According to the New York Times:

Those briefed on the company’s review of the operation say detectives tried to plant software on at least one journalist’s computer that would enable messages to be traced, and also followed directors and possibly a journalist in an attempt to identify a leaker on the board.

I don’t tend to take the Times at face value because they’ve been so spectacularly wrong on their front page regarding matters of life and death. Look up the stories from the Times by Judith Miller (either credited to her alone or working with her colleagues at the Times) regarding the rationale for invading and occupying Iraq (even referred to by Vice President Cheney in a Sunday morning political chat show). Then compare her leaving of her own accord to how the Times treated Jayson Blair before Miller’s lies became common knowledge; Blair being another lying Times reporter whose articles focused on matters of far less significance. Whether viewed as an ugly pattern of poor peer review or cooperating with leaders whose feet should have been held to the fire, the Times isn’t a paper to be trusted.

I think Alexander Cockburn’s article from August 18, 2003, co-proprietor of Counterpunch.org said it well:

We don’t have full 20/20 hindsight yet, but we do know for certain that all the sensational disclosures in Miller’s major stories between late 2001 and early summer, 2003, promoted disingenuous lies. There were no secret biolabs under Saddam’s palaces; no nuclear factories across Iraq secretly working at full tilt. A huge percentage of what Miller wrote was garbage, garbage that powered the Bush administration’s propaganda drive towards invasion.

What does that make Miller? She was a witting cheer-leader for war. She knew what she was doing.

And what does Miller’s performance make the New York Times? Didn’t any senior editors at the New York Times or even the boss, A.O. Sulzberger, ask themselves whether it was appropriate to have a trio of Times reporters touting their book Germs on tv and radio, while simultaneously running stories in the New York Times headlining the risks of biowar and thus creating just the sort of public alarm beneficial to the sales of their book. Isn’t that the sort of conflict of interest prosecutors have been hounding Wall Street punters for?

Hence, I wonder if the Times is lying to us again or if this news about HP is so.

Inter Press Service reports

More than 43 million children living in conflict-affected countries are not able to attend school, according to a new report released Tuesday by the International Save the Children Alliance, which called on donor countries and multilateral agencies to commit 5.8 billion dollars a year to address the problem.

Relatedly, CommonDreams.org carries this essay on universal health care in California and Gov. Schwartenegger’s unwillingness to sign it into law

You generally figure a thirteen point poll deficit will set a campaign looking to scare up a little excitement out on the hustings. So when California Senator Sheila Kuehl delivered Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides’ trailing campaign a hot issue, in the form of universal health insurance bill that has everything but a governor willing to sign it into law, a lot of people might have thought he’d grab at it. But so far he’s acted like it’s too hot an issue for him.

So, what’s more important to you: a system where the wealthy get wealthier hoarding their money, or establishing a floor underneath people which defines a set of guaranteed benefits? At some point, situations cause you to take a long hard look at a system of wealth distribution that allows some to have more money than they’ll ever need to live a fruitful life while others die from lack of basic needs (one of which I’d say is education). Thus, the question is one of values. Will there ever be a way to justify placing a metaphorical floor underneath people—a way of saying “You will not have less than this because it’s unethical and because society can’t afford to not give you a chance to benefit the rest of us with your wisdom”?

LISnews reports that J.K. Rowling might have chosen not to fly home if she couldn’t take a copy of her latest Harry Potter book with her instead of trusting it to airline luggage handlers. You’ll forgive me if I have no pity when someone worth billions of dollars is mildly inconvenienced to the point where she chooses to find an alternate form of transport home.

Has she managed to find the time to distance herself from the comments where some of her readers were told they have no right to read? This still strikes me as a far more important issue.

Apparently the BBC can’t be bothered to name Sen. Clinton’s opponent, Jonathan Tasini, who was basically excluded from any real competition by colluding media opposition to Tasini’s campaign:

In New York, former First Lady Mrs Clinton trounced an anti-war candidate by an 83-17% margin for the chance to face Republican John Spencer in the mid-terms.

There’s a juicy story behind how Clinton won her primary, but apparently few repeat it. It’s no accident that Tasini’s opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq didn’t make the news and that New York 1, a cable television channel, set the barrier too high for anyone but Clinton to debate. As we’ve seen with Ralph Nader, no TV coverage means no real chance of winning an election no matter how hard it was to get on the ballot.

And there weren’t enough anti-war voters in New York to stop her from retaining her senate seat.

As the Democratic Party allegiance to multinational corporations continues we’ll soon get to see a bunch of self-styled “progressives” argue that voting for Clinton is better than the other corporate-funded pro-war hawk running against her (lesser evilism rearing its ugly head). When all the candidates people can stomach voting for are pro-war, the war is effectively off the table as a debating issue (except when used to delay talking about issues where the candidates differ). It becomes harder for progressives to argue that the country opposes the invasion and occupation of Iraq when even they can’t find the strength to vote anti-war. Progressives insist that the public is now against the war, but this election certainly didn’t reflect that (and Lieberman’s opponent is not really against the war). I don’t care about what the polls say about the country in between elections; apparently it’s too easy to tell a phone poller that one is not in favor of the war. If you want to say that the war is the most important issue on the table and show that you’re anti-war, vote anti-war.

Danny Katch, field coordinator, Hawkins for Senate, New York City in the Socialist Worker:

Many progressives will argue that supporting a third party is unrealistic, and that Ned Lamont’s primary victory is proof that they are “taking back” the Democratic Party. It looks more like it’s the Democratic Party that is once again taking them for a ride.

Progressives had better start asking themselves when they’ll gain the stomach to drop the “unrealistic” line and support anti-war candidates, or when they can get around to admitting that “progressive” is just another word for Democrat.