Should have "We charge 50 bucks a year for our opinions" as a subtext

I was going to overlook the latest "Those Damn Blogs" article from the Times, but this link from Atrios caught my eye:

Shorter New York Times

Why can't Blogs be more like Time magazine?

Anyway,the latest round of judging all blogs by one blog, or in this case oneset of stories on a blog. It's like passing judgment on the medium of"print publishing" by focusing on an issue of Juggs magazine.

And sure enough, the NY Times oraculates:

Any time any medium attempts to find humor in darkness, it can sometimes clank one off the rim. "Not every Onion story is a gem," said Jeff Jarvis, who blogs at BuzzMachine.com and has served as a consultant to The New York Times on Web matters. "And I've been offended by plenty of stories ripped from the headlines by Dick Wolf or Commander in Chief. Do we dismiss print? Do we downgrade all TV? Or do we blame the writers who missed the mark?"

Choire Sicha, a senior editor at The New York Observer and a former editor of Gawker, said the architecture of most blogs -items piled on each other in a chronological manner - made nuance difficult.

"The Web format gives equal weight to everything," he said. "You can't signal a story's gravity or lack of gravity, so you can't differentiate between the item about what Anna Wintour wore to her last escapade and someone being terrorized in their home."

Blogs can be serious enough and conventional enough in execution to fit in with mainstream media (as will be the case when Time.com will begin running AndrewSullivan.com in January). But because blogs can be amended or erased, the people who write them tend not to be held to account. The expectation is that bloggers will transgress lines in terms of efficacy and tone and anybody who complains is viewed as a weenie.

I for one take neither Jarvis nor Sullivan that seriously, and the fact that both have had connections to the New York Times itself says "conflict of interest" to me.

Look, Times, it was good you got rid of Miller and Blair and Raines. I never heard about Gawker till I saw it on your site. Atrios is right: there's a universe of blogs out there, and I guess that by your logic, we should place more cred in Weekly World News; it after all is above board in its fakeness.

technorati tags: New York Times, blogs,

As a simple Zen Buddhist, Wish the Washington Post was a Newspaper

I'm not sure what to make of the gushy reportage of the Washington Post over the Dalai Lama.

About 16,000 people filled much of MCI Center to hear his talk, "Global Peace Through Compassion." Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House minority leader, introduced him and gushed over the chance "to breathe the same air, in the same room, as His Holiness, the Dalai Lama."

As for His Holiness, he showed much of the charm that has endeared him to audiences around the world, joking, relaxing into a cross-legged position on a chair, and mixing topics both sacred and worldly.

He talked of love and hate, of religion and ethics, of global peace and nuclear weapons.

He talked of malls.

"I like shopping centers," the monk, in gold and crimson robes, confessed in his stilted English, smiling as his audience roared. "Beautiful. When I go [to] these areas, I want this, I want that, I want that," he said, jabbing a finger in the air as though on a spree at Tysons Corner.

"Then, [I] ask myself, you really need that? The answer is no."

His main points, though, were more profound: the need for religious tolerance, the importance of carrying out faith in daily actions and the goal of "internal disarmament" -- combating one's own hatred and anger.

On the one hand, I think the immediacy and ever-presence of one's own greed, and its permeation into the interstices of one's personality is profound, and in fact illustrates the point.

Oh, wait..ah so, the trend of the reportage emerges. See, I had begun this post with the intent of a slight tweak at the Dalai Lama fostering pop-Buddhism....but damn, now the BS of the Washington Post is getting in my way.

"We must make every effort on the grass-roots level. Then there's hope for change," he said.

"We must make every effort on the grass-roots level. Then there's hope for change," he said.

"We must make every effort on the grass-roots level. Then there's hope for change," he said....

"He's not trying to make money. He has a good feeling and wants to share that," said Kathleen Dougherty, 32, a museum worker from Takoma Park.

The Dalai Lama's speech was his main event that was open to the public during his 10-day trip to Washington. Tickets ranged from $16 to $101...

The Dalai Lama exchanged views with brain researchers at a three-day conference on meditation. He addressed thousands of neuroscientists at the Washington Convention Center. He toured the Booker T. Washington Public Charter School for Technical Arts in Northwest Washington, donating $10,000 to the school.

