Clearly Howard Kurtz simply doesn’t understand the blogosphere. He writes today that “if you respond to every whack someone takes at you on the Web, you’d never have time to eat, let alone do any reporting.” Hey Howie, this is the Interweb; these people don’t do reporting. They just snark at people who do.

Sigh. I know that exposing CBS’s forged memos and bringing down Dan Rather is part of the blogosphere’s founding fable, but I would direct bloggers to the full history of the story. They’ll surely recall that Howard Kurtz (along with his talented Post colleague Michael Dobbs) did as much heavy lifting as anyone, anywhere (start here, here, here, and here) to do the hard reporting to move the story along.

Kurtz is a very good reporter. If the blogosphere had any sense of perspective, it would aspire to the standard of work he does, not call for his dismissal.

Hugh Hewitt really is an eternal optimist. Earlier this week he suggested that CBS release drafts of the Rathergate report to bloggers for pre-publication comment. There’s a better chance of Aaron Carter shacking up with Liza Minnelli.

In fact, nothing about CBS’s behavior to date in this incident suggests that they will take the high road with the report, but much suggests that they might go the low road.

So, I’m just asking: What happens if CBS releases the report, and fires some staff, but the staff’s severance comes with non-disclosure agreements? Is that a tenable position for CBS?

Speaking of, Wretchard has the best post I’ve read yet on the torture question. He’s able to make reasonable distinctions unlike, say Andrew Sullivan.

Wretchard also raises what should really be the only (or at least the foremost) question in the debate:

Donald Sensing has a long post on the recent destruction of a 36-ton Bradley in Iraq resulting in the death of all 7 occupants. If a suspect is found, what technique should be used to discover where the other mines are planted? The ridiculous “16 approaches” method reviled by Heather MacDonald’s interviewees, even now watered down? Or the rapes and crucifixion system which by common consent is torture? Is there is nothing in between?

The reason it is important to find a middle ground is because al Qaeda is a different type of warrior. As Heather Mac Donald writes:

. . . the Kandahar prisoners were not playing by the army rule book. They divulged nothing. “Prisoners overcame the [traditional] model almost effortlessly,” writes Chris Mackey in The Interrogators, his gripping account of his interrogation service in Afghanistan. The prisoners confounded their captors “not with clever cover stories but with simple refusal to cooperate. They offered lame stories, pretended not to remember even the most basic of details, and then waited for consequences that never really came.” Some of the al-Qaida fighters had received resistance training, which taught that Americans were strictly limited in how they could question prisoners. Failure to cooperate, the al-Qaida manuals revealed, carried no penalties and certainly no risk of torture—a sign, gloated the manuals, of American weakness.

I would argue that in the war on terrorism, intelligence is at a greater premium than in any previous American war since there is no given battlefield. In other wars, we needed information from prisoners to help fight the enemy more effectively. In the global war on terror, we need information from prisoners just to find out who the enemy is and where the war is going to be fought. (In addition to all that, the global war on terror is our first confrontation with an enemy whose targets are largely and intentionally civilians.)

So since the value of information has been radically increased, we need to have a serious reevaluation of what we’re willing to do, as a society, to get that information. Should we be willing to commit rape, murder, and mutilation? I would argue no. Should we consider a new set of standards that go beyond the “16 approaches”? I would argue yes.

But instead of having this discussion, we’re fixated on Alberto Gonzalez and hearings and other sideshows. As Wretchard asks,

How did we get to where the only choices are between the impractical and the inadmissible? Possibly by the route of partisan politics; at hearings where you may either recite the Boy Scout Pledge or the Green Lantern Oath; where the failure to supply answers never got in the way of uttering a good platitude; where votive candles burn and still burn before the letter of Geneva and the practice of rendition . . .

None of this is meant to excuse past abuses. People who have committed crimes must be punished to the full extent of the law. But our focus should be on figuring out where, in the future, we’re willing to draw the line. So let’s start that discussion right now. I’d like to know where the blogospher, and you, think the line should be. What kinds of interrogation should be allowed, and what shouldn’t?

Hugh Hewitt has a good article on the United Nations, stinginess, and the humanitarian benefits of sea power.

As a bonus, he turns me on to The Diplomad, an interesting new blog. As always, I’m skeptical since the author is anonymous. But Wretchard at The Belmont Club has taught me not to dismiss anonybloggers out of hand. So here’s hoping the Diplomad pans out, too.

Still, I plead with all anonybloggers: Come out of the closet!

After reading David Adesnik’s musings on comic book philosophy the other day, I stumbled onto an interview with Sharad Devarajan on NPR’s Fresh Air. Devarajan runs Gotham Entertainment Group, which is licensing Marvel superheroes in South Asia.

Their first title is Spider-Man India, with Pavitr Prabhakar as our beloved Peter Parker. Leave aside, for a moment, the wonderful idea of what a Bollywood version of Spider-Man would look like. But I’m curious how Hindu thought and philosophy will gel with the Western moral imperatives of our comic books, and what kind of new comic book philosophy will result. Maybe a good piece for David? I know a website which would be interested . . .

Meryl Yourish has an outstanding post on charity in the Kingdom of Saud. Embarrassed for only putting up $10 million for the tsunami victims, the Saudi’s have upped their ante to $30 million, with the help of a nationwide telethon.

But it turns out that this isn’t the first time the Saudis have dug deep for others. In 2003 they raised $11.5 million for Iraqis–and $109 million for Palestinian “martyrs.”

It isn’t that Islamists don’t know how to give to a good cause. It’s that they have very different ideas about which causes are good.

We would do well to remember this in the future.

At the end of every year William Goldman jokes that it’s been the worst year in Hollywood history, and that next year will be worse. And every year it’s true. 2004 was undoubtedly the worst year in the history of film (a topic I’ll visit in greater length later). But have you gotten a load of the must-see list for 2005?

Galley Brother and industry insider B.J. sends a long this depressing CNN top 10 list. B.J. asks, “Star Wars Episode 3: Jedi Super Power Ewok Battles . . . I mean, are you kidding?”

Even worse is that CNN is crazy enough to include MGM’s Pink Panther remake on the list. Word around the MGM campus is that this movie is so bad they have no idea how to even make it coherent, let alone how to sell it.

2005? Buckle up, baby, it’s going to be a bumpy night.

Don’t hate me, but I want to see this.

Update, 5:59 p.m.: I remember seeing my first UFC event several years ago when Galley Brother B.J. and I went looking for a rainy-afternoon video at the non-Blockbuster in town. Intrigued, we picked up the first Ultimate Fighting tournament and sat, mesmerized as we saw a series of fights, none lasting much longer than a minute, where big, tough guys from different disciplines beat the tar out of each other. I could hear Bill Bennett scowling, but let’s be honest: UFC was a revelation.

The biggest shock was watching Royce Gracie, this little Brazilian bad-ass who weighed, maybe, 170 lbs. win the damn thing. The next day we returned to the video store and picked up the second tournament on DVD. Gracie won that one, too. In the course of these two tournaments, he wailed on guys much, much bigger, meaner, and scarier looking, mainly by absorbing punishment and then choking them into submission.

But now it looks like the UFC is being domesticated. The new show on Spike, for instance, has weight classes. But that was part of the original appeal of UFC: What does it look like when two grossly mismatched fighters collide, and how do they adjust to the speed and weight disparity?

I’m sure this stuff should be banned, but it’s awfully hard to resist.