiscent of the New York Times' decision in 1961, at another time of high national anxiety, to tone down its story about the pending Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba after the White House intervened with legendary Washington columnist and editor James Reston. The Times and the Bay of Pigs is as much myth as fact - the truth is that the Times didn't really change its story all that much - but the the circumstances are similar.

I think the Post made the right call on the loose-nuke story, especially coming less than three months after 9/11. Still, it's interesting to find out what goes on behind closed doors at our leading news organizations.

DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT TECHNOLOGY. The New York Times is at it again. Just three days after publishing a story about the online-music industry that was largely based on a false premise, today the paper runs an editorial blasting the indecency crusade (good), with reasoning based on yet another false premise (bad, bad!).

Noting that Congress is now considering whether to extend indecency standards to pay-TV services such as HBO, home of The Sopranos, the Times writes: "Washington's pro-decency crusade is no excuse to regulate media that do not use public airwaves. Tony Soprano's foul speech is constitutionally protected."

My goodness gracious, no, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, and as Tony Soprano might soon be saying as well. As I explained recently, it might very well be possible to extend indecency standards to cable - including pay TV - because, in fact, those services do use the public airwaves. Remember, cable used to be called "community antenna television," and though the name has changed, the technology hasn't. Your local cable operator has a huge "head end" antenna somewhere in the vicinity that pulls programming off a satellite before sending it to your home. The signal travels from satellite to head-end antenna via - are you paying attention, Gail Collins? - the public airwaves!

Because of this, there are those who believe the FCC doesn't even need additional congressional approval to start regulating cable.

The best legal argument for leaving pay TV alone is that, unlike over-the-air broadcast channels that come into your home whether you want them or not, you've got to make two voluntary choices to get, say, HBO: first, you've got to sign up for cable or satellite TV; then you've got to make the additional decision to pay for HBO.

The Times' heart is in the right place, but it's not going to convince anyone if it can't make a technologically factual argument.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. What's wrong with campaign-finance reform. Also, the ghost of Thomas Jefferson has words with the Defense Department and the Secret Service.

MAYBE IF ASHCROFT DEMANDS THE CAPE COD TIMES' SUBSCRIPTION LIST ... The indefatigable Walter Brooks has posted on his Cape Cod Media site two editorials on the loathsome Patriot Act. One, from the New York Times, is against it. The other, from the Cape Cod Times, is all for it.

Amazingly, the Cape Cod paper, part of the Dow Jones empire, goes so far as to support the most chilling part of the Patriot Act - Section 215, which allows federal agents, with minimal court oversight, to demand that a library or bookstore turn over the records of a patron in total secrecy, with no right of appeal. The editorial says:

That's why the Patriot Act allows - with FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court approval - the FBI to snoop and gather third-party records without the criminal requirement of certifying that a crime has already taken place, or informing the subject of a search with a traditional warrant. If a terror attack is looming, what would be the point of telling would-be Mohammed Attas they're under suspicion?

By contrast, the New York Times says this:

Among the most troubling provisions is Section 215, which allows the F.B.I. to order libraries, hospitals and others with personal records to hand over such information about individuals. People like librarians can be jailed if they refuse, or if they notify the targets. Another authorizes "sneak and peek" searches, in which the government can secretly search people's homes and delay telling them about the intrusions. As troubling as specific provisions like these is the "mission creep" that has inevitably occurred. Mr. Bush's own Justice Department told Congress last fall that the act's loosened restrictions on government surveillance were regularly being used in nonterrorism cases, like drug trafficking and white-collar crime.

Brooks presents the two editorials with this puckish introduction: "Both the Cape Cod Times and the New York Times ran lead editorials today on the wisdom of passing The Patriot Act which expires shortly. The two editorials are diametrically opposed, and we recommend that our readers be the judge of which advice to follow."

REAL MEN DON'T NEED TRIALS. Also not big on legal protections today is the Boston Herald, whose front-page - festooned with a huge file photo of Saddam Hussein shortly after being pulled out of the spider hole - declares: $75 MILLION TO PROVE WHAT WE KNOW ALREADY: HE'S GUILTY!

Inside, David Guarino's story makes the perfectly reasonable point that $75 million is an awful lot of money for the tribunal that Iraq plans to establish.

KERRY'S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. Boston Globe Washington-bureau chief Peter Canellos has come up with a new way of framing the Bush-Kerry race. In his Tuesday "National Perspective" column, Canellos writes that Kerry is running as the incumbent and Bush as the challenger. The idea is that with Bush under fire for his handling of such life-and-death matters as Iraq and 9/11, it is Kerry who represents continuity and Bush who personifies radical change - change for the worse:

Kerry, for his part, seems to have realized that his best hope is to run as the Default President, the place to which voters can connect when the regular president goes on the fritz.

This makes Kerry's position unusual, to say the least, for a presidential challenger. Instead of painting castles in the sky and urging voters to share his dreams, Kerry has been grounding himself in the policies of the past. He will try to become the incumbent in the race, representing 50 years of postwar consensus against four years of Bush.

Canellos is definitely on to something, but is Kerry being smart? For the moment, yes, because Bush is melting down. But surely the Kerry campaign can't expect that to last through Election Day. Once Bush regains his groove, Kerry's current above-the-fray stance is going to start looking an awful lot like the diffidence that got him into so much trouble last year, when his campaign nearly died before it could reach the starting line.

Slate's Kerry-loathing blogger, Mickey Kaus, argues (scroll down to April 12) that the senator's best shot is to stay out of sight: "John Kerry does best when he's exposed to the voters least! His optimal approach is to let Bush stew in the Iraq mess while he remains offstage, an attractive unknown. Any other strategy is a triumph of vanity over recent experience."

But that's not right. In fact, it's when Kerry gets over-confident and slides into autopilot that he gets into trouble. In nearly every one of his political campaigns, he's looked surprisingly vulnerable until crunch time, when he goes into crisis mode and blows his opponent away, whether it be Bill Weld in Massachusetts eight years ago or Howard Dean in Iowa three months ago. Somehow I doubt that's going to work against Karl Rove.

It's crisis time right now, and it's going to stay that way until November.

