Author: N.Z. Bear

Sean-Paul Kelley, aka Agonist, has been called to account by Wired News (following Strategic Armchair Command‘s lead) for plagarizing material from Stratfor.
From Wired News:
“Kelley’s insightful window on the details of the war brought him increasing readership (118,000 page views on a recent day) and acclaim, including interviews in the The New York Times and on NBC’s Nightly News, Newsweek online and National Public Radio.
The only problem: Much of his material was plagiarized — lifted word-for-word from a paid news service put out by Austin, Texas, commercial intelligence company Stratfor.
“You got me, I admit it…. I made a mistake,” Kelley said. “It was stupid.” “
To my knowledge, Kelley has not disputed the facts of these charges, and has admitted guilt both to Wired, and in his own posts here, here, and here:
“I want to state explicitly that what I did was inexcusable and for many readers may be unforgivable. I understand that and am willing to accept the consequences of my actions.”
Many of the blogosphere’s finest have already weighed in on the issue: Glenn, Ken Layne, Colby Cosh, Glenn again, and Meryl have all condemned Kelley’s actions. Dan Drezner also joins in, and has a roundup of links.
I have found Sean-Paul to be a decent fellow in the limited interactions I have had with him. He was one of the first to actually advertise on TTLB, and more recently, has steered some of his now-stratospheric traffic my way via a few links over the past weeks. Just this past weekend, I e-mailed him first to point out some of my recent work (I’m not too proud to link-whore), and later to wish he and his new bride well on their recent wedding.
None of this changes my opinion on the core of this matter, however: Sean-Paul screwed up badly, and his poor judgment reflects not only on himself, but on webloggers as a whole. In a small way, we will all pay for his mistake: weblogs have lost some small bit of credibility today in the eyes of the world. It was inevitable that there would, some day, be a bad apple who let the world say “Aha! We knew those weblogs couldn’t be trusted.”
Sean-Paul, through his choices, has allowed himself to become that bad apple.
So what now?
Misdeeds should have consequences. Even now, Sean-Paul continues to reap the benefits of his earlier transgressions. Perhaps the people flocking to his site tonight would be doing so today even had he not lifted Statfor’s work. But more likely, many of them would not. And more appalling is the fact that even now, new readers to Sean-Paul’s site — today, and next week, and the week after that — may never know that he has admitted to such a breach of ethics.
And so I have a suggestion. If Sean-Paul is truly repentant for his actions: if he truly wishes to apologize and begin anew, then he should put a banner message at the top of his site, informing of readers of his past plagiarism, and linking to the relevant Strategic Armchair Command and Wired News articles.
And he should leave it there. Not for a day; not for a month. Maybe for years. Maybe forever.
With such a warning label, every reader who comes to his site will be able to make a full and informed judgment for themselves whether to trust what they read there. And with time, Sean-Paul would be able to continue his own work with the knowledge that his readership was there with full knowledge of both his strengths, and his failings: that the traffic was there were there because he had earned it.
Would this repair the breech of trust he has committed? No. Many — myself included — will always be wary of The Agonist in a way we never were before. I have removed the link to his site which I had placed on my header to the Cross-Blog Iraq Debate posts, which I added to point Yahoo and Google searchers to appropriate weblog resources on the Iraq conflict. (These posts are at the very top of search results for ‘blog iraq’). I do not expect that I will be putting it back.
But even if adding such a warning would not repair all the damage, taking such a step would be a significant and meaningful action that would admit guilt, and accept responsibility, in a way that his apologies to date have not. And that is something.
The Blogosphere itself can’t brand Sean-Paul with this scarlet “P”. He has to do it himself. But if he does, there is still a chance for Sean-Paul to salvage some dignity from this episode. It is my sincere hope that he does.

