Fright night

So it's time for the Boy's first Halloween - and I'm thinking: This will not be fun. After a howler of a ride home from work, I'm expecting his mood to spiral down. He doesn't want dinner, he just wants the candy from day care. He doesn't want to go home, he wants to go the the restaurant. He doesn't really know what the night is about, so I'm expecting him to get all nervous and cold as soon as we go out the door.

In my head, this will be dragging a cranky two-year old from door to door.

Wrong.
The Boy's into it. Big time.

"Trick or Treat!" he's yelling before we get to the first house. "Thank you, very much!" he says after getting the goods.

"I want 'nother HOUSE!" he declares after each stop. He's asking questions, meeting the neighbors - just generally being the charming ball of fun he usually is.

What was (I thought) going to be a hasty lap around the nearest few houses, turns into our block, the next block and the next block. The boy's hooked.

"Does this house have candy?" he asks.

"I think so, they have pumpkins out front-" I start.

"I see more pumpkins!" and he's pulling me forward, swinging his candy basket like a speed walker.

We start home and I'm asking him if he's cold. "I'm okay! More pumpkins! I see Jack-O-lanterns!" and soon we're passing our house and off down the street again.

It's only when the pumpkins run out that we start heading back.

Home. The the boy's tearing into his candy like an addict. What was I thinking? This was a great night out - the boy's still wearing his costume and smiling ear to ear. If more people weren't such fuddy-duddies - we'd probably still be out there.

---

The windout was less cool. I'm headed downstairs for a quick internet fix and I can see the area rugs are soaking wet.

What the?

I can hear *glub* *glub* from the downstairs bathroom, and then I see water all the way down the middle of the hall. Not deep, just enough to cover the floor - but it reeks.

Bathroom. Floor dry. WTH? I'm looking for the edges of the water. No way this came in from outside.

Baseboard are dry, room carpets dry. So where...?

I see the water trailing over by the water heater. No. Nonono...

I move the basement junk out of the way. Good. Not the heater. The big area rug has a dark spot in the middle of it - soaked. Right over the -

Cleanout valve.

I pick up the rug, and bingo. The small pit with the cleanout valve is overflowing with water. I get the wet/dry vac (a great invention - although the model I have from Sears would have to go down as one of the worst designed POS's in recorded history) and I'm clearing out the water.

Water gone, I crack the cleanout valve open and sure enough - Houston, this is the problem.

Two summers ago - Dad and I snaked this very cleanout valve because roots had grown into the main pipe out.

It's baaaaaaaaaAAAAAACK!

So, eight o' clock on a worknight - I gotta figure what the next steps are.

Last time, this clog took a 100' snake to clear. Last time, I had Dad's truck.

Mental list:
1) Rent 100' snake from the extortionists at Home Depot. Easy.
2) Find some way to transport said snake to my house. In the Honda? HA! Or on the Nissan's leather seats? Double HA!

Add to this I'm in the middle of user testing at work, so I have to be there if I'm walking in on bloody stumps.

Pretty sneaky there, Halloween... had me all mellowed out before you went in for the kill.

Plan B is to hit up Jen for the minivan and find some way to swap vehicles.

As if in mocking answer, I can hear the downstairs toilet bubbling up.

*glub* *glub*

Ah, Hell.

It's about freakin' time

...Finally, public debate about Iraq policy on a major network:

Gotta hand it to Letterman.

Election watching for fun and profit

The Washington Post is running a game where you pick the winners and losers of the midterm election.

It's called Midterm Madness, and the best guesser stands to win... well, a measly $100 bucks (Jeez guys, you'd think you could spring for something a little jazzier. Hell, even shoe stores give away iPod Nanos these days... )

Anyway, make yer picks, take yer chances. It may be the only fun you get out of the midterms.

Recharge

Okay, it's been awhile since I've just put something up for fun.

So here goes:

Scoreline - October 22, 2006
Reading: 0
Arsenal: 4
Henry 1, 70 (pen), Hleb 39, Van Persie 49

Oh, this was a beautiful thing.

1) My TiVo picked this game up when there's virtually no chance I'd have spotted it myself. Christmas in October!
2) Arsenal were in fine form and beat the stuffing out of Reading without really trying that hard.

Henry and the Spanish boy-wonder Fabregas teamed up for an early back-breaker. Reading staggered around punch-drunk before deciding to fight on.
Sadly for them, at that moment the Spaniard teamed up with Hleb and Rosicky to pull off a clinical give and go: two nothing - Gunners.

Halftime.

At this point, Arsenal's crusing - the announcer is singing their praises - talking about how young this team is, how fluid their passing was, how Man U. had better be looking behind them -

-and then Henry, Hleb and Van Persie just score on an outrageous series of through passing and teamwork. Perfection - flat out. Reading's keeper is just standing there telling God that, if he had to end the world, now would be a good time.

-But it doesn't end. Fabregas is a holy terror, and charges into the box ony to be cut down by the now hoplessly demoralized keeper.

Penalty. Henry. Goal.

Four nothing and I swear Arsenal just spent the last ten minutes playing keep away. Reading had a few swipes at net - but it was written: Today Reading shall sucketh.

I know - the world says, who cares. A top of the table team buries a first time visitor to the Premiership - but hey - they did it with style. And they enjoyed themselves doing it.

Great to see.

The right level of outrage

In reviewing the past few weeks of posts, I'm more than a little conscious that I'm beating a drum most of us are tired of hearing.

I'm aware that better blogs are doing this, and doing it better in front of a vastly larger segment of the population - and still I just can't stop.

These are the conversations I don't get to have - and by putting them here I hope to spare the people I know in some small way, as well as simply get these thoughts out of my head.

Things are bad, and it's worth saying so.

I'm not up to saying all the things that are cruising around in my head, but thankfully many others are doing so.

First, Keith Olbermann - has once again demonstrated the right level of disgust with the current state of a county he clearly loves. I'd referred to it below, but here's the video of the full comment: "Beginning of the End of America."

Second, a statement by Kevin Tillman, surviving brother of Pat Tillman - who was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan in 2004.

"Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world."

Read the full piece, After Pat's birthday. Raw and direct, just like a soldier.

These people get it. They are, to varying degrees, on the outside looking in. I'm just hoping that their message finds its way to all people who need to hear it.

Things gotta change.

"Not with a bang, but with a whimper"

I've been trying to sift through the coverage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, to determine if it truly was the end of habeas corpus - or if there was just an ad absurdum argument taking place.

A literal reading of the act makes it sound as if the Military Commissions only apply to alien unlawful combatants. Defenders of the law would stress this as a protection of the rights of U.S. citizens.

As it happens, that's beside the point.

Let's assume the full force of this law applies only to aliens (i.e. non-citizens), who have been declared 'unlawful combatants' by Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush - or competent tribunals they establish. What then, is the risk to you or I?

E got it immediately, but I took awhile. Here's a clue, the relevant language from the act:

1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

Do you see the weak spot?

Think for a minute.

If you're still scratching your head, Keith Olbermann spells it out in his commentary "Beginning of the End of America."

"And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?"

Yeah. Let's say a 'competent tribunal' decides you are an 'alien unlawful combatant.' Shortly thereafter, you're nabbed and thrown into a cell. What are your options?

I'd call my lawyer, my family...

You get no calls, no contact with the outside world.

My friends and family, they'd get lawyers - they'd sue!

How? How would they even know you were being held? The Government doesn't have to admit they even have you, since habeas corpus doesn't apply.

After all, you're an alien unlawful combatant.

But I'm not!

And you can tell your captors that, over and over again.

But nobody's listening. They don't have to.

Circling the drain

While listening to the increasing flood of partisan loyalists blame anyone but the current administration for the North Korea debacle, I saw this little analytical gem from Obsidian Wings.

Clinton vs. North Korea nukes, circa 1994:

(Fred Kaplan, Washington Monthly)
"Bill Clinton, a president not known for hawkishness, nearly went to war against North Korea in the spring of 1994. Five years earlier, during the presidency of George Bush's father, the CIA had discovered the North Koreans were building a reprocessing facility near their nuclear reactor at Yongbyon.

It was this reactor that, when finished, would allow them to convert the fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium. Now, barely a year into Clinton's first term in office, they were preparing to remove the fuel rods from their storage site, expel the international weapons inspectors, and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which North Korea had signed in 1985).

In response, Clinton pushed the United Nations Security Council to consider sanctions. North Korea's spokesmen proclaimed that sanctions would trigger war. Clinton's generals drew up plans to send 50,000 troops to South Korea--bolstering the 37,000 that had been there for decades--as well as over 400 combat jets, 50 ships, and additional battalions of Apache helicopters, Bradley fighting vehicles, multiple-launch rockets, and Patriot air-defense missiles. Beyond mere plans, Clinton ordered in an advance team of 250 soldiers to set up logistical headquarters that could manage this massive influx of firepower.

