I posted about the NRO's Ed Whelan outing of a liberal blogger that wanted to remain anonymous because he couldn't take any criticism, but now sees the errors of his ways.

My Apologies to Publius

On reflection, I now realize that, completely apart from any debate over our respective rights and completely apart from our competing views on the merits of pseudonymous blogging, I have been uncharitable in my conduct towards the blogger who has used the pseudonym Publius.

Earlier this evening, I sent him an e-mail setting forth my apology for my uncharitable conduct. As I stated in that e-mail, I realize that, unfortunately, it is impossible for me to undo my ill-considered disclosure of his identity. For that reason, I recognize that Publius may understandably regard my apology as inadequate.

The damage is done, but at least an apology came. I hope this sends a message to others (it seems to be a right-wing thing) who similarly believe it's just fine to dig up personal information and expose it about a blogger (or anyone else) who wishes to remain unknown, just because they have a mean streak and a taste for vengeance. It's not fine. You listening, Michelle?

[Erick Erickson of RedState: Image courtesy of Joeff Davis at Creative Loafing.]

Pauvre petite Erick. He doesn't have Sargent's mad skillz and is a little jealous.

Greg Sargent was with the left-wing Talking Points Memo. Now he is with the Washington Post.

I’m sure Greg Sargent is good at what he does, but I’m also sure the Washington Post would not even consider hiring someone directly from the right-of-center blogosphere.

The Wapo already has Krauthammer, Michael Gerson, Fred Hiatt, George Will, Novak, Richard Perle, Dana Milbank and a host of other conservatives writing for it. It doesn't need another.

But it should be noted that the WaPo also tried hiring a conservative blogger first - Ben Domenech of RedState. So much for Erickson's memory and the WaPo's not even considering a wingnut hire.

However, Domenech quit after 3 days because of allegations of plagiarism. Oh Dear. As Matt Y writes: "What the right lacks are people with the skill to do the job." Erickson just proved that with his fact-free rant.

Noted Iranian-Canadian blogger Hossein Derakhshan is believed to have been arrested in Iran. He recently went back to Iran on a visit and subsequently disappeared. Jerome at MyDD notes that "Hossein has been at the forefront of the huge Iranian-Persian blogosphere, advocating for the use of the internet as a means for social and political reform in Iran, but he's also made a lot of enemies on both sides, for his non-conformist viewpoints."

Josh Wingrove at the Globe and Mail writes:

...there has been no trace of him since Oct. 30. Iranian reports surfaced soon after that date, citing intelligence sources, saying he had been arrested and charged with spying on behalf of Israel.

Yesterday, through Toronto-based blogger and family friend Nazli Kamvari, Mr. Derakhshan's family said he had been arrested at his residence in Iran on Nov. 1. The family has spoken to him four times since then, each time in a phone call lasting less than one minute, Ms. Kamvari said. But family members haven't heard from Mr. Derakhshan for 13 days, and are now becoming worried.

"Every time he's been like, 'I'm okay,' " said Ms. Kamvari, 29. "They're very confused."

It's no more likely that Derakhsan is an Israeli spy than that I am. Mark MacKinnon writes:

I met Hossein once, and yes it was in Jerusalem. But he walked the streets proudly wearing an "I Love Tehran" T-shirt (probably the first one ever worn in Israel) in an over-the-top effort to challenge stereotypes and tackle the misconceptions that exist in both Tel Aviv and Tehran.

Yes, he was a critic of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Yes, he openly admired the Israel and the West. But he was also fiercely proud of his Iranian heritage, and called Iran the freest country in the Middle East after Israel. Though himself an atheist, he expressed admiration for Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

I heartily endorse MacKinnon's call for Derakhsan's release.