My old friend notes that I received a link from Andrew Sullivan over the weekend (thanks, Andrew!), commenting:
So let’s see now. My friend Da Bear, whom I set on his way to stardom, got a link from Andrew Sullivan, something which I have yet to achieve (well, unless you count the link from Andrew’s week on MSN, which, come to think of it, almost counts), and has also fairly consistently kicked my ass in average visits since, oh, five minutes after I launched him into the blogosphere. But am I jealous? No. Regretful? Not a bit. This is my friend. I am glad for my friend’s continuing success. (Repeat nine more times.)
Damned whippersnapper.
First, Meryl: I don’t know why people say bitterness in unattractive — you wear it so well! Downright sexy, if I dare say it.
Now, to the substance of your remarks. You note that I have “fairly consistently kicked [your] ass in average visits since, oh, five minutes after I launched him into the blogosphere.” Well, actually, I think mostly that’s not quite true — I’ve always had a lot of inbound links, thanks in large part to the Ecosystem, but I think my daily traffic numbers have often lagged behind yours.
So don’t feel too bad. Now as for the Sullivan thing: yes, I got a direct link from Daily Dish, making my Sullivan number 2. (Sullivan numbers, for those joining the party late, were meant to denote just how “connected” a blogger is to the great Andrew. The man himself has a number 1; anyone he directly links to has a number 2, and anyone they link to is a 3, and so on…) And you rightfully console yourself that at least Andrew chose to link to you from his Slate commentary; so maybe that gives you a Sullinumber of 2.5, or something.
But I fear I must remind you: he linked to me from that commentary too.
So does that make mine 1.5?
Perhaps; at any rate, I think it’s safe and logical to conclude that regardless, for Sullivan numbers (and perhaps other things), in some deeply scientific and precise manner, I am indeed 1.0 better than you. (I also, for the record, go to eleven).
None of this, however, consoles me over the fact that my perfidious and fickle readers have utterly failed to avail themselves of my fine merchandise, with a few extremely limited exceptions. I thought by adding the TTLB Teddy Bear and designer TTLB panties and thongs, I’d be able to please everybody. But apparently not… it appears TTLB shall have to revise its financial plan for the quarter, and perhaps delay the Lear to next fiscal year…

My masochistic streak was itching this morning, so I decided to take a wander over to International, and see how they were doing. Human Rights Watch actually did something useful this week, so I figured maybe we could be on a roll.
So what’s their top story on Iraq?
Iraq: Use of cluster bombs – civilians pay the price
Amnesty International is deeply concerned about the high toll of civilian casualties and the use of cluster bombs in US military attacks in heavily populated areas.
On 1 April, at least 33 civilians including many children were reportedly killed and around 300 injured in US attacks on the town of al-Hilla. Amnesty International is particularly disturbed by reports that cluster bombs were used in the attacks and may have been responsible for some of the civilian deaths.
“The use of cluster bombs in an attack on a civilian area of al-Hilla constitutes an indiscriminate attack and a grave violation of international humanitarian law,” Amnesty International emphasized today.
“If the US is serious about protecting civilians, it must publicly commit to a moratorium on the use of cluster weapons. Using cluster munitions will lead to indiscriminate killing and injuring of civilians,” the organization added.
According to reports, the type of cluster bomblets used in al-Hilla was BLU97 A/B. Each cannister contains 202 small bomblets — BLU97 — the size of a soft drink can. These cluster bomblets scatter over a large area approximately the size of two football fields. At least 5% of these ‘dud’ bomblets do not explode upon impact, turning them into de facto anti-personnel mines because they continue to pose a threat to people, including civilians, who come into contact with them.
Sigh. OK, let’s be clear: I have no idea whether the story above is true. I have no idea whether or not the U.S. military is utilizing cluster bombs in Iraq (but I’ll bet somebody reading this does — chime in anytime). But wow, talk about lack of sourcing! “According to reports” is the closest we get to understanding where these alleged facts come from — and that’s it! I’m not even asking for a hyperlink here — although I would remind Amnesty that it is 2003, they might want to learn how to do that — but perhaps attributing allegations like this to, well, somebody might help readers make a judgement? It would be petty to note that perhaps AI isn’t interested in their readers actually making any judgements at all — other than to simply nod their heads vigorously, murmoring “the horror of it!” on cue.
But not to be discouraged so easily, I clicked on the Act Now link for this story, and received:
Take action!
Please email or write to the defence ministries of the US, UK, Australia, Spain and Iraq using the sample letter below as a guide. You may also send appeals to your own government representatives if they are taking part or considering taking part in military action.
Please also write letters to the newspapers and other media in your country using the information contained in this action.
And was provided a nice form letter, as follows:
Dear
I am writing to you as reports emerge of cluster bomb and anti-personnel landmine use in Iraq to express my concern at the potential use of indiscriminate weapons that may not sufficiently distinguish between military and civilian targets and which will thus contravene customary international humanitarian law.
I urge you not to use weapons that are inherently indiscriminate. By their very nature anti-personnel landmines and chemical or biological weapons cannot be used in a manner which does not violate the principle of distinction between civilian and military target.
Although cluster bombs are designed to be targeted at military objectives, the fact that five per cent and sometimes a much greater proportion fail to explode on impact means that unexploded bomblets are left behind on the ground. They can then be triggered by civilian victims, functioning in exactly the same way as anti-personnel mines, which have been banned by the 1997 Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty.
If the US is serious about protecting civilians, it must publicly commit to a moratorium on the use of cluster weapons. Using cluster munitions will lead to indiscriminate killing and injuring of civilians.
Long-range missiles that are inaccurate, such as long range Scuds, should not be used. Nor should aerial bombing from altitudes of above 15,000 feet, since recent experience in Kosovo has shown that this does not allow for full adherence to international humanitarian law requiring parties to make every effort to distinguish civilians from military targets.
Given the continuing reports of long-term health and environmental damage that may be caused by depleted uranium, the use of uranium-tipped weapons should be suspended pending further independent medical evidence showing that these weapons do not have delayed indiscriminate effects.
Yours sincerely,

