Brave new world. Down the left side of A1 today, these dispatches from the front:

On the Afghanistan border, we're the new British:

Using a harsh century-old British method, [Pakistani] officials handed local tribal elders a list and issued an ultimatum. If 72 men wanted for sheltering Al Qaeda were not produced, they said, the Pakistani Army would punish the tribe as a group, demolishing houses, withdrawing funds and even detaining tribe members.

The article goes on to make it in-not-so-many-words clear, as if that were needed, that the Pakistanis are acting as our proxies in this enlightened collective-punishment regime.

Meanwhile, in that beacon of peace and freedom, the New Iraq^TM, we're the new Mukhabarat:

Iraqi authorities, with the help of American intelligence agencies, are creating an intelligence service here that will focus on rooting out guerrilla fighters, especially those from outside the country, Iraqi and American officials said Friday. The service will employ some former agents of Saddam Hussein's security apparatus and will probably receive financing from the American government, the officials said.

No doubt genetically remembering its post-WWII version of sleeping with the enemy, the CIA "is taking the lead in helping put together the new service ... The C.I.A. has close ties to the Iraqi National Accord, an opposition group founded by former Baath Party members who worked from London and Jordan to try to overthrow Mr. Hussein's government."

Shorter CPA: I do believe in spooks ...I do, I do, I do ...

posted by michael  4:48:16 PM  
tell me about it []  

 

A1 goes oppo? John Edwards gets a double whammy today: his piece of Justice and Tierney's article (below), and right under that on A1 a lengthy review ("In Trial Work, Edwards Left a Trademark") of his trial-lawyering, with emphasis on obstetrics malpractice cases. No doubt some people are going to read this AdamLiptak/Michael Moss piece as an up-the-gut straight out of the Karl Rove playbook, but—with a significant exception—I think it's an even-handed treatment, and certainly (especially in a candidate with such a limited public career) Edwards' professional performance is of genuine interest and merits coverage.

Liptak and Moss do kind of stretch a point, tying Edwards' work in cases of fetal injury (some 20 lawsuits in a decade) to the larger social dimension:

The effect of his work has reached beyond [his own] cases, and beyond his own income. Other lawyers have filed countless similar cases; just this week, a jury on Long Island returned a $112 million award. And doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate Caesarean.

This language about "the effect of his work" implies—what the article fails to support and what can hardly be true—that Edwards' work in particular is somehow at the forefront of a trend in legal and medical practice, as opposed to being simply part of it. Sloppy writing, I think, rather than intent. But there's obviously a real dispute over the uses of fetal heart-rate monitoring (which is at the core of the cases Liptak and Moss examine) and a real impact that lawsuits focusing on the practice have had on obstetric care, and it's legitimate to want to put this aspect of Edwards' legal career in that context. And Liptak and Moss earn fairness points by noting where criticism of personal-injury lawyers tends to come from:

On the other side, insurance companies, business groups that support what they call tort reform and conservative commentators have accused Mr. Edwards of relying on questionable science in his trial work.

It's rare to find reporters writing on this subject who do what Liptak and Moss do here, correctly bracketing the term "tort reform" instead of using it without comment as a neutral term of policy art.

One substantial unfairness in the article, however, really ought to have been corrected. Referring to the effect of Edwards' increasing success in his litigation, we learn that

over time, Mr. Edwards became quite selective about cases. Liability had to be clear, his competitors and opponents say, and the potential award had to be large.

"He took only those cases that were catastrophic, that would really capture a jury's imagination," [Dewey] Wells, a defense lawyer [who litigated against Edwards], said. "He paints himself as a person who was serving the interests of the downtrodden, the widows and the little children. Actually, he was after the cases with the highest verdict potential. John would probably admit that on cross-examination."

The implication of venality is unearned here. Mr. Wells may have special insight into the workings of John Edwards' mind, but what would it have cost the Times to ask Edwards himself what he might or might not "admit" about his motives in developing his practice? Especially when Liptak and Moss nod back to the criticism at the article's conclusion, when they in effect endorse the contention that "the biggest losers in litigation over brain-damaged babies are the parents of children whose cases are rejected by lawyers." Looks like I have to take back those fairness points after all.

posted by michael  4:12:12 PM  
tell me about it []  

 

And may God help you if that thing carried the Spice Channel. Nice to know that the chip in my head is communicating five-by with the Times spy satellite (in the orbit formerly occupied by the Major League Baseball satellite that spied on Bart Simpson). Yesterday I pointed out that Democratic Presidential candidates could hardly fail to be creatures of the policy-industrial complex they criticize from the stump; today, Glen Justice and John Tierney bust out the research ("Democrats Assail, and Tap, 'Special Interests'").

And good for them. Much as I want to see Bush drag his ass back to Crawford in November, I don't intend to judge Times coverage of the 2004 election by the degree to which it gives aid and comfort to the cause: I'm looking for a critical press, not a Democratic one. The populist pitch sells; it may even be offered uncynically, in one or another degree, by the various Dems; but it gives me at least mild indigestion to watch rich guys sing "power to the people" up and down the hustings and then play the access game once they're off the bandstand. I realize that there's a logic all but requiring this kind of charade where Democrats are concerned, but I don't expect the press to give politicans of any stripe a pass for hypocrisy just because circumstances might force it on them.

I do have to ding Justice and Tierney for one unnecessary piece of snark, though:

Mr. Edwards tells audiences, "I've never taken a dime from a Washington lobbyist and I never will." That might be literally true—not many lobbyists give dimes these days [emphasis added]—but Mr. Edwards has accepted at least a few contributions from current and former lobbyists, and his campaign manager was a registered Washington lobbyist in 2002.

Come on. I've given up hope that editors at the Times will rein in this kind of snottiness: the limits of decorum are wide open when it comes to Democrats. Besides, Edwards' statement is actually weaselling in a different direction—the campaign, it turns out, won't accept contributions from anybody registered as a lobbyist at the time they offer a donation. For some reason the reporters don't really nail the point until the end of the piece, when they quote John Podesta calling the policy "a gimmick." "But it's a gimmick that points out something important," Podesta adds, "the flow of special interest to the Bush campaign and the special favors they receive. Edwards has found a gimmick to highlight that."

Go on, John, work that spin. But I'll hope, however naively, that the Times takes it to heart anyway: hey guys, plan on highlighting Bush's money nexus any time soon? I'll be counting the days ...

posted by michael  3:02:22 PM  
tell me about it []