These moves sent a signal to the North Koreans that the president was willing to go to war to keep the fuel rods under international control. And, several former officials insist, he would have. At the very least, they say, he was prepared to launch an air strike on the Yongbyon reactor, even though he knew that doing so could provoke war.

Fast forward to 2002 - Bush vs. North Korea Nukes:

(Kaplan, again)
The CIA got wind that North Korea may have been acquiring centrifuges for enriching uranium since the late 1990s, most likely from Pakistan. By September 2002, the conclusion was inescapable...

On Oct. 4, Kelly flew to Pyongyang to confront North Korean officials with the evidence. The North Koreans admitted it was true.

For almost two weeks, the Bush administration kept this meeting a secret. The U.S. Senate was debating a resolution to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. The public rationale for war was that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

If it was known that North Korea was also making WMDs--and nuclear weapons, at that--it would have muddied the debate over Iraq. Some would have wondered whether Iraq was the more compelling danger--or asked why Bush saw a need for war against Iraq but not against North Korea.

The Senate passed the Iraqi war resolution on Oct. 11. The Bush administration publicly revealed what it had known for weeks about North Korea's enriched-uranium program on Oct. 17."

You heard that right, the Bush administration sat on news of an actual WMD program so that it wouldn't distract people from approving a war against suspected WMD programs.

Swinging around to 2003, we see Cowboy Diplomacy at work. Bush has declared that the United States and South Korea "will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea."

The pose having been struck, this President apparently believed his job was done:

"U.S. spy satellites detected trucks pulling up to the site where the fuel rods were stored, then driving away toward the reprocessing facility. When Kim Il Sung threatened to take this step back in 1994, Clinton warned that it would cross a "red line." When Kim Jong-il actually did it in 2003, George W. Bush did nothing.

Specialists inside the U.S. government were flabbergasted. This was serious business. Once those fuel rods left the storage site, once reprocessing began, once plutonium was manufactured, the strategic situation changed: Even if we could get the North Koreans back to the bargaining table, even if they would agree to drive the fuel rods back, we could never be certain that they'd totally disarmed; we could never know if they still had some undeclared plutonium hidden in an underground chamber. (Even before this crisis, the CIA estimated that the North Koreans might have built one or two bombs from the plutonium it had reprocessed between 1989 and 1994.)"

As hilzoy asks, "Do you feel safer now?"

Update:
US Intelligence confirms North Korea's detonation was a nuke. So much for conspiratorial optimism.

Update II:
And North Korea appears to be preparing for another detonation.

Far better to be at the right hand of the devil, than in his path

I've keep reading about how GOP congressmembers appear to be breaking with the administration, and I have to say - I've stopped believing it.

I've long suspected Sen. Graham of being a mole in some of these GOP rebellions; loudly trumpeting his colleagues independent stance, before subverting it from within. But as Glen Greenwald points out, the problem is much bigger than that.

When it comes to evaluating an independent's record in Congress - there's one scorecard that doesn't lie: the voting record.

If you're an independent - if you truly go your own way - there will be breaks from you and your party on the issues you care about.

Any indepent GOP senators should show their stripes on the issues that matter.

Ready? Let's see...

• Vote to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court:
  Republicans (56-0) -- Democrats (22 -22)
  
• Cloture vote on Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court: Republicans (54-0) -- Democrats (19-25)
  Remember all that hand-wringing GOP senators in front of the microphones? Yeah - they all voted party line.
  
• Vote on Authorization to use military force in Iraq:
  Republicans (48-1) -- Democrats - (29-21)
  You're wondering who the 1 holdout was? McCain? Snowe? Warner? Specter? - Wrong. it was Sen. Lincoln Chafee of R.I.
  
• Cloture vote on Bankrupty Bill:
  Republicans (55-0) -- Democrats (14-30)
  Credit lobby says "jump!" - GOP asks only "How high?"
  
• Cloture vote on nomination of Priscilla Owens to appeals court:
  Republicans (55-0) -- Democrats (25-18)
  
• Torture/detention bill:
  Republicans (53-1) -- Democrats (12-33)
  And what GOP'er was the maverick this time? Was it any of the GOP posers you've been seeing on the news lately? No - it was Chafee again.
  
  Also from Greenwald:
  
  "Genuine Republican independence in the Congress is a myth. It doesn't exist. They have spent the last five years as a pitifully obsequious appendange to the Bush agenda."

Forget about all this talk of GOP independents. They're just people who would love to be thought of as independent - at least until November 8.

Toss 'em all out.

Memo to Speaker Hastert

I love the Washington ritual of mea culpa:

"I am taking responsibility..." Now that my transgressions are out in the open.

"...ultimately the buck stops here." But before it does- look over there!

"I'm sorry..." That this ever made it into the papers.

"When Republicans found out about the explicit messages, Republicans dealt with it immediately, and he is gone." The creepy emails and drunken visits to the page dormitory, well they didn't seem odd at the time. And he assured us that it was all perfectly innocent. Who'd have thought a pedophile would lie?

"Someone did have those messages. There are reports that a Congressional aide was a source. The Committee should help find out who had the messages and why they were not turned over sooner." And when I find out who leaked this to the media, so help me...

Boiled down, Hastert's statement suffers from the weakness of most Washington apologies:

Taking responsibility
- consequences
= lip service.

Nice try, Denny - but the buck hasn't stopped yet.

When it has, you'll know.

Foley Artists

Wonder why people are seeing cover-up in the Foleygate mess? Check out this little under-reported tidbit from Glen Greenwald:

Howard Kurtz, the media critic for both CNN and The Washington Post. On Monday, Kurtz reported that someone whom he described as "a strategist for Rep. Mark Foley" and "Foley's former chief of staff" had attempted, on behalf of Foley, to negotiate a deal with ABC, whereby ABC would agree to conceal the content of the IMs in exchange for an exclusive interview with Foley. This is how Kurtz "reported" the incident:

On Friday afternoon, a strategist for Rep. Mark Foley tried to cut a deal with ABC's Brian Ross. The correspondent, who had dozens of instant messages that Foley sent to teenage House pages, had asked to interview the Florida Republican.

Foley's former chief of staff said the congressman was quitting and that Ross could have that information exclusively if he agreed not to publish the raw, sexually explicit messages.

There was no reference whatsoever to the key fact in that story -- that the person negotiating the deal for Foley was actually Tom Reynolds' current Chief of Staff, Kirk Fordham.

--Yeah, that's right. On September 29th, the current Chief of Staff to Tom Reynolds (R - NY) was trying to cut a deal to keep a lid on this scandal. Tom Reynolds is the current chairman for the National Republican Congressional Comittee.

For those of you keeping score, the NRCC is in charge of maintaining a Republican majority in Congress.

Mr. Greenwald rightly chastizes Howard Kurtz for presenting this fact in such a deceptive fashion. The right label for Kirk Fordham isn't "a strategist" for Foley, but "Chief of Staff for Tom Reynolds" - his current job!

I missed this, and I've heard this blunted description repeated in major media outlets. What a crock. Reynolds is rightly going down in flames.

Read the full Greenwald post, it's worth it.

Rashomon

The H situation got a little clarity on Friday - after I compared notes with some of my co-workers.

Seems H's exit was a lot more pathetic than I originally thought. They were sending email out to other departments begging people to say nice things to H's boss so H wouldn't be fired.

No one said anything in H's favor, and the fact that H acted so unprofessional probably made the decision to terminate a whole lot easier for management.

I got some personal clarity on an issue that was bugging me for a long time - why on earth would H have helped me get a better job, after I went out of my way to get H canned at the last one?

I was relating the backstory to another co-worker and was in mid brain-barf when they wrote something on a piece of paper and passed it over to me. They'd written three words and two symbols on it:

Guilt
+
Indebtedness
=
Control

It rang so true, I just burst out with "Oh, My God!"

Control!

That was it. H had been manipulating me by treating me better than I had treated them. It had worked, too. I'd been on their side on a number of things when I shouldn't have. Said measured things when I might have spilled out the whole sorry backstory.

H had told me that they were doing great at work - truth was a little more modest. The boss liked H, that was true. Most everything else was bunk. I'd repeat that bunk, and suddenly H had some kind of "rep." I'd sung their praises to lots of people, in and out of work. I'd default to an ally on pretty much anything.

We were always able to work together, that was true - and I really wanted to believe that H had found a place they could excel in. But it's abundantly clear that nothing had changed, and I was getting played.

