People on all sides of opinion seem to be going crazy over the amount of leaks coming out of the Obama Transition team, especially with regard to whether or not Senator Clinton will be nominated as Secretary of State. For example take this now over-extended entry at the Huffington Post, going through the various gyrations of what has been leaking to date.

We’ve heard it all, it’s a done deal, it’s not happening, the problem is Bill, Bill turned over all of his records, it’s yes, it’s no, and on and on we go.

I do think that this is pretty much as close to a done deal as can be had right now. Recall that this speculation, while feeling like a long time, has been going on now for about a week, with the actual vetting seeming to have taken place beginning around Tuesday of this week.

Indeed, there is now a “leak” that uses the exact same language being bandied about the media, seen here in the AP:

President-elect Barack Obama plans to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state after Thanksgiving, a new milestone for the former first lady and a convergence of two political forces who fought hard for the presidency.

The senior adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president-elect is not prepared to officially announce the nomination, said Obama believes Clinton would bring instant stature and credibility to U.S. diplomatic relations.

I also don’t think these leaks are coming entirely from the Clinton camp, or that she is trying to gain leverage, simply put she has none to gain. Senator Kennedy in a reversal from where he once stood along with the Democratic Senate Leadership are considering what leadership role she could play should she stay in the Senate. Obviously she has a decision to make, and she gains no leverage in either direction at this point, she needs to make a monumental and life defining choice, but hey let’s just hope she does it in 24 hours since Obama asked her, and how could she say no.

But what does this say about the once leak proof Obama campaign? Greg Sarget at TPM Election Central argues that it’s an issue of planned vs. unplanned leaks. While I think this is true, I still think it misses the point all together, which is these leaks don’t hurt anything.

Let’s imagine for a moment a government that didn’t have any leaks? I think that ideally we shouldn’t use unnamed sources, that conversations should be on the record, but the media climate and the rules of the game say otherwise, and often times leaks, whether unofficial or planned are an important part of how we get our news. To think that we should allow the Obama Transition and soon to be Administration to operate in a leak free world, and indeed be distressed when leaks are happening is to want to play a part in the game that we don’t play in the first place.

Leaks are fundamental to our free press, for better or worse at this point. There are good ones and bad ones, planned and unplanned, and even illegal, but without this information coming out, we’d be far worse, and further in the dark for what our government is planning. I trust Obama as President, but I like to know that there will always be leaks to know what’s going on.

In 2006, Human Rights Watch named Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft as three of the worst offenders of freedom of speech for their role in helping to censor Chinese internet content. Google.cn (Google in China) censors the Tank Man image from the 1989 Tiananmen Square protest from its search engine so that Chinese citizens searching for Tiananmen Square bring up fairly innocuous images and descriptions of Tiananmen Square and Microsoft has offered a blog tool that generates an error rejecting ˜profanity’ when a user includes the word ˜democracy’ in the title of a blog, according to Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Most deplorable has been Yahoo!’s compliance with the Chinese government in implicating several Chinese journalists for their participation in either voicing online dissent or using the internet as a means of communicating to people outside the country about the conditions they find wanting.

The study of international politics often leaves little reason to have faith in international norms and principles ”international norms and principles like the Declaration of Human Rights and the Kyoto Protocol which have a relatively weak ability to coerce signatory countries to uphold their agreements and to create real costs for nonsignatory countries to remain outside the bandwagon of signatory states. Privacy principles, established under the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) in 1980, fail to be upheld in the modern-day, by the governments of member countries because the OECD guidelines, while well-meaning, are constructed too broadly and vaguely for there to be a clear demarcation between violating those principles and carrying out those principles while bearing other national interests in mind. And even if someone, like Human Rights Watch, could decry that a country conducting internet surveillance on its citizens was violating the OECD Privacy Guidelines, what would come of it? There exists no organ to enforce compliance with international standards like the OECD Privacy Principles.

Added to the problem of enforcement is the amorphous and quickly changing scope of cyber law, where privacy acts and precedents in communications and electronics regulations can be either ignored, discarded, or blurred because the internet is the new frontier of communications and technology, where new challenges and opportunities to interpret ”or misinterpret ”the law and prior norms abounds.

In light of all of international governance’s prior failures, I do acknowledge that in the absence of real enforcement mechanisms, the simple act of signing onto an international agreement may create reputational costs in an iterated game theory scenario that would induce a country to comply with norms and standards:

For example, if Country A were to default from an international standard that a group of other countries adhered to, Country A could be blackballed out of important trading deals that are important to its economy. Thus, there would be a strong economic incentive to stick with the agreement. This is generally how the World Trade Organization (WTO) is supposed to work. And in general, this method of using economic incentives to induce good behavior ”or democratization ”has been painted in the West as a success of neoliberalism.