It's the cartoon Buddhism of the Dalai Lama, as presented by the Washington Post. Not that I fault the Dalai Lama for it; I don't. But the Buddhism-of-the-Dalai-Lama-as-presented-by-the-Washington-Post is not the Buddhism that actually transcends suffering, and probably isn't the Dalai Lama's own Buddhism.

But here's my nudge: the Dalai Lama knows this, and no doubt in his calculus of help versus hurt comes up with the decision to ride it. Well, that's OK, but it sure ain't all of Buddhism.

technorati tags: Buddhism, Zen, Dalai Lama

Dr. Dean Gets it

I didn't have to read this to say this is what the Democrats have been doing for months, and will continue to do.? But Howard Dean's affirmation is good.? From Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT:? But there's no Democratic plan on Social Security.? There's no Democratic plan on the deficit problem.? There's no specifics.? They say, "Well, we want a strong Social Security.? We want to reduce the deficit.? We want health care for everyone," but there's no plan how to pay for it.

DR. DEAN:? Right now it's not our job to give out specifics.? We have no control in the House.? We have no control in the Senate.? It's our job is to stop this administration, this corrupt and incompetent administration, from doing more damage to America.? And that's what we're going to do.? We're doing our best.? Look at the trouble they're having putting together a budget.? Why is that?? Because there's still a few moderate Republicans left who don't think it's OK to cut school lunch programs, who don't think it's OK to do some of the appalling things that they're doing in their budget.? I saw a show last night which showed a young African-American man in California at the UC of Davis who hoped to go to law school.? The Republicans want to cut $14 billion out of higher education so this kid can't go to law school.? We're going to do better than that, and together, America can do better than that.

MR. RUSSERT:? But is it enough for you to say to the country, "Trust us, the other guy's no good. ?We'll do better, but we're not going to tell you specifically how we're going to deal with Iraq."

DR. DEAN:? We will.? When the time comes, we will do that.

MR. RUSSERT:? When's the time going to come?

DR. DEAN:? The time is fast-approaching.? And I outlined the broad outlines of our agenda.? We're going to have specific plans in all of these areas.

MR. RUSSERT:? This year?

DR. DEAN:? In 2006.

So just wait folks. Just wait. There's more holes for the other side into which to dig themselves...

technorati tags: Control of Congress, Howard Dean, Democratic Agenda

The Republican Party is ripe for disintegration

Although the New York Times is still repeating the conventional wisdom that the Democrats will find it difficult to retake Congress next year, there's signs in the air - and elsewhere in their reporting- that suggeest otherwise, if funded and executed right:

This month's election results don't suggest when its collapse will occur, but they offer a few clues to how it might happen. Exhibit A is Virginia, where the Democratic governor-elect, Timothy M. Kaine, tore through the fragile Republican constituencies, winning almost every populous suburban county, even the conservative exurbs outside Washington and Richmond, and leaving his Republican opponent stuck with a rump coalition of rural diehards, Christian activists and anti-tax militants that lost by more than 100,000 votes.

Exhibit B is California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, tried to rally the majority that elected him in 2003, only to find that it no longer existed. Virginia was a Republican defeat; California was a humiliation. All four of Mr. Schwarzenegger's favored ballot measures, labeled as a package that would reform California politics, failed by substantial margins, driven to defeat not so much by the governor's tactical ineptitude as by his inability to construct a viable coalition of interests that cared about enacting it as much as the opponents, led by public employees, cared about defeating it.

But perhaps the most striking exhibit is Colorado, which passed Referendum C, a ballot proposition that suspends one of the Republican anti-tax movement's proudest national achievements: the 1992 state constitutional amendment forcing Colorado to return budget surpluses to the voters regardless of the fiscal climate or any perceived need for public investment.

Referendum C is the product of an alliance between the state's Republican governor (long a supporter of the amendment) and the Democratic House speaker. That partnership brought together organized education, Chambers of Commerce, suburban mayors, real estate developers and conventional labor Democrats, all of whom believed that the state couldn't meet its education and transportation needs while systematically emptying its treasury every year.

Left on the other side were a Christian right that didn't particularly care about the issue, some urban blue-collar populists and an anti-tax militia that lacked sufficient strength to be competitive.