The third part of the story would only come from H, and I'll never get that side. But I have to say that I can turn that curiosity off without a second thought.

I'm just naive enough to assume people are being up front about things, and with H - that was clearly a mistake.

It was particularly telling that H's "please help me" email didn't get sent to me. H knew what I'd say at that point - the truth - because that's what I did at our last job.

So, two years of this crap ends right now. No guilt, no strings.

Free and clear.

Happy birthday to me.

“Congratulations…Admiral Piett...”

At my old job, I had a boss I'll call H who was universally unpopular. Their behavior was so bad that I ultimately ended up making a formal complaint to upper management. Shortly thereafter - although certainly not as a direct result - upper management sat my boss down in a room and ordered them to sign a letter of resignation. My boss didn't, they walked out - fully expecting to be fired. Even left me a voicemail saying I was to blame.

Upper management being spineless types, they chose not to fire H. They just waited, hoping that enough time would pass so that this would become a de-facto resignation. Having read the rules as well, H returned weeks later on the last day they could have been allowed to continue working. H then proceeded to stick around for several painfully uncomfortable months. A few days before a huge go-live date, we find out that H is leaving for a better job. In a building where everyone seemed relieved to be rid of them, H insisted on having a farewell "party" with cake and speeches.

Weird, but - End of story, right?

Not quite. Some time later, I get a call from H inviting me to come work with them.

I'm thinking, no way - this is some bizarre payback scheme... but H goes out of their way to show me the job specs, prep me for what it will be like - even sets up an interview with a headhunter.

I gave it a shot. Tuned up my résumé, put on a clean shirt - took a chance. The headhunter was a total pro. If it's revenge, it's mucho bizzaro and elaborate as hell. I roll the dice.

Nothing. For a year. Not even a phone call.

I'm like whatever, all that fretting over a big change - for nothing. So, one year later I run into H in the grocery store, and they are not their usual surly self. They gush over my son, chat me up... I'm lost. I make nice and forget about it.

Next week, I get an email from H telling me that I should apply again, H's employer is hiring. H talks me up to the bosses, puts me back in touch with the headhunter.

I'm like, whatever; put my on-file resume in the mix. Hang up. What's for lunch?

Next day, headhunter calls me back; you have an interview - tomorrow.

Uh...? Okay, might as well polish up the skills on a suicide mission.

At the interview, I'm hired on the spot. In forty-eight hours I go from nonprof lifer to corporate stringer.

--And I work with H.

H is not my manager, I've made sure - but any fears of payback go out the window on my first day. H makes me a welcome sign - shows me the ropes. Takes me to meetings, assists me on projects, tunes up my reports. In short, H is a spectacular co-worker.

In corp-world, H is a star. H is the Boss' stand out staffer - the go-to person for important projects.

It's like they're a different person.

Months pass, infrequently I see the occasional shade of the former H that I remember from my old job. Sullenly staring at their notes in meetings. Talking in low hostile tones.... But it passes - and life goes on. Most days, you don't have time to think about that stuff anyway.

Week ago, I get called in to help H on a project. I'm like "sure, I owe ya."

H is on the project from hell. Combative stakeholders, insane timeline, wandering scope, and no backup.

H is stressed and is reverting to patterns I've seen before. H's decisions are picked apart by our team manager, and now there's no one in H's corner.

I go to H's project meetings and they are pure poison. Bureaucratic infighting on top of raw nerves. I help out in a limited fashion and thank the heavens that I can move on to safer projects.

That was last week. Yesterday, I get an IM from H saying they've been bounced off the project lead. Now, I'm lead. H's employment status is being re-evaluated in three weeks. As in: fired, but given time to look for work first.

Delayed firings never seem to last, and this one is no exception. After a particularly frustrating day, H goes splenetic in email and next thing they're bowing out of a 4 o'clock meeting with me. H says the one thing a contractor never wants to say, "I have to meet with my account rep." (i.e. I'm fired.) Gone. As. Of. Now.

I get a courtesy call from the boss to formally let me know the situation. She's upset, she genuinely seemed to like H.

I'm pretty conflicted. Two years ago, I'd have been cheering. Now, I just feel ill. H flamed out, and appears to have had ample opportunity to save their job - but it was just a total shitstorm, they were left hanging, and I’m thinking anyone could have cracked.

In any event, I'll have ample opportunity to test that hypothesis. After all, I'm on the doomsday project. As lead.

Nothing to worry about though, the boss likes me -
I'm a star.

When did we stop being America?

I was reading the declassified excerpts from the NIE on Trends in Global Terrorism, and got distracted by a small thing that has bugged me for years.

From the declassified key judgments:

...We judge that al-Qaida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad...
We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland...
...[groups like Jamaah Islamiya and Ansar al-Sunnah] pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-
Qaeida...

Homeland.

When did we re-brand this nation as "the Homeland?" As in: the-completely-fabricated-proper-noun, Homeland.

When did "America" become inadequate to describe where we live? Why do we suddenly need to refer to this nation as anything other than its given name?

Nevermind the fascist overtones this re-branded pretender implies. Ask yourself, what need is this word filling? Precision? Imprecision?

Department of Homeland Security.
Why in Sam Hell couldn't we have a Department of Domestic Security?

There are bigger fish to fry in the world, but its just another symptom of an ideology moving to sneak into our thoughts by taking over the language.

Estate tax? Death Tax.
Eavesdropping? Terrorist Surveillance Program.
Torture? Interrogation Techniques.

Don't think of America in the same way, this seems to suggest - think of it our way.

Sorry, but I live in America. The "homeland" can bite me.

Bait and switch

On Friday, President Clinton agreed to be interviewed by Fox News' Chris Wallace. The interview was supposed to focus on Pres. Clinton's recent fundraising efforts to combat global issues like poverty, resource scarcity, and sectarian conflict. His nonpartisan group got people like Rupert Murdoch talking to progressives about issues that are more important than ideology.

Pres. Clinton expected to be asked about his foundation's global initiative. Since he was on Fox News, he was instead grilled on why he "didn't do enough" to get Bin Laden.

Understandably, he felt set up. The full video isn't up yet, but he clearly was angry with the interviewer.

I would expect Fox News (being the partisan bullhorn that they are) to break up and cherry pick this interview to make whatever hay they can - but the full transcript reads rather well for Pres. Clinton.

Case in point:

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.

WALLACE: Right…

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t…I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir…

CLINTON:…

WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked: Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many you asked: Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know…

WALLACE: We asked…

CLINTON:…

WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?

CLINTON: I don’t believe you ask them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…

CLINTON: You didn’t ask that did you? Tell the truth.

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: Tell the truth.

WALLACE: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan there’s plenty of stuff to ask.

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on climate change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…

WALLACE: [laughs]

CLINTON: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

Full transcript (rough as of 9/23)

Sen. McCain: Why do you settle for headlines instead of results?

The popular image of Sen. McCain is the conservative maverick. Plain-spoken, direct, he's the guy willing to break with his president if his principles led him elsewhere.
I was one of the many impressed by his championing the 2005 McCain amendment barring prisoner abuse. He went up against the President, and won the day.

Except he didn't, he got the photo op - and very little else:

"The McCain vote, of course, garnered front-page coverage around the country and on the networks. "President Backs McCain on Abuse," declared The New York Times.

What was mostly missed, however, were two key facts. First, the amendment, worthy as it was, wasn’t as strong as advertised. It contained no enforcement clause: soldiers or CIA agents couldn’t abuse prisoners, the bill stated, but it didn’t provide for any penalties if they did. The amendment, in other words, was mostly a statement of principle, without teeth.

What’s more, McCain’s amendment was undercut by another little-noticed amendment that was passed as part of the same defense appropriations bill. Sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham, Carl Levin, and John Kyl, the amendment — which was combined with McCain’s measure to become the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) — states that testimony gained through "coercion" can be used in military tribunals. Unlike the McCain amendment, which merely reaffirms existing laws, the Graham-Levin-Kyl measure muddies what had been clear waters. The amendment’s portion of the DTA also severely restricts detainees’ access to U.S. courts and strips them of the right to habeas corpus. It limits detainee cases to a single hearing in front of an appeals court, at which detainees have no clear right to present the facts of their case."
-Eric Umansky, CJR

Now Sen. McCain's back in the papers - having once again locked horns with the White House. The papers sign his praises, and rhapsodize about how he's standing on principle again.
And now, once more - we have to ask: what did you accomplish, Senator?