But despite the iota of faith in international law that I have, I think that the strength and potential in neoliberalism lies not within the construct of international laws developed by state governments banding together in economic arrangements like the OECD or the WTO. The new frontier for international governance and the creation of new norms for good behavior, in my opinion, lies within multinational corporations. Multinational corporations span more publics than can traditional state governments and can infiltrate many more close-off societies than well-meaning non-profit humanitarian agencies that are barred access by authoritarian governments fearful of the private agendas that humanitarian agencies bring with them through the pervasive arm of market forces.

One project that I think holds particular promise is the principles project being developed under the advice of the Berkman Center of Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. By the end of 2007, several large corporations with stakes in cyber law and internet governance, including Google, Microsoft, Vodafone, and Yahoo! met with groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights in China, and Reporters Without Borders to discuss how to draft a framework intended to adjudicate the two interests that have been traditionally opposed ”generating profit and adhering to human rights.

The project is intended to follow the footsteps of Leon Sullivan, one of the fathers of the concept of corporate social responsibility who published the Sullivan Principles in 1977 to ensure nondiscrimination and the protection of human rights by companies.

Following the publication of the Sullivan Principles, the world saw a rise of corporations rising to the challenge of adopting the Sullivan Principles in the attempt to more clearly define their responsibilities to their stakeholders and their workers, and as companies bandwagoned to adopt these principles, it became a reputational cost for those companies that did not adopt the principles to be seen as legitimate by their shareholders.

I think that developing web principles is a step in the right direction for the amorphous state of internet governance. If enough major internet corporations go on board to adhere to principles that prohibit corporate complicity with internet censorship, deciding not to do business with closed information societies in China and other countries, it becomes clear that in the end, state governments will be the ones to buckle. Governments will not be able to afford the economic costs of having inferior technology and communications networks, and they will have to make significant concessions to the corporate ideologies of the companies providing technology and communications services.

This is the new frontier of internet governance ”governance by major corporations. But this is not a hegemonic rule of the Googles and the Microsofts, but governance scheme largely tempered by the democratic-minded markets which they serve. Most of the impetus for creating a principles framework came from the public backlash from stakeholders to Yahoo!’s and Google’s efforts to censor the internet in China. As human rights remains a significant concern for many stakeholders, it is clear that the market forces of neoliberalism will continue to give economic incentives for companies to adopt more socially responsible means of conducting business.

To start out the first post in a week (ahem, dropping the ball much?), I want to mention that tonight marks the end of an era. Today’s NYT reviews the series finale of Arrested Development, tonight at 8pm, on FOX. Like Aaron Sorkin’s Sportsnight before it, A.D. is an underappreciated cult favorite, a witty show unmatched on television today, but sadly cancelled before its time.

Until the show gets picked up on Showtime, or some other premium channel, i’ll have to entertain myself with the Bob Loblaw Law Blog (a reference from the show… say it aloud).

9 of 10 Iraqi Sunnis approve of attacks on US troops, and as well as half of all Iraqis.

It’s a good thing so much of the State of the Union, and so much of our national media, are devoted to understanding their outlook on our war, and ways to end it amicably and completely.

One of my great discoveries over break was that fifty-three Frontline reports are online.

These I watched over break and suggest:
The Persuaders

ANNOUNCER: It’s everywhere you look.
BOB GARFIELD, Columnist, Advertising Age: You cannot walk down the street without being bombarded.
ANNOUNCER: They call it a “clutter crisis.”
NAOMI KLEIN, Author, No Logo: Consumers are like roaches. You spray them and spray them, and after a while, it doesn’t work anymore. We develop immunities.
ANNOUNCER: And the multi-billion-dollar advertising industry is in a desperate struggle to break through.
JOHN HAYES, Chief Marketing Officer, American Express: We don’t just come forward with what we want to sell, we engage you with things that you want.
ANNOUNCER: Advertisers have blurred the line between programming and product.
SCOTT DONATON, Editor-in-Chief, Advertising Age: It’s advertising that people not only will tolerate but will actually go in search of.
ACTRESS: ["Sex and the City"] The way God and Madison Avenue intended.
ANNOUNCER: But how is advertising affecting our lives and the world around us?
MARK CRISPIN MILLER, New York University: Once a culture becomes entirely advertising-friendly, it ceases to be a culture at all.
ANNOUNCER: Tonight on FRONTLINE “
DOUGLAS RUSHKOFF, FRONTLINE Correspondent: “ask me this all the time. What about the environment?
ANNOUNCER: Correspondent Douglas Rushkoff takes you inside the changing world of The Persuaders.

Is Walmart Good for America?