Perhaps no one looked sillier in the aftermath of the Colorado vote than Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, who barnstormed against Referendum C and declared after the vote that Gov. Bill Owens, the referendum's chief supporter, had forfeited his future in national politics. Mr. Owens responded that he didn't want a career in national politics.

Let's face, redistricted or not, folks still care about the mess that Republicans have made of things, and are willing to reverse their boneheaded ideas, and so it's not a stretch to think the voters might reject the Republicans themselves.

Perhaps most telling is that the traditional weapons in their aresenal, the negative attack ad, is finally starting to backfire.

Is it all just childrens' stories?

I never read any of these Narnia things or Tolkien. Of course there's lots of literature I've never read. But in perusing this NY Times article on the upcoming movie, I remain nonplussed at the whole thing.

In fact, there are some Hollywood observers who seem to believe that there is a good reason Lewis is among the last of the classic children's authors to be adapted for the movies, and that in taking on Narnia, Disney has backed itself into a corner. If the studio plays down the Christian aspect of the story, it risks criticism from the religious right, the argument goes; if it is too upfront about the religious references, on the other hand, that could be toxic at the box office. Disney, which is producing "Narnia" with Walden Media, the "family friendly" entertainment company owned by the politically conservative

financier Philip Anschutz, is hedging its bets and has, for example, already issued two separate soundtrack albums, one featuring Christian music and musicians and another with pop and rock tunes.

"The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," published in 1950, was the first of the Narnia books. It now comes second in the order established by HarperCollins, Lewis's publisher, but it remains the most famous and is also the most essential volume in the series. It tells the story of the four Pevensie children - Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy - who have been sent by their parents to stay with an elderly professor in the country as the blitz rages in wartime London. While exploring the professor's house, Lucy, the youngest, comes upon an old wardrobe in an empty room and, pushing aside some fur coats there and groping to the back, finds herself in a snowy wood at nighttime. This is Narnia, it turns out - a more or less medieval version of Paradise, populated by dwarfs, fauns and talking beasts, that is now under the wintry spell of an evil queen (the witch of the title), whose hold over the place is broken only by the arrival of a supersize lion named Aslan.

Aslan is fierce but beautiful, stern but loving; his breath is perfumed like incense; and the mere sight of him is enough to set most creatures tingling. He is, in fact, nothing less than the Son of God, who dies and then comes back to life and through the seven volumes repeatedly tests but ultimately saves the children and leads them to eternal safety - all except Susan, that is, who will become too interested in "nylons and lipstick and invitations."

I don't think it's good for adults or children to foster ideas of coercing behavior on the pain of eternal damnation.

The article goes on to put in juicy details of C.S. Lewis's life I'd rather not consider; life's too short. And it's not the point. My overall feeling of this stuff is that it's so mediocre. At any rate, in reducing the sacred (to some folks) to an allegory, might not the allegory be written in reverse? Is this not an allegory of an allegory? Is this type of portrayal of Christianity as favored by the literalists not simply an especially bloody children's story of dubious moral import?

Questions, questions...

technorati tags: C.S. Lewis,

Reasonable and unreasonable advice

Link

A folksy gambol through the life of its author, a real estate investor, motivational speaker and producer of a financial board game called Cashflow 101, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" turned some traditional financial advice on its head.

No longer is it enough to study hard at a good school and get a good job to be set for life, advice given to him by his father, the poor dad. Instead, Mr. Kiyosaki advocates the staples of late-night infomercials: investments in small stocks and distressed real estate. He argues that one has to think like a millionaire by recognizing the difference between an income-producing asset and a liability, advice given to him by a friend's father, the rich dad. The whole trick to financial success is creating passive income.

"People do respond to it," said Rick Wolf, vice president and executive editor of Warner Books, the publisher of the series. The old rules no longer apply in a world of outsourcing and pension plan collapses, he said.

"People are definitely looking for some alternative pathways to financial freedom," Mr. Wolf said. "The staying power speaks for itself."

