Whether bloggers know it or not, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting is the grandfather of most of the progressive blogosphere. FAIR, which was founded in 1986, was the first place to do progressive media criticism in a sustained, systematic way. Their influence has been enormous—so much so that it’s often hard to see, like a movie that changed movies afterwards so much that when you finally see the original, you can’t tell what the big deal was.

So it’s great that FAIR now has a blog of its own. I urge you to visit early and often.

In related news, John Caruso has examined FAIR’s coverage of Ralph Nader’s presidential campaign in 2000, 2004, and 2008. Let’s see how those guys like rational, relentlessly fact-based critique NOW!!!

A story that did not ring true turns out not to be.

As for the previous entry in this category — I haven’t listened to every minute of Limbaugh and Hannity since the story about Michelle Obama turned out to be a fake, but if they’ve mentioned it since then, I haven’t heard it.

This is from Alan Greenspan’s testimony today (pdf) in front of the House Oversight Committee:

Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief.

Hank Paulson then responded that the bailout may be the “beginning of a beautiful friendship” between himself and Greenspan.

Something you might want to do if you’re free Sunday evening:

David Rees will present a comprehensive history of the War on Terror (in 40
minutes or less GUARANTEED or your second pizza is free) using only clip-art cartoons.

Matt Taibbi will read something that will make David Rees look like
William F. Buckley.

Rees and Taibbi on the same bill sounds like an evening not to be missed.

Rare poster auctions end tonight. (Here and here.)

My take on the topic from 2002. (Watch for a sequel of sorts next week!)

A few years back, I was on a road trip with my wife, and somehow, probably from some junk shop along the way, we ended up with the audiobook version of Valley of the Dolls, the classic trashy novel about the lives of the rich and unhappy. After the third or fourth lengthy description of wealthy people enjoying caviar and champagne, I commented that the book was not intended to be about the lives of the wealthy, but rather, about the lives of the wealthy as imagined by the trailer park set: they spend all their time drinking champagne! And eating caviar! (Which brings to mind something I was once told by a prominent contributer to Vanity Fair — that it’s not a magazine aimed at the upper class, it’s a magazine for the middle class to buy believing they are reading a magazine aimed at the upper class. But I digress.)

Anyway, for the past couple of days, I’ve been listening to Sean Hannity ranting about the New York Post’s report that Michelle Obama stayed at the Waldorf and ordered lobster and, yes, champagne and caviar. (Though not just caviar — Iranian caviar!) It didn’t ring remotely true, and as it turns out, it was not:

The source who told us last week about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviar delivered to her room at the Waldorf-Astoria must have been under the influence of a mind-altering drug. She was not even staying at the Waldorf. We regret the mistake, and our former source is going to regret it, too. Bread and water would be too good for such disinformation.

On a related note: the RNC has apparently spent $150K on Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

Great minds thinking alike: the cover of this week’s New Yorker …

And my SPX poster from last month.

By the way: if the site seems to be running slow and occasionally disappearing, it’s because it is. Some kind of tech issue with the hosting company.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wants to U.S. to stay in Iraq for some time, because we keep him in power. But Iraqis want us to get the hell out as soon as possible, and certainly don’t want U.S. soldiers to go around killing people with impunity. And the Iraqi government is somewhat vulnerable to public pressure—in fact, seemingly more than the U.S. government. How can al-Maliki square this circle?

The draft U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement is now available from the American Friends Service Committee in a translation by Raed Jarrar (pdf) from the Arabic version. It shows how al-Maliki is trying to do it.

First of all, “U.S. forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territories no later than December 31st, 2011.” However, “the Iraqi government is permitted to ask the U.S. government to keep specific forces for the purposes of training and support of the Iraqi security forces…Or, the Iraqi government might ask for an extension [before troops are withdrawn].” (Article Twenty-Five, page 14) So the deadline has no teeth, and the SOFA is already looking forward to U.S. troops staying there even after the “withdrawal.”

Secondly, al-Maliki has been trumpeting his opposition to immunity for U.S. troops, and claims this agreement doesn’t provide that. But let’s look at the fine print (in Article Twelve, pages 7-8). To start with:

U.S. has the primary legal jurisdiction over U.S. armed forces members and civilian members concerning issues that occur inside the installations and areas agreed upon, and while they are on duty outside the installations.

Iraq is in charge only under extremely limited circumstances:

Iraq has the primary legal jurisdiction over armed forces members and civilian members in cases of major and intentional crimes…that takes place outside areas and installations agreed upon while troops are off duty.

Moreover, any U.S. personnel arrested under these extremely limited circumstances will be held by the U.S.:

All members of U.S. armed forces or civilian members must be handed over to the U.S. as soon as they are arrested by the Iraqi authorities. When Iraq is exercising its legal jurisdictio…the U.S. authorities shall manage the tasks of detention of U.S. armed forces or civilian contractors.

And who decides whether these extremely limited circumstances apply? That would be the U.S.:

The U.S. authorities [will] submit, in accordance to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, a declaration explaining whether the alleged crime occurred while suspects where off duty or on duty. In case the Iraqi authorities think the conditions require such a decision to be reviewed or change…the U.S. authorities takes into consideration all the conditions, events and any other information submitted by the Iraqi authorities that might have an effect on changing the U.S. authorities decision.

Will this teeny-tiny figleaf be enough to get the Iraqi parliament and Iraqis generally to submit to the SOFA agreement? Probably not. According to Al-Hayat, even ISCI, part of al-Maliki’s main bloc of support in the Iraqi parliament, has serious reservations.

ALSO: Note that the SOFA has been published in an Iraqi newspaper, but not in any American ones. So not only is the Iraqi legislative branch more independent than ours, their media is too.

From a reader:

Hi Mr. Tomorrow,

I bought your book, mostly just to support you though because I thought I could read all your work on line for free. But after oh, 2 pages, I realized there was a *lot* of your work I hadn’t seen. And your book runs faster than a web page (even on a screamingly fast system like mine).

Please consider pointing out that buying your book is quite a bit different from, say, printing out out Salon.com pages: it’s far better. I would have missed out on that if I wasn’t so susceptible to online pleas from my favourite bloggers.

Duly noted.