Whoah! Now I understand what they’re trying to do here: craft a letter that can be sent to all parties in the conflict. But it tends to mangle the facts and accusations all together a bit, doesn’t it? I mean, I was worried about those little cluster-bomby things, I hear they’re all evil and stuff, but what’s this about land mines? The U.S. Army is laying mines! The bastards! And chemical weapons? I knew they were hypocrities! Oh, wait, that was Iraq? Was it? Huh?
But the final kicker comes when you click on the link to “view the list of addresses to use for this action”. Groups like Amnesty always want to make it as easy as possible for folks to send their messages, so naturally they provide the addresses. Five nations are listed — Australia, Iraq, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Every one of them has a simple, explicit, easy-to-use address: except one.
Guess which one.
Bing. Iraq! Amnesty advises:
Letters addressed to President Saddam Hussein should be sent directly to the Iraqi embassy in your country. If there is no Iraqi embassy in your country then you can send appeals to your country’s Interests Section for Iraq. If so, please enclose a covering letter explaining your aims, asking them for assistance in obtaining a response, and requesting that your letter be forwarded to government officials in Baghdad.
Oh, that will help. Amnesty is a master at these campaigns, so I’ll bet they actually have statistics that could tell us exactly what percentage of people will take the effort to hunt down an embassy address like that as opposed to just mailing a letter when they are given the address explicitly. But I’ll bet there’s a big difference!
Just a suggestion, kids, but maybe you could have put the three addresses for U.S., U.K., and Australian citizens to use? This is your English-language site, after all.
Anyway, thus ends my brief foray into human rights activism. I emerge more baffled than I began; my head filled with visions of chemical cluster bombs and Spanish land mines. But perhaps that was the idea all along…

Kaus notes a story I heard myself on NPR this morning: that Human Rights Watch has conducted independent interviews with POW’s who surrendered to Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq. Kaus notes the interviewer’s conclusions that the Iraqi’s suffered terrible treatment at the hands of their own commanders, but he breezes right by the other major news of the piece:
“The Iraqi soldiers all reported good treatment by the Kurdish forces to whom they had surrendered….All of the detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that they had been treated well by the Kurdish Pesh Merga