"...Mr. Bush, as he made clear yesterday, intends to continue using the CIA to secretly detain and abuse certain terrorist suspects. He will do so by issuing his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in an executive order and by relying on questionable Justice Department opinions that authorize such practices as exposing prisoners to hypothermia and prolonged sleep deprivation. Under the compromise agreed to yesterday, Congress would recognize his authority to take these steps and prevent prisoners from appealing them to U.S. courts. The bill would also immunize CIA personnel from prosecution for all but the most serious abuses and protect those who in the past violated U.S. law against war crimes."
-Washington Post Op Ed

"On other issues, the three rebel senators achieved only modest improvements on the White House’s original positions. They wanted to bar evidence obtained through coercion. Now, they have agreed to allow it if a judge finds it reliable (which coerced evidence hardly can be) and relevant to guilt or innocence. The way coercion is measured in the bill, even those protections would not apply to the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

The deal does next to nothing to stop the president from reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions. While the White House agreed to a list of "grave breaches" of the conventions that could be prosecuted as war crimes, it stipulated that the president could decide on his own what actions might be a lesser breach of the Geneva Conventions and what interrogation techniques he considered permissible. It’s not clear how much the public will ultimately learn about those decisions. They will be contained in an executive order that is supposed to be made public, but Mr. Hadley reiterated that specific interrogation techniques will remain secret.

Even before the compromises began to emerge, the overall bill prepared by the three senators had fatal flaws. It allows the president to declare any foreigner, anywhere, an "illegal enemy combatant" using a dangerously broad definition, and detain him without any trial. It not only fails to deal with the fact that many of the Guantánamo detainees are not terrorists and will never be charged, but it also chokes off any judicial review."
-NYT Op Ed

"Let's assume for the sake of argument that there ought to be a series of interrogation tactics that fall short of grave breaches but that ought still not to be permissible. That sounds right, indeed. But, the problem [with this deal] is [its] complete deferral to the President on this determination. There were other ways it could have been done, including legislative oversight, judicial determination (i.e. like a FISA court review), or some interrogation "body" that would assess the use of such tactics in specific circumstances. It didn't have to just go to the President; Congress could have equally allowed presidential tough tactics but still reserved some oversight over the use and consistency of those tactics (that fall short of a grave breach).
It is this concession to the President that is mind-boggling in almost all respects because the hold-outs could have given the President the less than grave tactics without giving him the sole authority to determine what they were."
--Juliette Kayyem

McCain has run into the Administration's buzz saw more than a few times, and he keeps coming away with little more than headlines.

So the question is, is that all he wants?

The one cat I'll miss...

On a more frivolous subject - Today the navy retires the F-14 Tomcat.

As a kid, this was the plane I dreamt about growing up to fly. I remember my dad telling me about planes that could shoot down the enemy at a range of 200 miles. "Never even see the enemy," dad would say. He was talking about this bird.

The truth was a little more modest:
A Tomcat with six AIM-54 Phoenix missiles and a AWG-9 radar system could track two dozen targets while engaging six of them at better than 100 miles.

The targets would need to be bomber-sized, and the only test of this had results that were always charitably interpreted - but still! It was a cool bird, swing wings and then there was VF-84 paint scheme which was multiple shades of kick-ass.

It was a movie star (Final Countdown, Top Gun, Executive Decision) it was....

...it was pricey. It cost Thirty-six million per unit. A full salvo for an F-14 cost over two million.

..and it was old.

Still, it was the plane I was stuck on as a kid, and while it's had a good run - it's still a bit sad to see it sent off to the boneyard like any other relic.

One more icon crossed off the list.

Beyond, there be dragons

Sam Gardiner, Col. USAF (Ret.), lecturer at the National War College, and frequent commentator has published a paper on Iran through the non-partisan Century Foundation. His observations are not encouraging. In addition to believing that something is in the works, he is not optimistic about the military option:

"When I finished the 2004 Iran war game exercise, I summarized what I had learned in the process. After all the effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. You have to make diplomacy work." I have not changed my mind. That conclusion made sense then. It still makes sense today."

We torture

Maybe this was the article that ruined my mood for today, but it is an excellent piece of work- the kind that should happen more often: A look back at the media coverage of a huge story.

The story is America's treatment of detainees. There's good and bad in the way journalists and editors did and didn't cover the story - but the end result of all of this is a realization I'd been fighting off for some time.

The article is Eric Umansky's Failures of Imagination, and it is quite the read.

There weren't bad apples in the torture scandal, there was bad policy. Immoral policy. And there has been precious little coverage and virtually no oversight.

The Detainee Treatment Act and the McCain Amendment of 2005 are revealed for the hollow farces that they are, and time and time again we are shown how easily the press is stonewalled, misdirected, or flat-out lied to.

Air raid

I try not to be an alarmist. This is my playpen, I post what I want here - but I genuinely try to post stuff that is sourced enough to be credible. If it's editorial, I'll just link to it.

Josh Marshall over at TalkingPointsMemo.com has posted something that is downright scary. Not "ooh, I have shivers" ghost-story crap - but honest-to-Jehovah scary:

Quite a bit has come out in the last week or so pointing to the conclusion that the Bush administration is making serious preparations for a major military strike on Iran. The tea leaves are always difficult to analyze because you have to weigh the fact that a strike is totally irrational against the fact that the administration is led by folks whose irrationality has been demonstrated again and again. The one piece of data that makes me think they're really going to try it, however, is the news that Don Rumsfeld has apparently put Abram Shulsky (head of what was once the 'Office of Special Plans' (OSP)) in charge of a new DOD outfit, modeled on the OSP, to stovepipe bogus Iran intel from the likes of Manucher Ghorbanifar straight to administration leaders.
That tells me that fundamentally Condi Rice is just window-dressing, like her predecessor Colin Powell, that the Cheney-Rumsfeld Axis remains in place and in charge and that we'll probably be at war with Iran before too long unless someone can stop them.

Now, there are always alarmists out there - and this is the internet for crying out loud - but there's more than Mr. Marshall's bad vibe.

Time magazine is reporting that the U.S. Navy is getting orders that look like something is up.

The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy" order sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine hunters. The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said to be ready to move by Oct. 1.
But inside the Navy those messages generated more buzz than usual last week when a second request, from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), asked for fresh eyes on long-standing U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports on the Persian Gulf.

Posturing is part of statecraft, we could be doing this to ratchet up the pressure on Iran (memo to the President: good luck with that), and as stupid and wasteful as that would be - I sure hope that's the case.

If we move on an Iranian Port for real - that is an act of war. We'll call "quarantine" or some safe for TV term, but it would be an act of war.

I don't believe in October surprises, not from this President. But I genuinely fear that he is so sure of himself (again) that he will (again) do grievous harm to America.

Who in the heck likes corn?

Consumer reports has an interesting article about Ethanol fuel - specifically, E85.

The ethanol myth
Despite the avid support of the Bush administration and major American car companies, E85 is unlikely to fill more than a small percentage of U.S. energy needs. ...

-E85, which is 85 percent ethanol, emits less smog-causing pollutants than gasoline, but provides fewer miles per gallon, costs more, and is hard to find outside the Midwest.
-Government support for flexible-fuel vehicles, which can run on E85, is indirectly causing more gasoline consumption rather than less.
-Most ethanol is being blended in a 10 percent mix to reduce smog-producing emissions and stretch gasoline supplies.

Worth a read.

Yard sale

After Katrina hit, my mom's neighbor, T had an unwelcome visitor: a yacht had landed on the back of his house. It had appeared the night before the storm, tied up to the dock across the bayou.

The storm surge had lifted it off its moorings and over the 15-foot pilings and onto T's house. His house was pretty much gutted, so the boat didn't really add to the damage - it just added hassle.

T had originally expected (as most would) that the owner would come to claim their boat. They didn't. Turns out, this boat wasn't your run of the mill flotsam. The owner didn't own the neighboring dock, didn't have rights to moor it there and - this is the kicker - the owner had it insured up the ying-yang.

After checking out the boat, T figured out why: the boat was a total mess, and likely had been for quite some time before the storm. In fact, this boat wasn't even from the area: it had sailed into the bayou only the night before and tied up under cover of darkness.

This owner was only too happy to cash out and walk away.

He hadn't counted on two factors:
1) T (having lost his house and everything in it) was in a seriously pissy mood; and
2) T is an attorney.

T calls this guy's insurance company and assures them that the boat is overinsured. He then finds out that there's some law that allows him to claim the boat as his salvage (since it arrived on his land and wasn't claimed within X period of days). T doesn't want it, but can bring the guy's insurance settlement to a screetching halt just by filing a claim. Then he goes trolling for ways to sue this turkey for parking his boat on his property.