SPEED READING. Unless you're actually planning to read all 432 pages of John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best (and you know you're not; I might, but then I get paid to do such things), you will want to check out Chris Suellentrop's amusing guide to the highlights.

WHEN DID BUSH TELL RICE HE WAS GOING TO WAR? How soon we forget! The national-security adviser went on CBS's Face the Nation yesterday and responded to the charge in Bob Woodward's new book, Plan of Attack, that George W. Bush decided to go to war in January 2003, while UN weapons inspections were still under way. The Los Angeles Times reports:

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that President Bush's decision to invade Iraq was not made in January 2003, as a new book asserts, but came in March, after all efforts to avoid a war had been exhausted.

The statement in "Plan of Attack," by Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, is "simply not, not right," Rice said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

In an interview broadcast yesterday evening on CBS's "60 Minutes," Woodward said that "the decision [to invade] was conveyed to Condi Rice in early January.... [Bush] was frustrated with the weapons inspections. He had promised the United Nations and the world and the country that either the U.N. would disarm Saddam [Hussein] or he, George Bush, would do it, and do it alone if necessary."

But Rice said the final determination that war would occur came more than two months after their private conversation at Bush's Texas ranch.

In that conversation, Rice told CBS, she and Bush were discussing Bush's frustrations with Saddam, who Bush said "was starting to fool the world again, as he had over the past 12 years."

"He said, 'Now, I think we probably are going to have to go to war, we're going to have to go to war,'" Rice said.

But that "was not a decision to go to war," she continued. "The decision to go to war is in March. The president is saying in that [January] conversation, 'I think the chances are that this is not going to work out any other way. We're going to have to go to war.'"

You can read the full Face the Nation transcript here (PDF format). But let's get real, shall we? If anything, Woodward is being incredibly generous to the White House in asserting that the decision was not made until January 2003. Here's the lead of a piece that appeared in Time magazine on March 31, 2003:

"F--- Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room.

As far as I know, Time's account has never been challenged. As we know from a spate of new books - by former counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, journalist Ron Suskind (who collaborated with former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill), and others - the White House, and especially Vice-President Dick Cheney, started talking about going to war with Iraq in 2001, especially after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, spoke infamously about not wanting to roll out a "new product" (war, that is) until September 2002.

And good grief: Time's Karen Tumulty was on the set with Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer yesterday, but she never said a thing about her own magazine's year-old exclusive. What is wrong with these people?

DIGITALLY CLUELESS AT THE TIMES. In today's New York Times, Ken Belson writes about Sony's attempts to catch up with Apple in the online music business. The ninth paragraph is a howler:

Like Apple's iTunes online music store, [Sony's] Connect will have 500,000 songs that can be downloaded for 99 cents each. But while iTunes songs can be played only on iPods, Sony already sells a variety of devices, including minidisc and compact disc players, which can play songs bought on Connect's Web site. Sony's new Hi-MD disc player, for instance, will hold up to 45 hours of music on one disc, which will retail for about $7.

Well, uh, no. Not even close. At the most basic level, you can burn a CD with songs that you download from the iTunes Music Store, allowing you to listen to your music on any CD player on the planet. In fact, that's the way most people use the store - popular though the iPod may be, there are far more iTunes Music Store customers out there than there are iPod owners. Belson should have looked at this.

But though that's Belson's most obvious mistake, it goes deeper. Apple sells songs in a format known as AAC, which appears to be the crux of Belson's confusion. AAC is a competitor to MP3 that provides slightly smaller file sizes, slightly better sound quality, and "digital rights management" protection - that is, you can burn "playlists" onto a few CDs, but you can't burn, say, 100, at least not without changing the order of the tracks. There are a few other limitations, too. The idea is to let you share your music with family members and friends, but not to enable full-scale piracy.

However, the tracks on the CD you've just burned are no longer AACs - they've been expanded into standard AIFF files, as are all sound tracks on CDs. (This obviously doesn't mean that the richness that was stripped out when the music was compressed has somehow been magically restored; that's gone for good.) You can now take your CD and rip it into plain, unprotected MP3s. (Apple's claims that these MP3s will somehow be unlistenable are - how to put this? - not true. This is the equivalent of your first-grade teacher telling you that you will die if you put your pencil in your mouth.)

Now you can do anything you like with your MP3-ized iTunes songs - copy them onto a non-Apple MP3 player, burn them onto a CD-MP3 disc (like the 45-hour disc to which Belson refers), whatever. Some of those devices might even carry the Sony brand.

This is not a minor error that Belson made. The entire point of his story is that consumers of digital music are awash in a sea of proprietary standards - Apple's got one, Microsoft's got another, and now Sony is about to introduce yet another. Gosh darn, what is the poor consumer to do?

Well, one place to start is to go somewhere other than the New York Times for authoritative information.

SNOOP DOGGED. The problem with Alexander Cockburn's CounterPunch is that you have to wade through dreck like this: "In Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union, both run by a better class of people than we now have in public service in the U.S. of A. today ..."

Still, the essay from which that bit of hate speech is taken, by a lawyer named J. Michael Springmann, is worth reading. Springmann was subjected to e-mail surveillance under the Patriot Act because he represented a woman who was a suspected Al Qaeda agent. Springmann writes:

Beyond the violation of attorney-client privilege and the invasion of my privacy and that of my correspondents, I no longer have access to my E-mail addresses, since AOL kept them on its computer. And so I cannot inform my contacts that I have a new E-mail provider. I have no idea whether the Justice Department is still reading the E-mail messages sent and received by my correspondents, whose addressees turned up in the seizure of my accounts. Indeed, I continue to have problems sending and receiving messages to my friends and clients around the world with my new provider (which causes me to wonder if the process is not still continuing). And I must explain to clients and potential clients rightly concerned about confidentiality that the U.S. government has read and may still read E-mails to and from them.

In John Ashcroft's America, Springmann's tale is shocking, but not surprising. (Thanks to civil-liberties lawyer and Phoenix contributor Harvey Silverglate for passing that along.)

THE SOUND OF MONEY. It seems that the San Francisco Chronicle just can't stay out of conflict-of-interest controversies. The latest: David Ewing Duncan, a freelance columnist who covers the biotech industry, and who also runs a company involved in biotech.

