In the blogosphere discussion on pseudonymity on the blogs, in a comment in Hilzoy's post at ObiWi, Katherine makes a modest proposal for anonymous sources used by the Media:

. . . I have a proposal: newspaper reporters' anonymous sources should at least have to use pseudonyms. That way we could determine whether to trust "SeniorAdministrationOffical12" based partly on his past track record of being either reliable or completely full of crap, and learn how many of them they were using...

I second the motion. This proposal provides for maintaining secret the identity of the source while at the same time giving the reader the chance to judge the credibility of said source. A win-win.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Board was created as a result of the 9/11 Commission Report. First, President Bush dragged his feet and waited a year to name any members to the Board. Then, he named the members, including former Clinton official Lanny Davis.

Last week, the Board submitted its first report which was vetted by the White House.

Yesterday, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reports that Lanny Davis resigned from the Board.

More...

Yesterday, I was filling in for Jane at Firedoglake and I wrote about the new decision by the Iraqi Government to ban the news media from covering bombing scenes.

Iraq’s interior ministry has decided to bar news photographers and camera operators from the scenes of bomb attacks, operations director Brigadier General Abdel Karim Khalaf said on Sunday (local time).

His announcement was the latest in a series of attempts to curtail press coverage of the ongoing conflict, which has already attracted criticism from international human rights bodies.

That got me thinking.

How real is the War in Iraq to Americans who don’t have a loved one fighting in the conflict? Where has the news coverage been of the gory daily details?

For those of you old enough to remember the media coverage of the Vietnam War, you’ll remember how vividly it was brought to us every evening on our television screens by the nightly news programs.

Without the internet or e-mail, a massive anti-war movement grew. I don’t think anyone doubts that it contributed to the war’s end.

More...

Senator Dodd (D-CT) released this statement on Reid-Feingold:

Senator and Presidential candidate Chris Dodd today released the following statement responding to the announcement that the Feingold-Reid legislation would be attached to the Water Resources Development Act Reauthorization:

"We should have a straight up or down vote on Feingold-Reid - not as an amendment to a water bill or any other bill. This is the most important Senate debate since the original vote to authorize the war. This simply cannot be the occasion for hiding behind procedural tactics.

That is why I am calling on all my other colleagues running for President to state clearly where they stand on this important legislation by joining me as a co-sponsor of Feingold-Reid and stating how they would vote on the bill."

Disclosure: I have endorsed Senator Dodd's candidacy for President.

Justice Department insiders use the term "freefall" to describe the agency's present state. Falling today is Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty.

McNulty, who has served 18 months as the Justice Department's second-in-command, announced his plans [to reisgn] at a closed-door meeting of U.S. attorneys in San Antonio. He told them he would remain at the department until late summer or until the Senate approves a successor, aides said. ...

McNulty has been considering leaving for months, and aides said he never intended to serve more than two years as deputy attorney general. But his ultimate decision to step down, the aides said, was hastened by anger at being linked to the prosecutors' purge that Congress is investigating to determine if eight U.S. attorneys were fired for political reasons. ... McNulty also irked Gonzales by testifying in February that at least one of the fired prosecutors was ordered to make way for a protege of Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser.

This is a big deal:

Harry Reid just spoke on the Senate floor, revealing that he'll allow a vote this week on the Feingold-Reid amendment, which would cut off funding for the war by March 31, 2008.

This is a big deal for war opponents -- it's the first vote in the Senate on a measure of this kind. "This is a vote that folks have been clamoring for for some time now," enthuses a staffer who works for a Senator favoring the approach.

The staffer added that while the measure faces an uphill struggle, a vote on it will move the parameters of the debate and force Senators into a straight up-or-down vote on the war -- just as last week's House vote on Dem Rep. James McGovern's proposal to end the war did.

Any and all supporters of ending the Iraq Debacle by the only means possible, by NOT funding it after a date certain, MUST urge a Yes vote for Reid Feingold. This is the framework that can end the war.

Lost in the shuffle of allegations of misogyny, the very dangerous and wrongheaded movement to eliminate pseudonymity in the blogs continues apace. Today it is Tom Grubisch in the Washingotn Post:

. . . [I]n late 2005, turned off by the venom of anonymous posters, Joseloff instituted a policy requiring anyone who wanted to comment to use his or her real name. . . .

[O]ne concern common to all sites is whistle-blowers: What about someone who wants to expose an injustice or unfairness, whether it's a civil servant pinpointing malfeasance in government or, perhaps, a waiter complaining about lousy tipping at a local restaurant? How can they be protected from retaliation?

Online pioneer Vin Crosbie suggests that sites -- whether personal blogs, community sites or major news providers -- should be flexible enough to grant pseudonyms to users who want to blow a whistle. This would require sites to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. How often would such intervention be required? Not enough to require most sites to hire extra staff.

Here is some vitriol, this is so unrealistic as to be laughably stupid. Decide on pseudonymity on a case by case basis? And how pray tell, do you plan to handle that disclosure to your audience? Or will you not tell them about who is pseudonymous and who is not? What about the site's transparency? Are readers to assume that all site operators are just good honest people? This is the proposal of a person who simply does not understand the way blogging works.

Paul Krugman tell some hard truths about trade policy and income inequality in the United States and the world. Some bloggers like David Sirota and the folks at MYDD are closely aligned with labor unions and have a fairly narrow way of looking at the issues - international labor standards, the right to organize, etc. From the US perspective, I think Krugman states an essential truth:

Realistically, however, labor standards won’t do all that much for American workers. No matter how free third-world workers are to organize, they’re still going to be paid very little, and trade will continue to place pressure on U.S. wages.

So what’s the answer? I don’t think there is one, as long as the discussion is restricted to trade policy: all-out protectionism isn’t acceptable, and labor standards in trade agreements will help only a little.

By all means, let’s have strong labor standards in our pending trade agreements, and let’s approach proposals for new agreements with an appropriate degree of skepticism. But if Democrats really want to help American workers, they’ll have to do it with a pro-labor policy that relies on better tools than trade policy. Universal health care, paid for by taxing the economy’s winners, would be a good place to start.

Tax policy and health care policy can do more for our country's workers than trade policy. That is not the labor union mindset, but it should be the Democratic mindset.

Episode 83 is tonight: "Kennedy and Heidi."

This week, an asbestos-disposal impasse raises tensions between Jersey and New York. Meanwhile, Tony has a revelation while Paulie gets upstaged.

What's Mothers' Day without pictures of the kids who made us mothers? Here are some of my favorites of the TL kid, in chronological order, taken in Denver, Florence, Italy and New York City.

As for where is he today, he's in New York City studying for his law school finals. He graduates in a few weeks, and is looking for a job as a public defender or criminal defense attorney.

And now I'm off to visit my mother. I'll be back with a Sopranos' Open Thread this evening.

The trial of so-called enemy combatant Jose Padilla and his two co-defendants, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, starts Monday with opening arguments. (Jury selection was completed last week.)

Here's a profile of the Judge, Marcia Cooke. CBS legal analyst Andrew Cohen writes that the Judge has a daunting task before her as sparks will be flying in the courtroom.

The LA Times reports on how the case has changed in the last five years since Padilla's capture as someone involved in a dirty bomb plot. Those allegations will not come up in the trial, because if they did, the defense could then raise issues related to his confinement in the South Carolina military brig where he was held for three and one half years in solitary confinement without access to counsel.

More...

The Washington Post investigates Rudy and Giuliani Partners financial wheelings and dealings from the get-go. An interesting read.

It left me wondering, why is Rudy really running for President? Aside from his arrogance and sense of self-importance, I think the answer is because he can afford to.