A year plus later, T's still living in a FEMA trailer, overhauling his house - but jerkwad boatowner finally ponies up the dough to haul the wreck off of T's yard. Plus damages. Plus, they had to haul it out via the bayou. And everyone got to watch and point.

Score one for the good guys.

A spade is a spade...

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) in response to a G.O.P. colleague remarking that Democrats are "tired of fighting terrorism."

The problem with the President's interview with NBC's Matt Lauer...

What genuinely disturbs me about his performance here is this:

He keeps hammering on two points, despite pointed, direct questioning.

1. I need to protect the country (or “your family”).
2. I don’t want to say things that will cause the enemy to adjust their tactics.

The first is just rhetoric and is just nonsensical in terms of responding to a question.

The second actually might have some merit, if the President demonstrated what he meant by it.

He could say, for example:

“If I told you that a specific tactic x was not allowed, it would tell our enemies that. Right now an interrogator can bluff a prisoner into believing that they will be subjected to this tactic – but as soon as I say that this technique is prohibited, and interrogator cannot even bluff using this tactic.”

But he doesn’t say that – he sticks to his talking points and leans into the reporter and makes the question about Matt Lauer’s family. “Don’t you want me to keep your family safe?” as in the classic salesman’s fake-out ‘question’ “Are you the kind of person who enjoys saving money?”

People who talk like that make you distrust them. You may answer their question, you may politely indulge them and let the matter drop. But you’ll remember what they said and what they didn’t. And you’ll think of them as dishonest.

A President with a good reason for withholding information should be able to convey this intelligently. President Bush just comes across as someone who has been handed a script and told not to deviate from it – no matter how foolish it makes him appear.

Well, mission accomplished, Mr. President.

You looked foolish, weak and dishonest.

Scramble, scramble...

This amazingly scrambly performance harkens back to the President’s “what’s the difference” interview with Diane Sawyer.

Did you ever…? I've never seen a President so bad in front of a camera.

Another K.O.

Apt commentary on America's literal and figurative open wound.

The obvious question

Where were you...?

Velvet glove

Here's the response from my local ABC affilliate:

The Path to 9/11 is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources. The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it’s not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate. The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it’s fitting that the discussion
continues.

Clearly, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression. We are aware of that. We also know that [our city]has a reputation for being an unbiased community that supports all viewpoints and we will allow our viewers to make their own conclusions.

Thank you for your comments!

Even less than what I'd expected, but at least they were prompt. I mean really, this isn't a movie depicting events that happend centuries ago - about which there are competing theories.

These are events where the participants are still alive and are loudly denoucing ABC's depiction.

I told them this, but I'm probably only allowed one bite at the apple.

Nipping at their heels

In response to the recent coverage on how the movie The Path to 9/11 got so many things wrong, I wrote the following to my local ABC affilliate:

I'm writing to find out if your network's intent is to air the miniseries The Path to 9/11.

While there is little point in dissecting pure entertainment programming for its factual content - programming that purports to be factual and based on independent research ought to be held to its own standards.

The Path to 9/11, has been criticized as "inaccurate" by members of the 9/11 commission, as well as participants in the events the movie claims to portray.

The co-commissioner of the 9/11 commission has wondered how the movies writers, "could have misinterpreted the 9/11 commission’s finding the way that they had."

If this was your ordinary movie of the week, I wouldn't be bothering you about it - but this movie claims to depict events that will define our lives for decades. It is being distributed to schools - and it is factually incorrect.

Recent events have taught us that public opinion can be swayed by inaccurate statements, especially if they are presented forcefully and are shielded from critical analysis. Your role as a network is to inform as well as entertain. To air programming that misleads your viewers about 9/11, of all things, is surely something that you would avoid.

I'm asking you, as one of your viewers, to at least provide your viewers with the counterpoint to this movie. Tell them where experts see inaccuracies. Don't just tell them that parts have been fictionalized; show them where the fiction is.

If you at least do this, you can raise the level of debate on 9/11 above partisan finger pointing - and perhaps we as a nation can start talking about things more important than television shows.

I'll post their response if I ever get one.

It's that kind of day

Promise me

Things change, memory morphs into new things - and things that stay the same are seen from a new angle. My grandmother told me this story many times as a joke. "Isn't it funny what kids will say?" that sort of thing. It's just not the same anymore.

When my dad was a boy, he and my grandmother were out walking in town and they saw an elderly man trying to go up a flight of stairs. He was struggling, and had to stop repeatedly.

My dad and Gramma walked by, but my dad kept looking back at the man.

"What's wrong with him?" he asked.

"Nothing," Gramma said, "he's just old."

My dad looked back at the man and then at his mother. "I don't want to grow old, mom."

Gramma laughed, "Everybody grows old, that's just how it is."

Dad didn't let it go. "Promise me, promise me I'll never grow old!"

"Ok," she said, "I promise, you'll never grow old."

I don't believe in prophecy. Hell, I don't believe in much of anything anymore - but I just can't get that out of my head.

It's a year later, and I'm still in the goddamned car - wishing this was all some bad dream.

Olbermann throws down. "Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet."

I cannot add anything to the drubbing Keith Olbermann gave to Secretary Rumsfeld and to the administration - so I'll just link to it.

Mr. Olbermann, as a fellow American - I'd like to shake your hand.

"...plenty of blame to go around.." but, we'd rather you don't focus on our share

One year ago today, the gulf coast woke up to the notion that the Cat 3 hurricane that had been going to Texas, was now a Cat 5 storm headed for New Orleans. One year ago, we were told our government was ready: the supplies were prepositioned; emergency responders were poised and ready; and the coast would be taken care of.

Today, we all know what a complete load of bunk that turned out to be.

Six months after the disaster - there was still garbage in the streets and people living in tent cities. Aid agencies were asking for blankets so people could sleep warm for the first time in months. Those out of power blamed those in power, those in power blamed everyone (and therefore, everyone else). The administration would have you believe that their slice of blame is on par with what others deserve.

I'm sorry, but that's just not gonna wash with me.

"...let's pretend that both Nagin and Blanco performed beautifully throughout the whole thing. Let'e pretend (and this is hard) that Nagin made all the right calls, ordered the mandatory evacuation at the proper time, and marshalled all of New Orelans' meager resources in preparing for disaster. Let's further pretend that Blanco was a model of foresight and was ready to be the grease that helped the enitre disaster machine run smoothly, cooperating fully with both Nagin and Bush. The only thing that stays the same in this scenario is the federal response.

New Orleans is still completely screwed."

Read more here.
(background - Mr. Brodedrick worked for the Feds, and he was worse than useless.)

Yeah. What about that?

A friend forwarded me an editorial written by a former colleague of mine. He's saying something that needs to be said over and over until the glorified stenographers who call themselves a press corps finally get the message.

This man was a Vietnam vet, and he has lost all patience with those who view their role as journalists as simply providing a bullhorn for right-wing character assassins.

He writes:

...I ask: How dare these cowards attack our veterans in these underhanded, vicious and deceptive ways? How dare this bunch of chicken hawks, so eager to propound wars like Vietnam and Iraq, yet never fight in them, deride those of us who served and who may actually know something about body bags, and travesty and death?

To the reporters and editorialists and nightly anchors I ask: Where is the analysis of these accusers? ...

Had I been smarter, better connected, more politically astute, I may have managed to stay home myself. But no chicken hawk, able to avoid war service for himself and his family, should question the service, the commitment, the dedication and the patriotism of those who have faced the fear and the fire and who dare to take part in the democracy they believed they were sent to protect.

Read the rest here.

National Security Archive FOIA Request Yields 9/11 Air Traffic Control Transcripts

Because more information is a good thing:

National Security Archive has posted the 9/11 Air Traffic Control Transcripts

1328:16+
UAL-93 *** (mayday) *** (hey get out of here) ***

1328:48+
UAL-93 *** (get out of here) *** (get out of here) ***

1329:14+
LOR-R [Lorain Radar - Ground control] United ninety three verify three five zero.

1329:20+
LOR-R United ninety three verify you're at flight level ah three five zero.

....[LOR-R repeatedly attempts to contact the UAL-93]...

1331:55+
UAL-93 *** please sit down. keep remaining seating. we have a bomb on board, so ***

1332:05+
LOR-R er uh calling cleveland center you're unreadable say again slowly.

1335:36+
LOR-R ah United ninety three if able * ah squawk trip please.

1336:51+
LOR-R [Cleaveland center announces that UAL93 is turning south and east and climbing].

1339:10+
UAL-93 ah this is the captain uh would like to all remain seated there is a bomb aboard and we go back to the airport and to have our demands so please remain quiet.