As Stanford University's Grade the News reports, the Chronicle okayed the arrangement, requiring only that Duncan disclose his conflict. Yet, last year, the Chronicle fired columnist Henry Norr for participating in an anti-war protest. Norr covered technology; his extracurricular activities may have been inappropriate for a journalist, but they hardly represented a conflict.

More recently, the Chronicle reassigned reporter Rachel Gordon and photographer Liz Mangelsdorf, who had been covering the gay-marriage story, after they themselves got married at City Hall. As I wrote at the time, I think the Chronicle made the right call, since they didn't just get married, but were actually taking part in the very civil disobedience that they were covering.

But the Chronicle, having set a very high standard with Norr, Gordon, and Mangelsdorf, should do no less when it comes to financial conflicts. I guess money talks. (Thanks to BK for this.)

THE CONFUSION IS ALL MITT'S. Try keeping a straight face while reading about Governor Mitt Romney's latest tactic to delay gay marriage. (Globe coverage here; Herald coverage here.)

The quote of the day is from Attorney General Tom Reilly, commenting on the confusion and panic on the part of city and town clerks that Romney claims will break out if the May 17 marriage deadline isn't put off. Said Reilly: "This isn't all that hard. A half-day's training would do it."

LESS AIR FOR AIR AMERICA. I caught about 40 minutes of Air America Radio's Morning Sedition today, and no mention of the financial wrangling that has knocked the liberal network off the air in Chicago and Los Angeles. The Chicago Tribune reports on the battle, which Drudge broke yesterday.

Drudge also links to Air America's statement, which, as a lawyer might put it, is just loaded with actionable phrases (highly entertaining!), and a copy of Air America's lawsuit, which is available on the Smoking Gun.

The dispute is between Air America and Arthur Liu, who is the head of a small radio chain called Multicultural Broadcasting. Curiously, when I wrote about Air America's pre-broadcast plans in December (it was then known as Central Air), Internet radio guru Scott Fybush identified Liu's stations in Watertown and Lynn as possible Boston-area outlets.

Liu, though, told me that it wasn't going to happen, because Air America wanted to buy his stations outright and he didn't want to sell, although he would be willing to lease airtime. "We're not in that game," Liu said with regard to a sale.

Even more curiously, it appears that Air America did finally decide to lease time on Liu's stations in Chicago and Los Angeles - and is now paying a high price for that.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. A spate of recent books and articles shows that the debacle in Iraq didn't have to happen.

Also, a new study on the economic impact of the Democratic National Convention has provoked a dispute between Boston Herald columnist Cosmo Macero Jr. and the Beacon Hill Institute.

KERRY'S NEMESIS. My former Phoenix colleague Jon Keller, of WLVI-TV (Channel 56), has been nominated for a New England Emmy for his half-hour special of last November, "John Kerry: One Reporter's Journal." Keller also got an Emmy nomination in the reporting category.

Somehow I don't think the senator will be attending the awards banquet.

A few months ago Keller and I debated the merits of Kerry's presidential candidacy on the New Republic's website. You can read it here if you're a subscriber.

WHO KNEW? "Study Shows Heavy Drinking Can Impair Brain Function" - Boston Globe headline, 4/15/04

KERRY AND THE GLOBE. Talk about timing. Yesterday, Slate's Tim Noah posted a follow-up to a piece he'd written earlier contending that the Boston Globe despises John Kerry. Noah argues that Globe editor Marty Baron's preface to a new book, John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best, "demonstrates Kerry's unique ability to get under the Globe's skin."

This morning, the Globe published a front-page, below-the-fold story by Michael Kranish - the lead author of the Kerry bio - questioning whether Kerry deserved the first of the three Purple Hearts he won while serving in the Vietnam War. The story, headlined "Kerry Faces Questions over Purple Heart," examines the claims of a few right-wing Vietnam veterans who've never gotten over Kerry's becoming a leading anti-war activist after he returned home.

Kranish writes:

"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, 'I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm." Hibbard said he couldn't be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in question and that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.

But Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Hibbard said, he dropped the matter. "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it," Hibbard said. "I finally said, 'OK, if that's what happened ... do whatever you want.' After that, I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."

Kerry declined to talk to the Globe about the issue during the preparation of the Kerry biography. But his press secretary, Michael Meehan, noted that the Navy concluded that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart.

Kranish's piece, overall, is fair: he points out at great length that regardless of whether Kerry deserved his first Purple Heart, it is nevertheless true that his reputation for heroism under fire is well-deserved. But the pullquote, from Hibbard - "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" - is absolutely brutal.

The Globe has developed something of a reputation for Kerry-bashing during this presidential campaign. In addition to Tim Noah's two-parter, ABC News's political dope sheet, The Note, last November got at how just-fired Kerry-campaign chief Jim Jordan felt about the Globe by writing a fictional letter from Jordan to his replacement, Mary Beth Cahill. "Jordan" whacked the Globe for "what is the most relentlessly negative coverage of any presidential candidate EVER by a hometown paper - and I mean the news page. Don't even get me started on the op-ed page." (Media Log realizes that this is so post-modern as to be meaningless.)

During a recent interview, I asked Baron about the perception that the Globe is anti-Kerry. Among other things, Baron called Noah's first piece "silly." It didn't make it into the piece I was working on (hey, I only had 8000 words!), but here is part of the exchange we had:

Q: How do you plead?

A: I plead objective. We're covering him like we cover anybody else. Obviously there were some stories that he probably would have preferred not to see. We spent a lot of time researching John Kerry, more than anybody else had, as far as I can tell. The seven-part series that we did last June was as thorough a piece on a politician that's probably run anywhere in a newspaper. Maybe that's a bit of hyperbole, but I think it was pretty damn thorough. And in the process we learned a lot about John Kerry that had not been previously known. Look, he's running for president, we should know that.

There were things that we wrote about Howard Dean that the Howard Dean campaign was not terribly happy to see, and that actually affected his campaign in a major way. The stuff about attracting offshore companies, special tax breaks for insurance companies, things of that sort. The tax plan. They weren't terribly happy to see those stories, either. John Kerry used those stories to his advantage.

