The Dish

Poulos makes good points:

Flag lapel pins should not be mandatory for US politicians. They should not be mandatory for anyone. They should not be the product of social pressure. They should not be understood to reflect on anyone’s resolution to care more, or call upon the public to acknowledge how much more they appear to care. There is nothing wrong with a flag lapel pin, although I would not wear one regularly unless I were in the flag lapel pin manufacturing business. But we have got to make ourselves admit that the lapel pin is a tacky little thing that is only ennobled by the flag put on it, and that the more patriotic work you want the flag to do, the more the flag is actually diminished by its puny size and the cheapness of the tin it’s pressed upon.

Anyone who remembers the Seinfeld ribbon episode knows what he means. I have never worn a red ribbon. Some things you really don’t have to wear on your sleeve.

Ben Stein’s next movie:

(Hat tip: Radley)

The Economist offers a brief summary of the raising grain prices, while Philip Carter speculates on the coming water wars.

Police officers guard a cordon around houses in Comb Paddock in Westbury on Trym where a 19-year-old man was arrested under the Terrorism Act on April 18 2008 in Bristol, England. Avon and Somerset Police arrested the man after a covert operation and then undertook a controlled explosion after the raid on the suspect’s home. Neighbours were evacuated and the man is being questioned at an undisclosed police station. By Matt Cardy/Getty Images.

Judah Grunstein considers the conflict in Iraq between freedom of the press and having a successful occupation of a defeated country. There is no easy way out of this conundrum in this new media era. Winning wars has historically meant controlling information in occupied areas, engaging in propaganda where necessary, and crafting a message to help counter-insurgency. But when you "liberate" a country in the modern media age, these things become impossible. And when you are fighting a war for democracy, it becomes harder and harder to justify repressing the press in order to free it.

By the way, AP’s Bilal Hussein is now free. Michelle Malkin called him a terrorist-sympathizer and enabler. Since his release, she has been uncharacteristically quiet. Can she provide the evidence she has for her claims that an AP journalist is an insurgent or direct us to the military sources who fed them to her? Is it too much to ask for the blogosphere to actually hold itself accountable for claims like these? Or the Pentagon for that matter?

Gallup shows Obama’s lead decreasing.

A genome for a Franklin.

It’s part of the frustration on the part of his supporters and some scorn from the skeptics: in the debates and even in his advertizing, Obama doesn’t seem to have a killer instinct. In the last debate, for example, on the one issue where he was all but invited to pile on in criticizing Clinton, on her Bosnia lies, he actually defended her. Clinton was not so restrained, in the same position. One viewer’s take:

I asked my 82 year old mother, who hates politics with a passion because it is so negative, what she thought about the debate.  She said "Well, he’s being a gentleman, of course.  Thank goodness, that is why I will vote for him."  She then said "It’s about time someone behaved properly."  She then also asked me why I was making her watch the coverage.  "You know this is why I hate politics, I’m going to go play mahjong on the computer."

I just hope he doesn’t go negative with McCain. A key to his appeal is his positive reason, which would be revealed as mere cunning if it did not apply to running against Republicans as well.

Publius restages the Lincoln-Douglas debates with Stephanopoulos and Gibson as moderators. A snippet:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sorry to interrupt, but do you think Mr. Douglas loves America as much you do?

LINCOLN: Sure I do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But who loves America more?

LINCOLN: I’d prefer to get on with my opening statement George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If your love for America were eight apples, how many apples would Senator Douglas’s love be?

"Hillary, I know what to expect from her, which is eight horrible years, but I’m not so sure she’s still a Leninist. Her husband has made so much money in so many different capitalist ways that I actually think they’ve matured and become good Americans. [laughs] No, there’s a paradoxical statement I’ve just made. In other words, I think the Clintons probably started out as far-leftist characters in their early years, but they’ve been around so long in the power structure and now, finally, they’ve been allowed to make so much money and they’ve circulated with the rich for so long that I think she’s a safe bet. In fact, there’s an argument to be made that she might be a safer bet than McCain in that regard," – far right talk show host, Michael Savage.