ANNOUNCER: There’s never been a company like it.
Prof. GARY GEREFFI, Duke University: Wal-Mart is probably the broadest and most powerful company in U.S. business history.
ANNOUNCER: Its everyday low prices benefit millions of Americans.
BRUCE BARTLETT, National Center for Policy Analysis: Wal-Mart has really given an increase in income to every American.
ANNOUNCER: But some say it’s a bad bargain.
STEVE RATCLIFF: It’s putting people out of work, that’s what it’s doing.
ANNOUNCER: Tonight, correspondent Hedrick Smith investigates how Wal-Mart is changing the American economy “
HEDRICK SMITH, FRONTLINE Correspondent: The Chinese guys bought the big machine?
ANNOUNCER: “following the trail of low prices in America to low-cost production in China “
DONALD HAY, Entrepreneur: I said, “Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. The next one’s China. I got to get here.”
ANNOUNCER: “tracking the nation’s growing trade deficit “
YVONNE SMITH, Port of Long Beach: Wal-Mart’s our number one customer.
HEDRICK SMITH: Wal-Mart’s your number one customer?
YVONNE SMITH: Number one customer.
ANNOUNCER: “and examining the growing controversy over the Wal-Mart way.
ALAN TONELSON, U.S. Business & Industry Council: The lowest prices have to lead to the lowest wages and to job loss and to lower living standards.
ANNOUNCER: Tonight on FRONTLINE, Is Wal-Mart Good for America?

Secret History of the Credit Card

ANNOUNCER: Tonight on FRONTLINE: The average American family has eight.
JIM MUELLER: “Zero percent for life on transfer balances” ”
ANNOUNCER: Credit cards, plastic money, have become both a necessity and a ticket to a better life.
[television commercial]
ACTOR AND ACTRESS: Hawaii!
BEN STEIN, Actor/Author: A credit card is an extraordinary, unbelievably great convenience for the consumer.
ANNOUNCER: But the credit card industry plays by its own rules.
Prof. ELIZABETH WARREN, Harvard Law School: I don’t know any merchant in America who can change the price after you’ve bought the item, except a credit card company.
ANNOUNCER: Credit card banks earn record profits.
LOWELL BERGMAN, FRONTLINE Correspondent: MBNA’s profits last year ” one-and-a-half times that of McDonald’s.
EDWARD YINGLING, American Bankers Association: Well, McDonald’s didn’t do too well last year.
ANNOUNCER: But the profits come at a price.
ANDREW GUILE, Consumer: Now they’ve raised my rate to 19.98, and I have not been late ever.
PAT WALLACE, Bay Area Better Business Bureau: There are irritated, unhappy, dissatisfied customers in this industry.
Prof. ELIZABETH WARREN: They are the new loan sharks in America.
DUNCAN MacDONALD, Fmr. Citibank General Counsel: I certainly didn’t imagine that someday we might have ended up creating a Frankenstein.
LOWELL BERGMAN: Frankenstein? What do you mean, Frankenstein?
ANNOUNCER: Tonight, FRONTLINE correspondent Lowell Bergman and The New York Times investigate the secrets of your credit card
.

Karl Rove– The Architect

ANNOUNCER: Tonight on FRONTLINE: Karl Rove had a master plan.
MIKE ALLEN, The Washington Post: He was the architect. His hand was in all of it.
ANNOUNCER: It took 40 years, but he changed the political landscape.
POLITICAL OBSERVER: Karl Rove came to town with one goal, and that was this massive Republican realignment.
ANNOUNCER: How did he do it? And what does it mean for America?
POLITICAL OBSERVER: Karl Rove wants a permanent Republican majority.
POLITICAL OBSERVER: He’s the God inside the machine.
ANNOUNCER: Tonight, FRONTLINE and The Washington Post examine Karl Rove: The Architect.

The Torture Question

ANONYMOUS INTERVIEWEE: There was a lot of soldiers that had digital cameras at Abu Ghraib, and they would take pictures of literally everything that they would do.
ANNOUNCER: Tonight on FRONTLINE, the story about what really happened in cell block 1A.
Spc. ANTHONY LAGOURANIS, Interrogator, US Army, 2001-’05: Part of it is, they were trying to get information, but part of it is also just pure sadism.
ANONYMOUS INTERVIEWEE: They felt righteous in doing it, and that’s what made it really dangerous and diabolical.
ANNOUNCER: With exclusive interviews ”
ANONYMOUS INTERVIEWEE: And this escalated all the way to make them fear that rape could be performed on prisoners.
ANNOUNCER: ”and never before seen footage.
GI: [home video] We’re all mad! We’re all mad!
ANNOUNCER: How high did it reach?
Gen. JANIS KARPINSKI, Cmdr., 800th MP Brigade, 2003-’04: General Sanchez put his finger in Colonel Pappas’s chest and told him he wanted the information.
ANNOUNCER: And what does it reveal?
Gen. RICHARD MYERS, Joint Chiefs Chairman: We’ve dealt with that. If it was only the night shift at Abu Ghraib, it’s a pretty good clue that it wasn’t a more widespread problem.
Sen. JOHN McCAIN (R), Arizona: This isn’t about who they are, this is about who we are.
ANNOUNCER: Where else did it spread?
Spc. ANTHONY LAGOURANIS: It’s not at Abu Ghraib, it’s all over Iraq. The infantry units are torturing people in their homes.
ANNOUNCER: FRONTLINE exposes the dark secrets behind “The Torture Question.”