Q: When does the Kerry book come out?

A: Next month. It's written. It's finished.

Q: How far does this move beyond the seven-part series? Is there a lot of new material?

A: Yeah, I actually think there is new material. It's substantially longer than the seven-part series, obviously, in order to make a book. But in the process the reporters had a lot of additional material in their notebooks. They also did additional reporting for the book, and posed additional questions to the Kerry campaign. Some of those questions were answered. Not all of those questions were answered.

Q: What do you hope the book will accomplish?

A: That people will have a complete understanding of John Kerry, as best as it can be developed at this point. Obviously I think it's important, and I thought it was important when we went into this campaign, that the Boston Globe be the source, the definitive source for information about John Kerry. That I didn't think we should leave any crumbs on the table for anybody else to pick up. That we should do a thorough job, that we should be the point of reference for anyone who really wants to know about John Kerry. And that should be our job as the major newspaper in this market.

So does the Globe have it in for Kerry? A few columnists do. But as I told Noah back in January, and as he acknowledged, there really isn't anyone at the Globe who despises Kerry as much as do Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr and WLVI-TV (Channel 56) political analyst Jon Keller. More than anything, though, I think the Globe's coverage of Kerry shows that it's not the same paper that gave aid and succor to the Kennedys and other liberal Democrats for many years. That began to change under Baron's predecessor, Matt Storin, and has accelerated since the arrival of Baron, in 2001.

Is the story of Kerry's first Purple Heart legitimate? Yes, but just barely. If Kerry's war heroism were being questioned, that would be one thing, but Kranish's story doesn't do that. More than anything, Kranish is advancing the agenda of the sort of extremists who still hold signs reading "Vietnam Vets Are Not Fonda Jane." While Kerry may have been seeking a less-than-meaningful Purple Heart, George W. Bush was presumably memorizing the names of his frat brothers at Yale.

But Baron's philosophy is that the Globe is going to report everything about Kerry, and not "leave any crumbs on the table." That's not negative reporting. It is aggressive reporting, more aggressive than Kerry has perhaps been used to over the years. And, in this particular case, bordering on being more aggressive than is warranted by what happened all those years ago.

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? George W. Bush last night gave his first televised news conference since before the war in Iraq. I caught it in chunks. I have no immediate reaction, but here was the toughest question (full transcript), followed by Bush's answer/non-answer:

Q: Mr. President, before the war you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq. That US troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers. That Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction. And that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?

A: Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior to going into Iraq. First, the lesson of September 11 is when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.

Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders [sic]. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States. That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence. That's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.

I went to the UN as you might recall and said, Either you take care of him or we will. Anytime an American president says, If you don't, we will, we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to. I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something for the sake of security in the world. See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together - and therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately. The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, Disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.

I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back - he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group - reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things was he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM [the UN agencies that searched Iraq for weapons of mass destruction], deceptive at hiding things. We knew they were hiding things. A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught. And that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that. He also confirmed that Saddam had a - the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. He had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations. He was a danger. And so we dealt with him.

What else, part of the question? Oh, oil revenues. Well, the oil revenues are, they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was concerned about prior to going into Iraq was that the oil fields would be destroyed. But they weren't. They're now up and running. And that money is, it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil. And they'll use it to reconstruct the country.

Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American people: it's an interesting question. They're really pleased we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And you can understand why. This is a guy who's a torturer, a killer, a maimer. There's mass graves. I mean he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into kind of a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That's what we've seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were happy - they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either.

They do want us there to help with security. And that's why this transfer of sovereignty is an important signal to send. And it's why it's also important for them to hear we will stand with them until they become a free country.

Okay, now. Where are the weapons? What did Rumsfeld mean? Why did we have to lay out $87 billion when the oil revenues were supposed to pay for the occupation? Why are the Iraqis killing Americans?

Never mind. Next question.

FREE-SPEECH FORUM. On Thursday from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Cambridge Public Library, I'll be taking part in a panel put together by PEN New England's Freedom to Write Committee.

Billed as a forum on the Patriot Act, I'll be joined by library director Susan Flannery, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, and ACLU of Massachusetts executive director Carol Rose. The discussion will be moderated by Judith Nies and introduced by Fred Marchant.

SCALIA'S EMPTY APOLOGY. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia is very, very sorry, and those to whom he has apologized seem very, very pleased. But what everyone is very, very missing is that he didn't apologize for anything he did. Rather, he apologized for the actions of a deputy marshal, Melanie Rube, who confiscated a tape from one reporter and a digital recorder from another during a speech by Scalia at a Mississippi high school last week.

Scalia's letter to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is online here (PDF file). Check out these excerpts:

You are correct that the action was not taken at my direction; I was as upset as you were. I have written to the reporters involved, extending my apology and undertaking to revise my policy so as to permit recording for use of the print media.

...

With regard to your further suggestion that I direct security personnel not to confiscate recordings - presumably even those made in violation of clearly announced rules: Security personnel, both those of the institutions at which I speak, and the United States Marshals, do not operate at my direction, but I shall certainly express that as my preference.

Can you figure out what Scalia is apologizing for? I can't. And how would you like to be Melanie Rube today? She may have been out of line, but don't you think she was scared to death about what would happen to her when she realized two reporters were violating Scalia's no-record policy? Why doesn't Scalia apologize to her for putting her in an impossible situation?

Talk about a meaningless apology.

DON'T THINK TWICE, IT'S TOO WEIRD. I had assumed that Bob Dylan's appearance in a Victoria's Secret ad defied commentary. But Seth Stevenson is giving it his best shot in Slate. Here's the ad, in which a tres sexy model cavorts to Dylan's song "Love Sick" while Zimmy himself pops up a few times, like an elderly lecher trying to peer into the model's window.

Rather than attempt to explicate this myself, I will merely note that "Love Sick" - which kicks off Dylan's multiple-Grammy 1997 album, Time out of Mind - is amassing a strange history. While Dylan was performing "Love Sick" at the 1998 Grammys, a guy jumped onto the stage with the words "Soy Bomb" painted on his bare chest and slithered around for about half a minute before being hauled away.

From vegetarianism to lingerie.