On a more personal note; I've written a lot about the false narratives surrounding Western debate over Iran's nuclear program and other accusations designed to inflame Western opinion towards armed intervention there. But occasions like this make me more aware that I am a reluctant apologist for a truly odious regime on the subject. It's a theocracy disguised with some democratic trappings, even the moderates aren't moderate at all by my usual standards and it violently represses it's own people in their free expressions of greivance or dissent. None of which are sufficient reasons to go to war with Iran rather than any number of other similiar regimes. The anti-Iran narrative in the West which centers around its nuclear ambitions is circumstantial at best and often entirely fabricated by groups who want the US to change the Iranian regime by force for their own selfish reasons. Some so that they themselves can be the new dictators, others for the even less palatable reason of ideology. I can't sit idly by and watch such a push for war with Iran on false pretenses even if I do find the Iranian regime odious. Two wrongs really don't make a moral right.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Over at The New Atlanticist, Senior Advisor to the Atlantic Council Robert Manning notes that a new world order is being forged, with Americans largely oblivious to what's going on.

Don’t look now, but much about last week’s Asia-Europe Summit (ASEM) – from its remedies for the financial meltdown to its obscurity in the U.S. – spoke volumes about emerging multipolarity and the historic shift in global power.  Was America watching?

The milieu in Beijing, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy schmoozing with China’s President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jibao, suggests that when President George Bush hosts what will be the first of several summits aimed at shaping new rules to govern global finance, he will hardly be the center of attention.

It may have been coincidence that the annual Asia-Europe gathering occurred smack in the middle of the worst financial crisis since 1929. But the symbolism was hard to miss. An Asia Rising holds the majority of global foreign reserves, over $4 trillion in foreign currency; Europe for all its flaws and lack of dynamism still boasts an economy as large as the U.S.  Yet most in the U.S. were largely oblivious, with coverage even on cable news networks nearly non-existent, and relegated to the back pages of the business section of the New York Times.

...What does all this mean for the U.S. as a global actor?  Well for starters, the stock of those clinging to the myth of a unipolar world makes the current Dow look robust. It was never quite true even in the one dimension where the U.S. is and will remain for some time indisputably overwhelmingly dominant: military power.

But a nation’s power, as the Chinese like to say, is a question of Comprehensive National Strength, with military capability one important indicator. In the real world, a nation’s usable power will differ, depending on the nature of the particular issue. In the world now taking shape, the most sensible operative model for U.S. foreign policy will in general terms shift from Single Superpower to Primus Inter Pares, first among equals.

Now, as a European living in America I'm undoubtably biased, but what Manning is pointing to seems to me to be a manifestation of American Exceptionalism, one so comprehensively pushed for so long that even self-confessed lefties who would like to see America's status as single and biggest bully on the block trimmed fall prey to it. Americans have been told for so long that America's status and power means that it doesn't have to care about the opinions of those beyond its shores unless it wants to that - surprise, surprise - Americans have stopped caring about what goes on beyond their own shores unless Americans are doing it. I've noticed this in my contributions to Crooks and Liars, where I mostly post foreign policy and foreign affairs pieces. With the exception of hot-button issues having an impact on domestic politics such as Iraq and, lately, Afghanistan, foreign affairs posts get about a third of the comments that domestic affairs posts do. And it's not just my posts - anyone writing such posts gets the same lackluster response. Quite often, several of the comments will be along the lines of "Who cares? Get back to the domestic scandal de jour."

(That lack of interest seems to be pretty pervasive on other sites too. The very best progressive or bi-partisan foreign policy analysis sites and blogs get a fraction of the readers that sites devoted to more domestic issues do. Of course, rightwing sites have the same ostrich attitude in spades, with the twist that they want America to continue doing it to foreigners as if it were still a sole superpower and are simply snearingly dismissive of any hint that such simply isn't possible any more.)

Sure, people are naturally more interested in what's close to home. But in today's world what's going on 'over there" is close to home. America's fall from sole superpower will effect every single American's life in immediate ways, from their bank account to their job to their sons and brothers fighting in foreign realms. I wrote once that American foreign policy consists of inflicting domestic policy on foreigners. In the new multi-polar world that's going to have to change some, but it seems to me that there's scant sign on either Right or Left that the bulk of Americans are ready to admit it in their hearts, rather than their heads.

Crossposted from Newshoggers