Comments have often lent life to the blogsphere. Blogs like DailyKos and TPMCafe allow everyone not just to comment, but to keep personal journals. Here at TwoDems, we currently do not have enough users perhaps to be greatly concerned about this, but there are often great debates whether to allow or disallow comments. Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy (a group law blog) is one of the larger blogs I know with no comments section. He summarizes his rationale for no comments as follow as follows:

1. The first is esthetic, which sounds frivolous, but esthetics of a certain sort matters a lot to writers and editors. I feel that The Conspiracy is a coherent product that I help put together. I intentionally lack complete control over it, because of the participation of my cobloggers; and I find this esthetically pleasing (as well as functionally useful in various ways), since it lets me enjoy the pleasant surprise of interesting things being posted that I couldn’t have even thought of posting. But that’s so because I have a very high opinion of my cobloggers, and have tried to select them based on their quality.

It would annoy me a lot if this coherent product also included some postings that I very much dislike, from people whom I never explicitly invited. Even if people didn’t think less of me for those postings, it would still bother me. Maybe this isn’t entirely rational; many esthetic preferences aren’t rational. But it is pretty strongly felt, as are many writers’ and editors’ views about “their babies.”

2. The second is reputational. Rightly or wrongly, consciously or not, some people’s perception of the blog and its bloggers will be molded by what the commenters post as well as by what the bloggers post. Some people will infer (not implausibly) that because (A) some dreck is posted, (B) I have the power to delete it, and (C) I don’t delete it, therefore (D) I must agree with it or at least not entirely disagree with it.

3. And this brings us to the third, eminently practical reason. I’m swamped as it is, and I don’t have the time to deal with all this. “What time?,” people ask. “Just enable them and leave them be.” Yeah, right. Someone is going to start spamming the comments with ads for penis enhancement. Someone else is going to start a flamewar. Some jerk is going to decide that he violently disagrees with me — or, worse yet, that he agrees with me — and chooses to express himself in terms that are hard to just ignore. As I mentioned in the second point, the reputation of the blog will indeed be on the line.

The consequence will be that I’ll have to monitor the comments in some measure, which means a good deal of hassle — not just time-consuming work, since that’s often fun, but time-consuming hassle and obligation. That seems like something I’d much rather avoid right now.

Tyler Cowen experimened back in September with opening comments on various posts on Marginal Revolution. He learned 1, that comments increase page views and visits but not terribly usefully, 2, that keeping comments open too regularly dilutes them of value, and 3, that people are more helpful on questions like good chinese restaurants or continuity in Buffy the Vampire Slayer than the merits of evolution and intelligent design.

This all came out of a NYTimes The Faculty Blog of the University of Chicago Law School. I find that the community-type blogs like the ones above have the most useless comments whereas blog such (such as Crooked Timber, Matthew Yglesias, Daniel Drezner, etc. have smaller comments sections that prove useful.

Mostly I think it is related to size and blog goal. For now, and I imagine until we have more than 10,000 hits a day, I forsee our comments section being quite secure.

So, what is CNN exactly trying to do with their Headline News unit? Months ago they hired the incredibly annoying to listen to, Nancy Grace. And Nancy, while some of her views are meritorious largely disregards the simple things in the American justice system, such as innocent until proven guilty, or other trial rights. Now they’re expanding the line up of crazy bastards to include Mr. Glenn Beck.

Glenn Who? Beck is an extreme right wing radio personality and the farthest thing from a journalist. Some of his highlights include:

On families of the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: “[T]his is horrible to say, and I wonder if I’m alone in this — you know, it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims’ families? Took me about a year.”

On Hurricane Katrina survivors who remained in New Orleans: “And that’s all we’re hearing about, are the people in New Orleans. Those are the only ones that we’re seeing on television are the scumbags — and again, it’s not all the people in New Orleans. Most of the people in New Orleans got out! It’s just a small percentage of those who were left in New Orleans, or who decided to stay in New Orleans, and they’re getting all the attention.”

Discussing disclosures from a caller who claimed to have tortured prisoners in U.S. custody: “I’ve got to tell you, I appreciate your service. … Good for you. Good for — I mean, good for you. Is it because you did it for the country? … I have to tell you, when all is said and done, I’m glad people like you are on our side.”

What the hell is CNN doing?