SOMBER ANNIVERSARY. Boston Herald reporter Jules Crittenden, an embed with the Army's Third Infantry Division last year, has a terrific "Radio Diary" at the website for the WBUR Radio program On Point.

Crittenden recalls riding through the desert with the Atlantic Monthly's Michael Kelly and NBC News's David Bloom. Within days, both would die, Kelly when a jeep in which he was riding came under attack, Bloom of an embolism that was probably caused by his cramped traveling conditions.

"It was not possible that Bloom and Kelly could be dead and I would survive," Crittenden says. "I was already dead. It just hadn't happened yet."

Crittenden also recalls his unit's rolling into Baghdad and coming under fire - a moment when he called out the positions of Iraqi gunners and thus helped US soldiers to kill them. He wrote about it unapologetically, even defiantly, in the Herald last April. Now he says of those doomed Iraqis:

I watched you die. Forgive me. We all made our choices when we showed up for work that day. It was your day to die. Not mine. But I remember you. I observe the anniversary of your deaths and those of David Bloom and Michael Kelly with the knowledge that this year of life has been a gift.

Via Hub Blog.

THE RETURN OF CLARIBEL VENTURA. In the early days of the welfare-reform movement, there was no more horrifying a symbol of dysfunctional dependency than Claribel Ventura. It was a young Boston Globe reporter named Charles Sennott - now a foreign correspondent - who helped make her so.

Ventura, then a 26-year-old welfare mother of six, was accused of scalding her four-year-old son's hands with boiling water as punishment for eating her boyfriend's food. In 1994 Sennott checked in on her extended family, and found that it had about 100 members, virtually none of them working, pulling in about $1 million a year in government benefits.

It may be no exaggeration to say that welfare reform might never have happened in Massachusetts without Sennott's story. Indeed, the fact that the liberal Globe would publish such a story was seen in some circles as a sign that the political structure now had permission to try something new.

Now Sennott, on a visit to Boston, has tracked down Ventura in an effort to learn what he had wrought. He writes that Ventura's life today is a mixed success: after seven years in prison, she appears to have kicked drugs, and has begun a new family. Yet - not surprisingly - she remains consumed with bitterness and resentment, especially toward him.

Sennott also notes that legislators are threatening to cut funding for the drug treatment program that helped Ventura put her life more or less in order.

The welfare-reform story is a muddled one. Certainly ending the culture of dependency was necessary. Yet the law's Draconian aspects - especially its emphasis on low-paid work over education, which traps families in a cycle of poverty - bespeak to shortsightedness on the part of then-governor Bill Weld, who appeared to be more interested in scoring cheap political points than anything else.

Claribel Ventura was a powerful symbol. I even found an academic article called "Bad Mothers and Welfare Reform in Massachusetts: The Case of Claribel Ventura" in a 1997 book, Feminism, Media & the Law.

Sennott reminds us that the symbol he helped create is also a real person.

MORE SCALIA. Good Bob Herbert column in today's New York Times on Scaliagate. Even if Herbert does seem to think that reporters have a constitutional right to record Scalia's speeches. (They don't.)

THE ARROGANCE OF MR. JUSTICE SCALIA. Here is the text of a press release by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press over the goon-like behavior that Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia encouraged with his bizarre policy of not allowing himself to be videotaped or recorded. The highlight is this, from the committee's executive director, Lucy Dalgish:

Even assuming it was reasonable for Justice Scalia to prohibit recordings of his speech - which it was not - the law does not allow law enforcement officials to seize work product from journalists under these circumstances. Perhaps one of these days, Justice Scalia will tell us why he has so little regard for electronic media. Certainly the only effect the tape recordings by two print reporters would have had on coverage of his speech would have been to make the reporting more accurate.

The press release goes on to note that the forcible erasure of the two recordings may have been a violation of federal law. Gee, if that ever makes it to the Supreme Court, do you think he'll recuse himself?

The Hattiesburg American, one of the two news organizations singled out for Scalia's judicial assault-by-proxy, reports on the latest developments today. The other organization, the Associated Press, has a story showing that Scalia continued his thuggish ways in an appearance at William Carey College.

The college's spokeswoman said she was "embarrassed and angry" over the position she'd been put in when a Scalia aide ordered news photographers to stop taking his picture even as guests snapped away.

RICE'S UNINTENTIONALLY REVEALING TESTIMONY. I haven't said anything about Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission because it struck me that - not unexpectedly - she said nothing revealing or even particularly interesting. She ran out the clock for three hours, which isn't exactly hard to do. (And can we cut the condescending crap about how "articulate" she is? She was no more articulate than any member of the administration would have been, with the obvious exception of George W. Bush.)

Slate's Fred Kaplan, though, has a piece worth pondering. He argues that Rice's testimony, seemingly bland and innocuous, actually revealed her to be "a bad national security adviser - passive, sluggish, and either unable or unwilling to tie the loose strands of the bureaucracy into a sensible vision or policy."

A must-read.

SCALIA'S LATEST QUACK-UP. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia is a disgrace. You already knew that. But his latest, which resulted in a federal marshal confiscating a tape from one reporter and deleting the memory from another's digital recorder, ought to make all of us shudder at his arrogance.

On Wednesday, Scalia spoke to a group of high-school students in Mississippi. Apparently Scalia has a longstanding policy against having his words recorded, and that policy never trickled down to two reporters.

The Washington Post's Charles Lane explains what happened next:

As Scalia was addressing an afternoon assembly at the Presbyterian Christian High School in Hattiesburg, Deputy U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube confronted the journalists and told them they must erase their recordings because they violated the justice's policy against audio- or videotaping of his public appearances.

After Associated Press reporter Denise Grones balked, the marshal took her digital recorder and erased its contents - after Grones explained how the machine worked. The marshal also asked Hattiesburg American reporter Antoinette Konz to hand over a cassette tape and returned it, erased, after the event.

What's particularly despicable is that the US Marshals Service is apparently trying to hang Rube out to dry. Lane quotes David Turner, a spokesman for the service, as saying, "Justice Scalia did not instruct the deputy to take that action." Farther down, though, Lane writes: "She had been instructed to enforce Scalia's policy during preparations for his visit, Turner added." (I'm assuming that Lane means David Turner; in between he introduces an Ed Turner, who is a spokesman for the Supreme Court.)