Gaining millionaire status is still an accomplishment. It's important to note that even though the threshold for making the Forbes list of richest Americans is now $900 million, only 7 million out of 100 million American households have net assets of $1 million or more, which includes, of course, the equity built up in most people's biggest asset - their homes. (Of course, Mr. Kiyosaki would say that reflects "poor dad" thinking; a home is a liability.) That number has not changed significantly despite all the millions of books sold telling people how to join the club.

You have to ask yourself before you buy any of these books: did my neighbors get rich because they just think differently, or because they use money more wisely?

This millionaire-mind mania started in 1998 when two professors, Thomas J. Stanley, then at Georgia State University, and William D. Danko, teaching marketing in the business school at the State University at Albany, tried to answer that question. They described the seven characteristics of a breed of frugal and inconspicuous millionaires, which included living below one's means, picking smart advisers and having a spouse involved in the family finances. It was an eye-opener, and the book "The Millionaire Next Door" sold about 2.5 million copies in hardcover and paperback while it perched on the New York Times best-seller list for more than three years. The book made the two professors millionaires.

The lesson learned here? It may have been that the way to get rich is to write a book revealing the thinking of millionaires. Mr. Stanley is back with a brand extension, "The Millionaire Mind."

Except of course, that the average Joe is going to have problems correctly identifying lower risk sources of passive income, and - who the hell goes to Starbucks regularly? - people already find it difficult to live below their means for essentials.

technorati tags: money

More trouble for the New York Times.

The blurb for this article about the head coach of the Montreal Canadiens, is mentioned on NY Times.com:

Jacques Demers, the head coach of the last Montreal Canadiens hockey team to win the Stanley Cup, has written a book admitting he is illiterate.

If he's illiterate, how can he write a book?

Res Ipsa Loquitur

George W. Bush is deeply irresponsible.

In case anybody reading this blog still think DeLay is the target of a partisan witch hunt

This article in the Washington Post will set them straight:

Lawyers for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) tried unsuccessfully in late September to head off felony criminal indictments against the then-majority leader on charges of violating Texas campaign law by signaling that DeLay might plead guilty to a misdemeanor, according to four sources familiar with the events...

The last-minute negotiations between the lawyers and Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle were arranged after DeLay made what Earle considered a seriously damaging admission about his fundraising activities during an Aug. 17 meeting with the prosecutor in Austin.

At that session, DeLay acknowledged that in 2002 he was informed about and expressed his support for transfers of $190,000 in mostly corporate funds from his Texas political action committee to an arm of the Republican National Committee in Washington and then back to Texas, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition that they not be named.

Those transfers are at the heart of the prosecutor's investigation of the alleged use of corporate funds in the 2002 Texas elections, in violation of state law. In the prosecutor's view, DeLay's admission put him in the middle of a conspiracy not only to violate that law but also to launder money.

So DeLay essentially admitted to Earle that he was involved in the decision to launder money. This was why Earle could easily get another grand jury to get another indictment so quickly, and had to do more with negotiations breaking down than a grand jury unwilling to indict.

Via Atrios.

Koizumilicious in New Jersey: Bruce Springsteen for Senate!

Koizumi in Japan recruited "rebels" to run against those who fought against his postal privatization plan.

The suggestion that Governor Elect Corzine nominate Bruce Springsteen to fill out his term is so much like what Koizumi did it just might work.

And to those who'd complain, remember, he could nominate Patti Smith.

Tin foil hats don't work.

Via Americablog, a new MIT study confirms it: the satellites will still get you.

The helmets amplify frequency bands that coincide with those allocated to the US government between 1.2 Ghz and 1.4 Ghz. According to the FCC, These bands are supposedly reserved for ''radio location'' (ie, GPS), and other communications with satellites (see, for example, [3]). The 2.6 Ghz band coincides with mobile phone technology. Though not affiliated by government, these bands are at the hands of multinational corporations. It requires no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC. We hope this report will encourage the paranoid community to develop improved helmet designs to avoid falling prey to these shortcoming.

Teaching pseudo-science in Kansas

You can read their creationist nonsense here. I've reproduced the nonsense here, but evidently it screws up my blog template. I think.

The people in Kansas responsible for this are doing incredible damage to their children; it borders on if not crosses the line into child abuse..

Yeah, white phosphorous is a WMD

Kinda like phosgene gas.

