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.