In other words, Scalia didn't want his words recorded, Rube well understood that she was supposed to make sure his wishes were followed, but Rube's superiors won't give her a pass for doing what she had clearly been instructed to do.

Scalia should personally and publicly apologize to Denise Grones and Antoinette Konz for his idiotic demands, which are in direct contravention of what we should expect in a free society. And he should apologize to Melanie Rube for putting her in an impossible situation.

WHY PEOPLE HATE THE MEDIA, PART CCXIV. Knight Ridder reports that CBS is trying to put together a show that would attempt to find abducted children. The show would take "viewers along on an emotional and life-changing ride, from the abduction to the search in all its intensity to the reunion of child and parents."

BRESLIN UNDER FIRE. Let's see, now. Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin quotes the Reverend Louis Sheldon, who heads some right-wing nut group called the Traditional Values Coalition, as having said hateful things about homosexuality. So far, so good.

But it turns out that the exchange between Breslin and Sheldon took place 12 years ago. And that Sheldon swears it never happened. And that Breslin doesn't have any notes. And that the one time Breslin wrote about it previously, the quotes weren't nearly as inflammatory.

Hmmm.

Romenesko's got all the links, so if you want to know more, just click here.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. The terrible images from Fallujah are destined to become icons of the war in Iraq. But what, exactly, are they trying to tell us? (The story's not quite up yet, but it should be here later this morning.)

Also, a Pulitzer about one war illuminates another.

MONITORING IRAQ. CNN's Aaron Brown told us all last night to read the Christian Science Monitor's coverage of the uprisings in Iraq. So I did. Very sharp, very calm analysis, quite different from the frightening reports on television and in most newspapers. Not that those are wrong, but the violence overwhelms the context.

Dan Murphy reports from Baghdad that support for the upstart Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr is wide but shallow. This is a point I've seen made elsewhere, but Murphy does an exceptionally good job of explaining it. Murphy writes:

Iraq's major Shiite political parties, like the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, are reluctant to stand up to Sadr's militants, afraid they could lose standing for siding too closely with the US.

They're hoping that the US will deal with Sadr's people for them, leaving them free to criticize the operation if public anger grows at the civilian, predominantly Shiite casualties in Baghdad's Sadr City, the holy city of Najaf, and the southern town of Nasariyah.

Murphy also offers a key observation that any influential Shiite leader who succeeded in surviving Saddam Hussein's depredations is almost by definition weak and compromised, writing:

The moderate Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, who stayed alive by avoiding controversy while many ayatollahs were killed by the Hussein regime, also has avoided any major statements.

No wonder Sistani has proved so frustrating for US and UN negotiators.

In addition to Murphy's piece, the Monitor's Ann Scott Tyson analyzes the difficulty of the mission now facing US troops.

Thank you, Aaron.

WHEN METAPHOR BECOMES REALITY

There must be a temptation, when confronted with the Dantesque scenes from Fallujah, to surrender to something like existential despair. The mob could have cooked and eaten its victims without making things very much worse.

- Christopher Hitchens, writing in the Wall Street Journal, April 2

We are united. Saddam Hussein committed injustices against us for 35 years. It is impossible that we let America do the same. We will kill them with knives. We will eat them.

- Mohammed Ali Hussein, quoted in today's Boston Globe

HORSING AROUND. Back in 1994, when Mitt Romney was running against Senator Ted Kennedy, then-governor Bill Weld called Romney something like a very impressive piece of political horse flesh (sorry, can't find the exact quote).

Boston Herald business columnist Cosmo Macero Jr. today demonstrates (sub. req.) that Romney is more of a show horse than a work horse. He reports that Romney has been blowing off "Jobs for Massachusetts," an economic roundtable of high-powered business executives and community leaders, which was the incubator for such job-growth initiatives as the mid-'90s tax breaks for Raytheon and Fidelity. (Note: Media Log is not endorsing those gifts, especially the one for Raytheon.)

Macero writes:

Five fiscal quarters into Republican Romney's jobless administration, the only people more frustrated than his political rivals are the business-community supporters who hailed his 2002 victory over Democrat Shannon O'Brien.

"The idea of running around the country chasing jobs ... I'm not sure that's the right strategy," says John Regan, a Republican, who is vice president of legislative policy for the Associated Industries of Massachusetts.

The Bay State has shed 60,000 jobs on Romney's watch.

Nor does Macero let Romney off the hook for posturing on such issues as gay marriage and auto-insurance rates rather than rolling up his sleeves and doing the hard work of economic development.

Romney's not just losing people. He's losing those who should be his strongest supporters.

BUSH FIGHTS OFF THE LYING LIARS. Democratic political consultant Michael Goldman, in his Lowell Sun column, offers a long and impressive list of Bush critics who've been denounced by the White House as liars.

They range from former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill and former counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke to Gwen Rigell, the principal of the Florida school where Bush was reading to children when the 9/11 planes hit, who says the president couldn't have seen the attacks, as he has claimed, because there was no television set in the classroom.

Goldman writes:

Is there a point at which President Bush has to look in a mirror and admit to himself that a list of people this diverse, whose previous accomplishments were so exceptional that each and every one had individually earned the right and the honor of serving a United States president, may, in fact, not all be liars or malcontents, or disloyal?

I think the answer is yes.

Ooh! Goldman must be French.

THE JANEANE AND BARRY SHOW. Here's how I get my Air America. I click on the website, and get the audio stream running. Then I start up a little freebie program called WireTap, which captures the stream and saves it as an AIFF file. After about an hour, I shut it down and save the file. Then I copy it to iTunes, convert the AIFF file to AAC, and move it to my iPod. Finally I use an attachment called the iTrip so that I can play the iPod through my car radio.

If you're thinking this is no way to reach ordinary listeners - the sort that might possibly be weaned away from right-wing talk radio - well, you're right. But if you live in Boston, you don't have much choice.