Upon dispersion with high explosives, the White Phosphorus rapidly reacts with oxygen in the following reaction:

P(elemental) -> P₂O₅ + other phosphate oxides

The military use of this derives from the rapid liberation of these oxides. It forms a cloud of "smoke", which are actually these phosphate oxides dispersed throughout the air.

These oxides are poisonous to humans all by themselves. However, these oxides are not what cause the horrible disfiguration of humans. After these oxides land on human skin, the following reaction occurs:

P2O5 + H₂0 -> H₃PO₄

The water in human skin converts the phosphate oxide to the highly corrosive Phosphoric Acid. This acid begins to burn human skin, lungs and eyes IMMEDIATELY upon contact. Severe exposure to Phosphoric acid by inhalation causes chemical pneumonitis (chemical induced pneumonia), much like Phosgene gas used in World War I. Skin contact results in the now familiar burns and leathery skin.

Like Jeff Gannon, but she's actually had a journalist career, which makes this post veer off in a strange direction

I do wonder for whom Judy Miller is writing. It can't be for me; the only currency Judy Miller actually had - like "Jeff Gannon," (except his coin was always devalued) was valued by her proximity to real information. Nowadays, any blogger can put apples and oranges together to get apanges or orpples. Including me.

Blogging, as I was tempted to comment on Paul Deignan's site, can quickly descend into narcissism if you're not careful. Opinions are just that, and whenever there are moral paradoxes, it's not wise to assert absolutism.

So while I'm on the subject of Deignan, the above linked post says stuff like:

The author seems concerned with personal feelings, but I am concerned with information and its aggregate consequences.

and...

Oh well, can't control everything (which makes info theory critical to these systems).

Also, if you are in this field of system identification, information theory, datamining, system theory, controls, etc., may I call your attention to my research? Information-theoretic system identification has proven to have great potential in application across many fields and the results have been very good. Papers are available by links via my profile.

The last bit of course was what Deignan should be thinking about.

But I think - now that I'm more familiar with his CV- that he's got a lot of work to do.

The link between information theory and system identification was established a long, long time ago; it's why voice coders work for starters.

I can understand why he doesn't blog much about his research - it's his baby; just like I don't blog at all about what I'm doing currently (but, I guarantee you it's cooler than what Deignan's doing- cooler than anything I've done in years). It's not in control theory per se, but comm/information theory. And that's why I'm busy at the moment at work- and there isn't that much blogging from here...

But on the other hand, one shouldn't tout specialized knowledge as authoritave on matters that strictly don't concern it, and maybe it's not intended, but that's the flavor I get from some of the stuff on his blog.

Now that's serious amounts of money being discussed

I'm sure Josh Marshall is all over this story, but given that I haven't written about Jack Abramoff before, it's good to note posterity, and for righties who come here from time to time and say, "What's all the fuss about that?"

Jack Abramoff is a rather shady lobbyist who's connected to Tom DeLay and is (not known to be causally - as of now) assoicated with some mob types involved in a hit in Florida.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - The lobbyist Jack Abramoff asked for $9 million in 2003 from the president of a West African nation to arrange a meeting with President Bush and directed his fees to a Maryland company now under federal scrutiny, according to newly disclosed documents.

The African leader, President Omar Bongo of Gabon, met with President Bush in the Oval Office on May 26, 2004, 10 months after Mr. Abramoff made the offer. There has been no evidence in the public record that Mr. Abramoff had any role in organizing the meeting or that he received any money or had a signed contract with Gabon.

White House and State Department officials described Mr. Bush's meeting with President Bongo, whose government is regularly accused by the United States of human rights abuses, as routine. The officials said they knew of no involvement by Mr. Abramoff in the arrangements. Officials at Gabon's embassy in Washington did not respond to written questions.

"This went through normal staffing channels," said Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, who said the meeting was "part of the president's outreach to the continent of Africa."

A document from Mr. Abramoff's files that was released last week by a Senate committee shows that in the summer of 2003 he pushed to sign President Bongo as a client, even offering to travel to Gabon immediately after an August golfing vacation to Scotland "with the congressmen and senators I take there each year."