This is the last time UAL-93 appears in the transcript.

Controlled demolition? They beg to differ..

All dressed up and nowhere to go. I was going to post a long rant debunking controlled demolition as a reason why the World Trade Center collapsed – but somebody has nicely put it all in a single document.

I will post a few choice bits I found that tackle the notion advanced by conspiracy theorists, namely:

“…2,000 lbs of RDX-grade linear-shaped charges (which could have been pre-positioned by just a few men) could cut the supports at key points so that gravity would bring the buildings straight down.”
-Prof. Stephen E. Jones, Brigham Young University

Professor, meet a man who blows up buildings for a living:

“The explosives configuration manufacturing technology [to bring down those buildings] does not exist… If someone were to attempt to make such charges, they would weigh thousands of pounds apiece. You would need forklifts to bring them into the building.”
-Mark Loizeaux, Controlled Demolition, Inc.

Loizeaux goes on to say that the biggest commercially available charges can cut through steel that is three inches thick. The box columns at the base of the WTC towers were fourteen inches on a side. If big enough charges did exist, Loizeaux says, for each tower it could hypothetically take as long as two months for a team of up to 75 men with unfettered access to three floors to strip the fireproofing off the columns and then place and wire the charges.

“There’s just no way to do it… If you just put bulk explosives in file cabinets next to every column in the building, it wouldn’t knock those columns down. It would blow the windows out. It would trash the [building] and probably blow out two floors above and a floor below… but it wouldn’t knock the building down.”
-Mark Loizeaux, Controlled Demolition, Inc.

On to the really good stuff. It turns out yesterday, the folks over at Implosionworld.com (gotta love the name) have released a report on controlled demolition theories at the WTC.

Their verdict – the Controlled Demolition theory folks don’t have the faintest idea what they are talking about.

Read all about it. (PDF)

Where does the money go?

Damn fine idea if you ask me.

What do Friends of the Earth, the Family Research Council, Phyllis Schlafly and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have in common? If you think not much, then you are partially wrong: They all love the new Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Introduced by senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to establish and maintain a single public website listing the names and locations of all individuals and groups receiving federal funds, including the amount of federal funds received annually by program.

The idea of a transparency website -- replete with search engines that include subcontractors -- was born in May 2005 at a hearing on U.S. efforts to combat malaria. Officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) squirmed as Coburn revealed that 93% of the agency's 2004 funding to eradicate malaria had been spent on administrative and advice-giving services. In addition, not enough of these funds were spent overseas; too much was absorbed by high-paid U.S. consultants.

Read more

We can't make this stuff up

The New Bush Quiz is out.

The score to beat is fifteen.

That sinking feeling...

In plugging around for the previous post, I came across the following article on Vanity Fair:

9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

Transcripts and audio from NORAD. Shows the chaos and confusion of that morning.

9:32:20
MAJOR JAMES ANDERSON: Have you asked—have you asked the question what you're gonna do if we actually find this guy? Are we gonna shoot him down if they got passengers on board? Have they talked about that?

Worth a read, and a listen.

Memo to 9/11 conspiracy buffs everywhere: Making movies is easy. Research is hard.

I've watched the internet film "Loose change," about 9/11 - and come away with the same sense of bewilderment that I first had when I read the JFK conspiracy book "Best Evidence."

Can't be... it just can't be...

Were I still the 17-year old twerp who read JFK assassination books, I'd still be wondering about 9/11. Thankfully, I have a cerebral cortex, and the curiosity to use it.

Loose change's slick production values give it the appearance of credibility. Quick cuts, edgy music. Interviews that ratchet up the sense of alarm.
Part of the wow factor of this movie is that it was made by total nobodies on a shoestring.

Nobodies on a shoestring don't usually have quality fact-checking.

The problem with going after these guys is you typically come off like you're as kooky as they are.

For what it's worth:

• When conspiracy theories go bad. by David Corn


• Popular Mechanics on 9/11: Debunking The Myths


• Fahrenheit 2777 by Michael Shermer


• State Department's refutation


• Line by line refutation of Loose Change movie (Not very professional, but not terrible either)

Be first, be loud - and you win

The modern news cycle has led to a truth in message management: namely, it doesn't matter if what you say is correct - you have to say it loudly, with conviction, and -most importantly- first. The current administration appears to have not only grasped this tactic, but mastered it.

Spin any malarkey you want, the news will have to play catch up - and by the time they do, you've already won the war of ideas.

This is likely news to no one. But I just had to point out a posting on the New York Times that debunks an earlier use of this tactic. Mostly because it is so richly deserved.

The target of this debunking? Michael Crichton's novel, State of Fear.

Now, I like a number of Crichton's novels; the Andromeda Strain, Eaters of the Dead, Jurassic Park, and Timeline. All good fun, all are loosely based on Crichton's tried and true formula, find a story hook rooted in science and go to town.

In State of Fear, Crichton basically counterpunches all environmental science, using whatever he can find that sounds credible. His loudest refrain was a study on Antarctica that had observed a cooling effect on one of the continent's peninsulas, as well as the thickening of the glacier. Out of context, this appears to fly in the face of global warming. "Earth getting warmer? How come Antarctica is getting cooler?"

Except the study didn't say that Antarctica is getting cooler, they pointed to data that a majority of the continent had cooled - and noted that the rest of the continent was, in fact warming. Their conclusion was that more research needed to be done, and not "Global warming is a hoax!" as Crichton would have you believe.

Enter the NYT editorial "Cold, Hard Facts," penned by one of the authors of the study, Peter Doran:

Our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that “the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.” I have never thought such a thing either.

Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?

...I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well.

Counterpunching is fun (I say this from experience) and it can make a good novel - but Crichton's misuse of the one study that supported his plot, and his complete dismissal of the literally thousands of independent observations that support the theory of Global Warming, was irresponsible. The fact that this novel becomes some people's sole interaction with the issue just compounds the fact. Crichton has leveraged his fame into audiences with the President to discuss the issue, which (while unlikely to have swayed the president) lends his work credibility that this scientific dilettante just doesn't deserve.

The guy's a fiction writer. Novelists are, to use Ursula's Le Guin's phrase, "in the business of telling lies." It is presented as fact to make a good story, not because it is fact. Crichton doesn't have to answer to anyone - he just has to move product.

I'm glad that the truth comes out eventually, but once again - it's in the fine print - long after the fact.

Updated
There are more and better criticisms out there. Here are just a few:

• Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion
  By Gavin Schmidt December 13, 2004
• Distort Reform
  By Gavin Schmidt February 1, 2005
• Checking Crichton's footnotes
  By Chris Mooney February 6, 2005

Whole lotta Muffuletta

A local deli has arguably the best Muffuletta I've had in the Midwest. Being a Muffuletta, it's about the size of a small car. On impulse (read "avoiding my desk") I went out and picked one up.

I love this place. The first time I was there, the guy made the Muffuletta and was so happy with it that - I kid you not - he photographed it before he gave it to me. Must have put it in his advertising materials. Gotta like a guy who takes that kind of pride in his work.

So I order mine and he drops it down on the counter with an impressive 'whump!' I look up at him, "Now that's a sandwich!" He just grinned. A pound and a half of ham, genoa salami, and provalone, topped with the holy sacrement known as olive relish. Oh yeah....

Well, I ate it. Damn near all of it. And while it was eye-rollingly good. I'm starting to realize (for the bazillionth time) that sometimes, too much of a good thing is truly too much. Now here I am at work trying to stay on task, when all I want to do is find a large sofa and pass out.

Foolish, foolish mortal... Do not anger the gods of the Muffuletta, for they will hurt you...

The best disinfectant

Just saw this, and thought it was too cool not to mention. This specific interface may or may not catch on, but the general idea is sure to last: Greater access to politician's fundraising information and voting records via a common web app.

• Read the article from TPMcafe, or
• See the example

Reverberate

Last week, my sister-in-law gave me a copy of Neko Case's Blacklisted, and I just can't shake the song, "Deep Red Bells." She wrote it about the Green River Killer, which gives it the macabre flavor that ensures maximum sticking power - at least, for people like me.

The windout has been camped out in my head for three solid days:

Where does this mean world cast its cold eye?
Who’s left to suffer long about you?
Does your soul cast about like an old paper bag,
past empty lots and early graves,
of those like you who lost their way
-murdered on the interstate-
While the red bells rang like thunder?

You'll just have to imagine Neko's voice soaring through the last line like an avenging angel.

Gives me chills.

Spot on

NTY on the reality of the current administration's power grabs:

The Real Agenda
Published: July 16, 2006
The New York Times

It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.

Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.