My convoluted work-around did enable me to catch about 45 minutes of Janeane Garofalo's Majority Report last night. (I listened while driving to work this morning.) Her co-host was old friend Barry Crimmins, and their guest was Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, host of a popular left-leaning weblog called the Daily Kos. The Kos stepped in it last week when he wrote this about the deaths of the four private security workers in Fallujah:

I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

Zuniga fessed up to coming across as "an insensitive jerk," but Garofalo and Crimmins were having none of that, insisting he had nothing to apologize for. (Barry also worked in a plug for Al Giordano, who'd written a post to that effect.) I don't think we've tuned in Rush Limbaugh today, Toto.

Garofalo has a nice sense of pacing - better than Al Franken, based on my limited listening so far. She's obviously very smart, and she asks good questions. I would have liked to hear more from Crimmins, but Garofalo did most of the talking. On the other hand, this is only the second time I've heard The Majority Report, and I'm already getting tired of her constant reference to "new-metal conservatives," her term for latter-day right-wing extremists. It was cute the first time, okay the second time, but now ...

A couple of observations. One is that Garofalo and Crimmins have both had long careers in comedy, yet neither made much of any attempt to be funny. I'm sure it's not easy - this is the Bush White House we're talking about, after all. But the whole question about Air America is whether it can balance its righteousness with enough entertainment to attract, you know, listeners. I don't have any suggestions except to point out the obvious: they've got to figure this out.

My other observation is how weird it is to listen to a talk-radio show that is this far to the left. I've become so inured to right-wing talk that Rush could deliver an ode to Franco, Bill O'Reilly could demand war against France, and Sean Hannity could insist that John Kerry is a traitor, and it would pretty much blow past me. But to hear talk-show hosts who are to the left of my muddled liberalism is startling, though refreshing after a while.

It just shows how our expectations of what a radio talk show is supposed to sound like have been shaped by the rather ugly status quo.

COMATOSE ON THE RANGE. The New York Times today reports that the Disney board is pondering how much authority to exercise over Michael Eisner, who's still running the company despite losing the title of chairman following a recent shareholders' revolt.

May I suggest that the board take a field trip to the local multiplex and catch Disney's latest, Home on the Range. I took my daughter, Becky, to see it yesterday. Now, granted, I haven't seen every one of them, but I think this might be the worst animated feature Disney has ever made. It is plotless and charmless. The animation is atrocious. Mercifully, it is only an hour and 16 minutes long, which meant that I only looked at my watch 30 or 40 times.

The reviews are not as bad as I would have thought, and Becky liked it. So maybe it was just me. My guess, though, is that this is not going to be a box-office sensation.

HERALD NOTES. Given all the uncertainty pervading the newly sensationalized Boston Herald these days, it's encouraging to see that there's at least some commitment to covering important stories. Today, Thomas Caywood weighs in with the first of a two-parter on the renewed heroin epidemic.

And here's a good companion piece: a front-page Boston Globe article by Stephen Smith on how Governor Mitt Romney's cuts in drug-treatment programs have endangered $9 million in federal aid.

Meanwhile, a few folks at the Herald are reacting publicly to my piece in this week's Phoenix on the Herald versus the Globe, and whether the Herald can maintain relevance against its much-larger rival.

At Jim Romenesko's media-news site, Herald staffer and union official Tom Mashberg lambastes me for "attempting to assess changes at the Herald based on about a month of Herald experimentation" (scroll down a bit). Business reporter Jay Fitzgerald, on his widely read "Hub Blog," endorses Mashberg's comments. And business columnist Cosmo Macero Jr., on his cosmomacero.com site, writes that I've "basically declared war" on the Herald.

To which I'll offer a couple of responses.

-- The month-long experiment to which Mashberg refers is, from where I'm sitting, approaching a year old. The Herald has been moving increasingly toward sensationalism ever since former editor Ken Chandler was brought back as a consultant last spring. The continued presence of editor Andy Costello served as a counterbalance, a guarantor that Chandler wouldn't get too out of hand in making the Herald look more and more like his previous paper, the New York Post. Costello's removal more than a month ago did not mark the beginning of a new experiment, but the acceleration of an experiment that was already under way.

-- Except for a few people who've left, the Herald staff is the same one that has been producing good work for years. I've heard, through private e-mails and conversations, that in some circles my article has been interpreted as an attack on the staff. That's ridiculous. If anything, my reporting reflected the frustration of good staff members who worry that they will no longer be taken seriously.

A JAY SEVERIN FAN CHECKS IN. Christopher Connolly e-mails:

I just read your article from the 6th, while searching for Jay Severin on the 'net. Don't get your knickers in a bunch over Jay using the word 'wetback'. Does he use the word frequently when describing the country's apathy towards its undefended boarders [sic]? Yes. Is the use of the word offensive? Probably. Is it illegal to use the word? No. Would he be considered 'unprofessional' for using this word? No. Is he a racist? No. Should he be reprimanded for using the word? Definitely not.

First off, his show is called Extreme Games. It is not for everyone, especially those who (ie, YOU) cringe when people use words or think outside of the 'PC Dictionary'. I have a problem w/ accusers who use language as a sword against someone's opinion. Comparing Jay's use of the word wetback to Callahan's ridiculous comments while on WEEI is a poor example. Today's society and media don't seem to mind the cowards who easily call other people racists. You fall into this category.

I believe Jay is using the word for at least a couple of reasons. You have to look at Jay's 'M.O.' for using the word wetback. Apparently most of the nation incorrectly assumes that illegal aliens are not a problem to the security of our nation. In doing so, our media has been using 'flabby words', ie, words w/o substance to truly describe illegal aliens coming out of Mexico. One must have his head buried in the sand if one assumes all of these people are 'decent poor Mexicans' looking for work, and the 'American Dream'. These people are breaking the law. Why should we or the media sympathize w/ them? Jay's use of the word wetback may shock and remind us of why we shouldn't give them a pass, and why we should work to get our gov't to protect our boarders [sic]. He's calling bullshit on the media's poor assessment/opinion of this problem, and reminding us of the current and future consequences of the sad state of our boarder [sic] protection. (I won't bore you w/ the truth on how it's hurt our country already. My email is already getting long enough).