In the interest of "balance" the Times includes the "They do it too" paragraph:

Billy Carter, President Jimmy Carter's brother, was a registered agent for Libya during his brother's presidency. During the Clinton administration, Anthony Rodham, whose sister, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, was the first lady, acknowledged that he had been offered a six-figure payment by supporters of the president of Paraguay to arrange a meeting with President Bill Clinton.

- the last one being somewhat different form Ahbramoff's involved in here.

Moreover, as folks following this know (and better than I), the Abramoff affair is not a simple case of nepotism or who you know, but it's this byzantine financial system that looks like a money laundering operation to the casual observer, and perhaps the occaisonal expert RICO prosecutor.

This is actually a good thing...

Link

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg forged his historic re-election victory on Tuesday by drawing roughly half of New York's black voters and about 3 in 10 Latinos to the Republican line, even though he faced a Hispanic challenger who sought to capitalize on ethnic pride, an analysis of voting returns shows.

he mayor's wide support among minority voters is a sign that the strategy of the Democrat, Fernando Ferrer, to build on a dependable base of black and Hispanic votes fell victim to emerging political realities: that blacks and Hispanics no longer vote reflexively as a bloc, and that a middle-class coalition can trump traditional ethnic-based appeals. The winning multiethnic coalition turned out to be Mr. Bloomberg's.

He won a second term by wooing liberal defectors from Democratic ranks and by carrying every Assembly district in which white Catholics or Jews predominate. He also carried the only district in which Asians outnumber others.

What was most striking was the depth of his support among blacks and Hispanics, whom he aggressively courted in running against the city's first major-party mayoral nominee of Hispanic heritage. Mr. Bloomberg actually won several districts where Hispanics constitute the largest group among the population or the electorate, including the 34th in Queens, which includes parts of Corona, and the 80th District around Pelham Parkway in the Bronx. He also won about half of the mostly black districts.

Maybe the days of Koch and Dinkins and Gulianni are really gone- where there seemed to be this ever present if uderstated to the point of being deniably unstated appeal to race. The Bob Grants and Nation of Islam types got it though, and you could hear the salivating whenever one of these types was on the air. Disgusting.

If times are better that's very cool.

I'd rather know what his thesis is

Atrios, informed me -through Pharyngula- of this cosmic blogospheric catfight between Paul Deignan and BitchPhD.

Me, I'd rather know what Mr. Deignan is actually studying for his doctoral thesis than get involved with nonsense like this.

I'm curious- is Mr. Deignan a real information theorist, or is he a Dembski wannabe?

Yeah, not much interest in blogging today. But look at all them links! I can make Haloscan go wild...

Update: Deignan's work is indeed here.

In perusing his thesis, it turns out there is - oddly enough - some relation to my thesis ("A Contribution to Robust Detection and Estimation in Dependent Noise," Polytechnic University, 1993) as well as Lomp's earlier thesis, although his is more information theoretical but I haven't seen yet the right degree of mathematical rigor, to be frank, in particular rigorous arguments related to convergence of parameter estimates derived via stochastic approximation.

He'd do well to read Billingsley- at least Dembski walked by that book.

Maybe it's in their somewhere, but frankly, I'm busy...

Locally, Clark County WA heads moderate/progressive

Here in this 'burb of Portland, OR, the forces of reason have prevailed in local elections: I had mentioned previously "LifePac," [sic] which advocated "intellegent design," defunding libraries, and extremist candidates.

They were smacked down!

Tom Mielke, (who took money from check cashing services, and I believe, gaming companies from what I gleaned from searching around here) got trounced.

The library issues passed swimingly- needed 60% to pass, we only got 57% or so. Correction thanks to Richard Bennett & Deepak. I'd have corrected it earlier but just didn't have the time or attention span or both.)

Cool.

And statewide, further attempts to curb the right of Washington State residents to seek relief in courts through malpractice caps was soundly smacked down.

Very cool.

I'd love to see this performed on stage

If it weren't for the subject matter, Scott McClellan's avoidance of Helen Thomas would be great theater of the absurd:

Q I'd like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we don't do torture, but Cheney --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's about as straight as it can be.

Q Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has not. Are you claiming he's asked for an exemption on torture? No, that's --

Q He did not ask for that?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that is inaccurate.

