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.