Wetback is the perfect word to describe our illegal immigration problem, and is not a racist word. It addresses the illegality of these people, and the means of breaking into this country. Does Jay have a problem w/ Mexicans applying for VISAS to enter this country legally? Of course not. Does Jay have a problem w/ Hispanics or Hispanic-Americans? No. Does he applaud hard-working, tax-paying, legal Hispanic-Americans who speak English. Yes.

So, to wrap up this email, it's obvious you don't agree w/ Jay on many political topics, which is fine. Calling him a racist for using the word wetback is wrong. It's easy to take pot-shots at a very articulate, bright person, isn't it? It's no wonder he's as successfully as he is, and a giant in his field. You, on the other hand, are the flea on that giant's ass.

No need to respond at length; Connolly reveals himself. However, he completely glosses over what I actually reported in the post that he mentions (which ran on February 5, not the 6th), which is that every dictionary you can find describes the word wetback as either "offensive" or "taboo." If you do a search for the N-word, you will find the same thing.

In other words, wetback is not racist because I say so, but because it has been deemed as such by the culture-at-large, as reflected in the most widely used dictionaries. If Severin (and Connolly) choose to stand apart from that, that's their right. And if I call their use of the word "racist," that's not only my right - it's also the truth.

WOLF BLITZER'S BAD TWO WEEKS. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and the Incomparable Bob Somerby are ganging up on CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Not that Blitzer doesn't deserve it. Blitzer - normally about as controversial as vanilla ice cream - was caught red-handed passing along some ugly, anonymous White House spin about former counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke.

Let's start with the transcript of Wolf Blitzer Reports from March 24. In an exchange with CNN's White House correspondent, John King, Blitzer asserted:

Well, John, I get the sense not only what Dr. Rice just said to you and other reporters at the White House, but what administration officials have been saying since the weekend, basically that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well, that they don't know what made this guy come forward and make these accusations against the president.

Is that the sense that you're getting, speaking to a wide range of officials?

King's response indicates that he was at least partly appalled. Watch as he tries to get out from under the weird aspects of Blitzer's questioning:

None of the senior officials I have spoken to here talked about Mr. Clarke's personal life in any way. But they offer a very mixed picture. They say that he was a very dedicated, a very smart member of the senior White House staff, that he was held over because of his expertise in the Clinton administration on terrorism issues and the Bush administration, these officials say, wanted a smooth transition.

They also say, and many top Clinton administration officials support this, that Richard Clarke could be irritable. He could sometimes get angry at those who did not agree with him. That is an opinion shared in both administrations. And, in the end, of course, he did not get the No. 2 job at the Department of Homeland Security and he decided to move on.

Next up: Krugman. In his Times column this past Tuesday, Krugman included Blitzer in a wide-ranging roundup of Bush-administration smear tactics, writing:

But other journalists apparently remain ready to be used. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr. Clarke "wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well."

This administration's reliance on smear tactics is unprecedented in modern U.S. politics - even compared with Nixon's. Even more disturbing is its readiness to abuse power - to use its control of the government to intimidate potential critics.

On Wednesday, Somerby incomparably skewered Blitzer's pathetic attempt to defend himself against Krugman's charge that he was used. Yesterday, Somerby was back, showing how Blitzer's idiocy had its roots in an interview he conducted with Republican Party spokesman Jim Wilkinson on March 22, when Wilkinson lied to Blitzer's face about Clarke and Blitzer didn't have the wit or the guts to take him on.

Today Krugman is back, putting a punctuation mark on the whole matter. He writes:

Stung by my column, Mr. Blitzer sought to justify his words, saying that his statement was actually a question, and also saying that "I was not referring to anything charged by so-called unnamed White House officials as alleged today." Silly me: I "alleged" that Mr. Blitzer said something because he actually said it, and described "so-called unnamed" officials as unnamed because he didn't name them.

To put it mildly, there is no excuse for Blitzer's laying down and then attempting to justify his asleep-at-the-wheel act. Any members of the national media who were still laboring under the misapprehension that they could get a straight answer out of this White House should have at least figured it out by last September, when Dick Cheney went on Meet the Press and flat-out lied to Tim Russert about (among other things) whether he still receives money from Halliburton. Russert was notably more energetic when he interviewed the president on February 8; the result, predictably, was a disaster for George W. Bush.

The White House couldn't have made it any clearer that lies and personal attacks will be crucial weapons in its campaign arsenal this year. If Wolf Blitzer isn't prepared, well, let him host a cooking show or something. It's war out there.

RON CREWS, HATE-MONGER. David Guarino reports in today's Boston Herald that a lesbian foster mother is being investigated for allegedly raping a 15-year-old girl in her custody. Sadly, stories about foster parents sexually abusing their charges are hardly unusual. But get this:

"It appears that children in homosexual relationships are not as safe," said Ron Crews of the Massachusetts Coalition for Marriage. "Homosexual relationships are less safe."

Will Archbishop Seán O'Malley distance himself from his sleazy political partner? You can be sure he won't.

BANNED IN NIGERIA. The so-called reform government of Nigeria has banned live BBC reports from its airwaves. This story on the BBC website doesn't do it justice - this morning I heard a report on the BBC World Service (broadcast locally by WBUR Radio, 90.9 FM) that featured an Orwellian interview with a Nigerian official, based in London, as to how live foreign newscasts could endanger national security.

MAKING SENSE OF FALLUJA. News Dissector Danny Schechter's indispensable weblog is the place to go this morning for a media roundup of the horror in Falluja yesterday. He writes:

Here, the US government is caught in a trap of its own making: it is in too deep to leave and has no real exit strategy because officials know how unprepared the Iraqis in the US-appointed Governing Council are to run things.

Meanwhile, the English-language website of the Arab news organization Al-Jazeera is curiously subdued on the attacks. The incident barely rates a tease on the home page, and the Falluja killings and mutilations are relegated to the second item in a roundup.

Interesting news judgment, given how obsessively Al-Jazeera lingered over images of death and dismemberment during the war last year.

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby picked a bad day to say how great things are going in Iraq.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. Boston's dueling dailies, the Globe and the Herald, have entered a new phase of their long rivalry - one that threatens to consign the Herald to irrelevance.

Also, why can't you buy the anti-war documentary Uncovered at Wal-Mart?