Q Are you denying everything that came from the Hill, in terms of torture?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're mischaracterizing things. And I'm not going to get into discussions we have --

Q Can you give me a straight answer for once?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give it to you, just like the President has. We do not torture. He does not condone torture and he would never --

Q I'm asking about exemptions.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me respond. And he would never authorize the use of torture. We have an obligation to do all that we can to protect the American people. We are engaged --

Q That's not the answer I'm asking for --

MR. McCLELLAN: It is an answer -- because the American people want to know that we are doing all within our power to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. There are people in this world who want to spread a hateful ideology that is based on killing innocent men, women and children. We saw what they can do on September 11th --

Q He didn't ask for an exemption --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are going to --

Q -- answer that one question. I'm asking, is the administration asking for an exemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: I am answering your question. The President has made it very clear that we are going to do --

Q You're not answering -- yes or no?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, you don't want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen, and I'm going to tell them the facts.

Q -- the American people every day. I'm asking you, yes or no, did we ask for an exemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: And let me respond. You've had your opportunity to ask the question. Now I'm going to respond to it.

Q If you could answer in a straight way.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I'm going to answer it, just like the President -- I just did, and the President has answered it numerous times.

Q -- yes or no --

MR. McCLELLAN: Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people. We are engaged in a global war against Islamic radicals who are intent on spreading a hateful ideology, and intent on killing innocent men, women and children.

Q Did we ask for an exemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people.

Q Is that the answer?

MR. McCLELLAN: We are also going to do so in a way that adheres to our laws and to our values. We have made that very clear. The President directed everybody within this government that we do not engage in torture. We will not torture. He made that very clear.

Q Are you denying we asked for an exemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, we will continue to work with the Congress on the issue that you brought up. The way you characterize it, that we're asking for exemption from torture, is just flat-out false, because there are laws that are on the books that prohibit the use of torture. And we adhere to those laws.

Q We did ask for an exemption; is that right? I mean, be simple -- this is a very simple question.

MR. McCLELLAN: I just answered your question. The President answered it last week.

Q What are we asking for?

Q Would you characterize what we're asking for?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're asking to do what is necessary to protect the American people in a way that is consistent with our laws and our treaty obligations. And that's what we --

Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from the military?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, let's talk about people that you're talking about who have been brought to justice and captured. You're talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.

Q I'm asking you --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is facts about what you're talking about.

Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from rules that would govern the conduct of our military in interrogation practices?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are already laws and rules that are on the books, and we follow those laws and rules. What we need to make sure is that we are able to carry out the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, not only --

Q What does that mean --

MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm telling you right now -- not only to protect Americans from an attack, but to prevent an attack from happening in the first place. And, you bet, when we capture terrorist leaders, we are going to seek to find out information that will protect -- that prevent attacks from happening in the first place. But we have an obligation to do so. Our military knows this; all people within the United States government know this. We have an obligation to do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and values.

Now, the people that you are bringing up -- you're talking about in the context, and I think it's important for the American people to know, are people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh -- these are -- these are dangerous killers.

Q So they're all killers --

Q Did you ask for an exemption on torture? That's a simple question, yes or no.

MR. McCLELLAN: No. And we have not. That's what I told you at the beginning.

Q You want to reserve the ability to use tougher tactics with those individuals who you mentioned.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, obviously, you have a different view from the American people. I think the American people understand the importance of doing everything within our power and within our laws to protect the American people.

Q Scott, are you saying that Cheney did not ask --

Q What is it that you want the -- what is it that you want the CIA to be able to do that the U.S. Armed Forces are not allowed to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into talking about national security matters, Bill. I don't do that, because this involves --

Q This would be the exemption, in other words.

MR. McCLELLAN: This involves information that relates to doing all we can to protect the American people. And if you have a different view -- obviously, some of you on this room -- in this room have a different view, some of you on the front row have a different view.

Q We simply are asking a question.

Q What is the Vice President -- what is the Vice President asking for?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's spelled out in our statement of administration policy in terms of what our views are. That's very public information. In terms of our discussions with members of Congress --

Q -- no, it's not --

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of our members -- like I said, there are already laws on the books that we have to adhere to and abide by, and we do. And we believe that those laws and those obligations address these issues.

