Welcome Instapundit (and Change.gov!) readers

Quite an eventful night here: after Glenn Reynolds linked to my item on the Obama transition website and the plans it outlined for mandatory national service, upwards of five thousand visitors read the item and, as I’ve noted in an addendum, the people at Change.gov silently edited the passage in question to replace the controversial “require” language with vaguer talk of a “goal”. (Update Sun. morning: and now they seem to have yanked “Agenda” entirely).

Also, my thanks to commenters for their patience. I went out for an evening in the city and when I got back there were seventy comments in the moderation queue. I approved the whole batch, but inevitably there was one reader who was sure he was being singled out when his comment (#19) didn’t appear after an hour or two. (Update: thanks for correction.)

7 Comments

  • The guy that runs 24ahead strikes me as a bit unbalanced in the tinfoil-hat way.

  • Let’s bear in mind, please, that the transition web site was simply updated to bring its language in line with Obama’s proposals. Not in response to any criticism, and not to soften his proposals in any way.

  • […] Looks like Obama’s people have change the language in his plan for civil service. The language in the section on hours of service for middle and high school students has been changed from “require” to “set a goal that…” […]

  • James. Seriously?

    Perhaps “the transition web site was simply updated to bring its language in line with Obama‚Äôs proposals.” But that would mean his proposal changed in response to the criticism of the summary of his proposal posted on the website.

    What sophistry.

  • No, Obama’s proposals have not changed. The language on the transition web site was a summary of those proposals, and it was updated so that the summary better reflected his proposals.

    That’s not sophistry. His proposals, as originally spelled out, were clear, and they haven’t been altered.

  • […] team’s Change.gov website flatly endorsed a mandatory, not voluntary plan, and then silently edited (and later yanked) its language when bloggers noticed. How misleading is it to describe Derbyshire as reacting to a voluntary plan when he was quite […]

  • What do you think will happen to anyone who refuses this mandatory voluntary service?
    I can’t believe, considering that despite an electoral college landslide he only won by 6 million votes in a ntion of 300 million, that there wouldn’t be enough people willing to participate in civil disobedience.
    He should be familiar with that concept.