More

Thief in the night

I talk about soccer a lot, because it's easy. The words fall out of my head and more or less say what I want to say.

Real life isn't so easy.

This morning, E's father passed away after a long struggle with cancer. He passed away in his sleep - which I suppose is a small comfort. E's sister had just made it up from L.A. - and I'm hoping she got to spend time with him before the end.

I doubt he got to see his new grand-daughter, but I'm hoping he did.

There is real comfort for E, but she's with her sisters. Times like this, companionship is all you can lean on.

The words aren't coming out right, so I'll just stop here.

High treason

July 9, 2006
Italy: 1
France: 1
Zidane 7' PEN; Materazzi 19'; Italy wins 5-3 on penalties.

Going into this match, I'd been pulling for France. Mostly pulling for Zidane and the old guard to stump the critics and walk home with a second world cup. Zizou's last game - the frogs could win one for the old man, and everything would be golden.

I wanted the fairy tale.

Being a soccer fan, I know that fairy tales have no place in soccer - and I'd prepared for an Italy win. No matter what, Zidane had shown his quality - and the world would have to give him his due.

Win or lose, he still walks off the field a hero, right?

Enter soccer -the cruelest sport of all.

France's early lead forces the Italians to play, which they do very well for about a half an hour - deservedly scoring and dominating play in the first half. Then France pulls out the stops and starts running the show. Italy turtles in, and just gets shelled.

Henry's a madman, the French midfield is dominating, but nothing's going in. Zidane's playing hurt, the fairy tale is all queued up.

Extra time, France is driving - subbing in two forwards doing everything right. Italy's looking ragged, they could lose at any moment -

-and Zidane headbutts Materazzi. Materazzi (having played in the Serie A) drops to the ground like he's been shot.

I'm looking at the screen, trying to figure out why in God's name Zizou would do something so blatantly unforgivable, when I realize that the ref hasn't seen it. Impossible, it's on the replay, as blatant as the Hand of God - maybe he'll -

No, the fourth official's looking at the same replay as the rest of the world - and the ref reaches into his pocket.

Win or lose, Zidane, you just lost your legacy. One of four men on earth to score a goal in two World Cup finals, and you will forever be remembered for this stupid act.

A ten-man France plays valiantly, managing to dominate the Italians. Two quality chance don't go France's way - but it doesn't really matter anymore. Even a win won't redeem Zizou. He blew it, and when it goes to penalties, two of the three worst outcomes have already happened.

The PK coin toss comes up Italy, and provides the third.

Losing is nothing, and PKs are an evil of the game that need to be rooted out and destroyed (replay, anyone?) but Zidane's flame out is just the worst.

It undoes all the nobility of France's run to the final - and guarantees that whenever Zidane's name is mentioned, the next sentence will be about him headbutting his way into a red card. It's been said that a man is more than the worst thing he's ever done, and while that's surely true - truth has no foothold in the mass media.

Zidane didn't lose a game, he lost everything.

Dammit. Dammit. Dammit.

Salvation

There comes a point in every World Cup when all the teams collectively realize that they are a few games away from winning the whole thing. This is usually right before the games start to suck.

Defense being easier than offense, teams start playing conservative and hope the other side screws up bad enough to let them win. This is compounded by suspensions and injuries acquired in group play. Now everybody’s on Plan B. This is when the tournament’s goal average starts to plummet, and the penalty kicks crawl out of the woodwork to screw up everything.

Exhibit A

June 30, 2006
Germany: 1
Argentina: 1
Ayala 49'; Klose 80'; Germany wins 4-2 on penalties.

On the one hand, this game had drama, Argentina scoring early in the second half and Germany playing catch up in front of the home crowd. But it was not the German team that demolished its earlier opposition; they played tight, and almost lost because of it. Klinsman inexplicably pulled Klose after scoring the equalizer (you hung with his ineffective play for 80 minutes, and now that he shows signs of life – he’s gone?), and didn’t use his last sub for overtime.

The Argies were the same drama queens they always are – flopping like fish every time a German walked near them. And once again, they squandered the brilliant talent at their disposal, keeping quality subs on the bench and running headlong into the German defense. Klose equalized and Germany surged for the early part of overtime, but then it just became two teams hoping to get lucky. Germany won the coin toss, so their fans can stay happy. Dull, dull dull.

Exhibit B

Italy: 3
Ukraine: 0
Zambrotta 6'; Toni 59', 69'

With a three nothing scoreline, you’d think this one was a barn-burner – but it too, was an exercise in tedium. Ukraine putting everything into their lone striker (and everything for Ukraine wasn’t much) and Italy clumsily hacking their way around the field until their instinctive skill saved them. Not much ebb and flow – just kicking the ball around until Gol, Gol, Gol. I’m happy for Luca Toni, he was more than due – but outside of that, I’m sorry I taped this one – I could have caught up on some much needed sleep.

Exhibit C

July 1, 2006
Portugal: 0
England: 0
Portugal wins 3-1 on penalties.

I got up at 4:30 AM so I could road trip in time to see this one live after I arrived. I shouldn’t have bothered.

What the hell is with England? Eleven men on the field – they can’t find their own ass with both hands. Rooney gets ejected and suddenly they remember how to play. Ten-man England was looking like they’d pull this one out, when Eleven-man England was lying back just asking to be beaten.

Portugal was disorganized and sloppy, but England lost Beckham to injury than Rooney (because he’s a total idiot – I can see the headlines now: “Another Stupid Boy!”). For the life of me, I can’t figure why Sven-Goran Eriksson pulls Lennon out after he’s creating holy havoc every chance he gets. All the drama this one had was due to Rooney’s expulsion, so I suppose I should be grateful. OT was grueling only because you knew that Portugal was only to happy to go to PKs and the English have this thing about losing every shootout that matters.
Seen it before. Thanks for playing England. And C. Ronaldo? You’ve still yet to do anything impressive this tournament. Bleah.

And then...

And then there was Brasil vs. France.

Not much hope here – I’ve seen the Ronaldinho videos and assumed the only drama was how badly Brasil would crush a French team that couldn’t even beat S. Korea. Brasil would march on to its sixth World Cup trophy, and the skies would turn black as sackcloth.

And here is where my faith in soccer is restored.

France: 1
Brasil: 0
Henry 57’

Best match of the tournament, folks. I’d buy this one on DVD, and I’ve only bought one movie in my life.

Where to begin? Swarming defense. End to end attacking. No letup for 90 minutes.
The French didn’t beat Brasil, they OWNED Brasil.

Wait a minute…no one owns Brasil. No, today, they were owned. Shut down. Made to look desperate.

Ronaldinho? Ronaldin-who? The French midfield made him a non-factor. If you’ve watched the above clip, you know what a big deal that is. Zidane was a God, running the attack and keeping possession while under attack from all sides. Henry scored in the 57th minute (Tell ‘em who he plays for! Arsenal!! Damn right.) and it took that long only because God wanted Brasil to hope for awhile.

Y’know, just before he crushed them.

This match could have still turned to suck-age after the goal, most teams would count themselves fortunate and sit on the lead. France attacked in waves and (somehow) defended in waves. I’ve never seen so many Brazilian passes intercepted in my life.

Brasil would lose possession, and France was off to the races in a counter attack. Cafu got subbed because he was so tired, he was getting beat with regularity. Cafu!

Game over and I’m staring at the tube with relief and despair. What a game, Allez les Bleus! But I wanted them to keep playing…

French fans are going nuts, the team is exulting...

Zidane's coming off the field in his last World Cup, knowing he just kicked Brasil's ass, and he winks at the camera. Yeah, you just made history, and you know it. Vive la France, man.

God, but I love this game.

Oh, just shut way the hell up...

So, I'm at the car dealership getting some work done on the car. No biggie. And I notice that they have a television in the lobby and - hey! - the Switzerland-Ukraine match should still be in the second half right now.

I look around, no one's even glancing at the TV. So I'm looking at the staffer, soon as they look up - I'm going to ask them if they could switch it to ESPN.

And there's this lady there. Middle-age type. Groomed. She's giving me the eye like she's afraid I'm going to ask to change the channel or something. She just sat down, but is clearly agitated in some way.

The staffer looks up, and I ask if she can switch the TV over to ESPN. I smile "it's the World Cup."

Middle age lady pipes up. "Ugh. Soccer! Bo-o-o-ring!"

I smile and say what I always say to people like this, "It's the only game the world plays."

Staffer is fiddling with the controls and making nothing but static.

Middle age pauses, like she's overstepped "I'm just kidding you." Then she finds her stride, "but if we're taking a vote, I'd like to watch 'Guiding Light.'"

Staffer can't figure out why the TV is displaying static or CNN. I realize that she's adjusting the TV and not the cable box, but at this point - it's really not worth it. Switzerland is typically pulseless, and Ukraine hasn't exactly been a wow-fest. And, truth be told, I really don't care who wins. This was just a way to pass the time.

I sit down and resign myself to the lobby magazines. Middle age now wants to be my friend. "I read an article about soccer just the other day."

I start to mutter some affirmation, but she continues.
"It was about Beckham. I guess he won the game. I saw his movie."

Inside, my self-control is holding my reflexive response at gunpoint.
"Bend it like Beckham?" is the only phrase it will allow to escape.

She's glad that we're friends now, "Yes, that was a great movie."

I dive into my magazine, and don't come up until the mechanic arrives to tell her she can leave.
---------
Ok, I'll spare you the the "Becks is a one-trick show-pony" rant and the "He's not even in the damn movie, you witless twonk," rant.

I'll even sidestep the classic "There are only two stories about soccer for you, right? 'Beckham/Posh did something' and 'US loses'"
We'll also skip the ever-popular "Boring? This country has a Golf Channel. We televise the pro-bowling tour. There are dozens upon dozens of fishing shows!!!!"

-But I do have to have one rant: the "Why don't you just shut the hell up, lady?" rant. I mean really, if she'd have beaten me to the punch and asked for Guiding Light - I would't have said, "Soap operas? Stu-pid!" I'd have looked for a magazine and kept my mouth shut.

I mean, what the hell? Who does that? Snarks a complete stranger's TV choice out loud in a roomful of people?

Some other day, she's telling her book club how the younger generation has no manners. Well, from my generation: Just shut way the hell up, lady.

Crash

Scoreline - June 22, 2006
Ghana: 2
Dramani 21'; Appiah 46' PK
United States: 1
Dempsey 42'

And so it ends. Another four-year campaign resulting in a single point, and another first round exit. The team crawled into a hole vs. the Czechs and never managed to claw their way out.

Italy tried to help us (Having trouble? We'll send one of our guys off. Need a goal? We'll put one in for you. Beat the Czechs? Ok.) but two players sent off and a a bogus PK vs. Ghana just wore us down.

The second round was laid out on a platter, and we just couldn't be bothered to attack with any numbers. Our midfielders service was terrible, our strikers were pulseless wonders (excepting Dempsey and Johnson), and any time we managed to get some momentum - something wouldn't go our way, and we'd lose all composure.

I'd love to blame the refs - but this was all on us. If you'd have told me before the tournament that we'd have tied Italy (playing a man down for a half) and then lose to Ghana, I'd have said you were nuts.

Well, it happened. I saw every minute of it. But that's soccer.

Abomination

Scoreline, Jun 17, 2006 -
Italy:1
United States: 1
Gilardino 22'; Zaccardo 27' o.g.

"We bled for our country," read the quotes. Yes, Brian McBride had his head split open, and yes we defended like lions. All true.

But lost in all the screaming about if Pope and Pablo deserved to be kicked out is the simple fact that we still haven't managed a goal in two games, and Claudio is playing like total crap.

Clint Dempsey is combining and charging forward like a maniac in the first half. Every time he gives it to Claudio, all momentum ceases while Reyna takes a moment for himself, and then passes the ball to no one. Claudio's service is crap, balls sent into the teeth of the defense, or miles away from their supposed targets.

Compare Reyna's performace with Piro's and you'll see why the US couldn't bash in a goal when we were a man up for over twenty minutes.

We can defend. But defense alone is just sitting around daring your opponent to beat you.

Oh, and the Ref was way outta line on Pope. No way that's a yellow, right off the bat. Pope was getting beat all day, if the ref wanted to be a pro - all he had to do was give Pope a warning, and wait for the inevitable screw up. Then he could throw him out with his head high.

Go Italy.

The only game the world plays

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that."
-Bill Shankly, celebrated coach of Liverpool FC

When life falls apart, you go to your comfort zone. For me, at least - the World Cup has arrived at a good time. MLS is merely fast food, but the World Cup is a month-long feast at the French Laundry.
Two weeks of three games a day, where the best in the world going get medieval on each other.

This year’s tourney has been a minor goal-fest (2.5 goals per game, - thank you, Argentina), with many of them last minute game-breakers, and there have been some sparkling performances:

• Dutch striker Arjen Robben was a holy terror in both of his countries victories – hopefully he’ll break out in the round of sixteen against the likes of Mexico or Portugal.


• Paraguay’s Nelson Valdez, the only ray of light on an otherwise outclassed (and homeward-bound) squad. He was all attack, all the time. Something a lot of clubs would love to have.
  
• Sweden’s just-in-time winger, Freddie Ljungberg, saving the day in the closing minutes vs. Paraguay. (Tell ‘em who he plays for! Arsenal!! Damn right.)
  
• Ecuador! What the hell got into these guys? Demolishing Poland and Costa Rica Like it ain’t no thang… Germany’s set for the next round, so Ecuador might pick up the group if the Deutchlanders take it too easy.
  
• Match of the tourney so far? Croatia vs. Brasil. Great game, and even after Croatia lost, Croatia’s fans were rocking the stadium with pride at how their team gave Brasil all they could handle. Brasil played well, but seemed a bit hampered by the fact that Ronaldinho is perhaps the ugliest man on the planet.

*sigh* and then there was that other match… you know, the one where the US team was supposed to give a message to the world.

Yeah, well if the message was “Hey, you unwashed European-types, can one of you teach us how to play soccer?” I think you can safely say the Czechs heard us loud and clear.

Three nothing, and it should have been worse. Two goals for Tomas Rosicki (Tell ‘em who he plays for! Arsenal!! Damn right.) and he’d nearly bagged a third.

Our defense was crap. Our midfield and offense would have been crap if they had bothered showing up at all.

Here’s the problem with the US: We have no stone-killers in our lineup. Not one. Eddie Johnson has some game, but only because he’s too young and foolish to be intimidated. All damn game, our guys are waiting for the ball, backs to the goal. “Not my job.” Losers, every damn one of them.

We need a Romario, “I am a striker. Give me the ball.” We need a guy who’s only decision point is “After I put this in, how long should I celebrate?”

The Czech’s top striker goes out with a hamstring around halftime and they don’t even notice. Us, we’re lucky to have one guy who remembers where the other net is.
“Excuse me, Pavel, could you direct me to your net…?”

So now it’s all on Saturday’s match vs. Italy. Win or go home. Mathematically, we could stay alive with a tie – but that’s like saying Trinidad and Tobago are still in it. Oh sure, hope springs eternal – and Italy could still feeb – but I’ve been down that road before (France 1998 i.e. LAST FREAKING PLACE), not doing that again.

No, I’m reserving my hope for teams like Ecuador and the Netherlands. Somebody’s got to stop Brasil from getting six.

Housekeeping

Of the numerous minor projects that have soaked up the hours recently, DSL is the by far the most distracting.

Yes, I’ve finally broadbanded and while I’m happy with the speed, there are a number of side effects that are turning into larger complications.

Case in point: My email address of six plus years is going away.

Anyone looking to reach me where you’ve been finding me all this time – sorry, but I’m gone. I’m at my gmail address, E’s at hers, and if I ever get all our subscriptions and logins consolidated into the new address, I’ll start telling people what it is.

On hold

E's with her dad now. I'm at work. Mom's been here with the boy for the week.

She's overhauled the entire house, and now we're headed north to join up with E. E's dad's showing all kinds of mixed signs, so there's no way to know what's next.

No weekend plans, E's back home next week, but not sure for how long. Her sister has taken family leave for the duration.

There is no elegant way for any of this to happen, so we do what we must - and the rest gets bumped.

All fall down

Five a.m., we get a phone call. It's E's sister, and so we brace. E's dad's in the hospital, and we're not expecting good news.

E's folks both have cancer. Her dad for a long time, her mom was diagnosed only late last year. Both are unable to drive, but manage to stay relatively independent.

Yesterday, E's dad felt so ill, that they called 911. Her dad began treatments while her mom waited. One of the nurses noticed that E's mom didn't look terribly well herself. She was examined, taken to the ER. and treated for pneumonia.

That was sixteen hours ago. Now E's sister is calling to tell us that the hospital doesn't believe E's mom will last the day.

We pack in a rush and are out the door before seven.

Eight thirty, we're still over an hour away, we get VM from her sister "Call me, now."
E's mother passed away at 8:12 a.m. We drive for ten minutes in stunned silence. E's sister was just up for the weekend to visit. Last week we'd been up - E's mom was fine. Hungry, active, upbeat.

Not the plan.