Q So then why is the Vice President continuing to lobby on this issue? If you're very happy with the laws on the books, what needs change?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you asked me -- you want to ask questions of the Vice President's office, feel free to do that. We've made our position very clear, and it's spelled out on our website for everybody to see.

Q We don't need a website, we need you from the podium.

MR. McCLELLAN: And what I just told you is what our view is.

Q But Scott, do you see the contradiction --

Mel Sembler's penis pump...

Mel Sembler helped run a teen gulag. He was Bush's ambassador to Italy.

And he had his penis pump stolen.

More here.

Only Congress can and should declare war.

Although there will always be "emergency" situations, the War Powers Act needs revision, and needs teeth.

Grenada, Panama, and all conflicts since Vietnam have been an abuse in one way or another of that act.

Telling especially, to me, was the fact that after 9/11, Bush could have gotten Congress to declare war on Al Qaeda, but chose not to do so.

Leslie Gelb and Anne-Marie Slaugher make a more detailed case in today's Washington Post:

And Iraq, whether justified or not, is only the latest in a long line of ill-considered and ill-planned U.S. military adventures. Time and again in recent decades the United States has made military commitments after little real debate, with hazy goals and no appetite for the inevitable setbacks. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson plunged us into the Vietnam War with little sense of the region's history or culture. Ronald Reagan dispatched Marines to Lebanon, saying that stability there was a "vital interest," only to yank them out 16 months later after a deadly terrorist attack on Marine barracks. Bill Clinton, having inherited a mission in Somalia to feed the starving, ended up hunting tribal leaders and trying to build a nation.


Too often our leaders have entered wars with unclear and unfixed aims, tossing away American lives, power and credibility before figuring out what they were doing and what could be done. Congress saw the problem after the Vietnam War and tried to fix it with the War Powers Act. It states that troops sent into combat by the president must be withdrawn within 60 days unless Congress approves an extension. But presidents from Richard Nixon on never recognized the validity of this legislation against their powers as commander in chief. Nor did Congress ever assert its rights and take political responsibility. Since the Korean War, the process has consisted at most of a presidential request for a congressional resolution, a few serious speeches and authorization for the president to do whatever he wants. Odds are against changing these "political realities." But impaled as we are on the costs and carelessness of so many of our recent wars, it is worth trying to find a better way.

As often happens, an answer can be found with the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. They could not have foreseen the present age of nuclear missiles and cataclysmic terrorism. But they understood political accountability, and they knew that sending Americans to war required careful reflection and vigorous debate. Their answer survives in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which gives Congress -- and only Congress -- the power to declare war. That power, exercised only a few times in our history, and not at all since World War II, needs to be reestablished and reinforced by new legislation. This legislation would fix guidelines for exercising the provision jointly between the White House and Congress. It would restore the Framers' intent by requiring a congressional declaration of war in advance of any commitment of troops that promises sustained combat.

Requiring Congress to declare war, rather than just approve or authorize the president's decision to take troops into combat, would make it much harder for Congress to duck its responsibilities.

I cannot but agree with that.

Potential break-through in physics?

I wanted to capture this before it went down the memory hole, so to speak:

There used to be an ice cream parlor in the student center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And it was there, in the summer of 1998, that Lisa Randall, now a professor of physics at Harvard and a bit of a chocoholic, and Raman Sundrum, a professor at Johns Hopkins, took an imaginary trip right out of this earthly plane into a science fiction realm of parallel universes, warped space and otherworldly laws of physics.

They came back with a possible answer to a question that has tormented scientists for decades, namely why gravity is so weak compared with the other forces of nature: in effect, we are borrowing it from another universe. In so doing, Dr. Randall and Dr. Sundrum helped foment a revolution in the way scientists think about string theory - the vaunted "theory of everything" - raising a glimmer of hope that coming experiments may actually test some of its ineffable sounding concepts.

[Several years before, when Randall was in high school] were heady times in physics. Fired by the dream of a unified theory of everything, theorists flocked to string theory, which envisioned the fundamental elements of nature as tiny wriggling strings.

Dr. Randall, however, resisted this siren call, at least for a while. For one thing, physicists thought it would take a particle accelerator 10 million billion times as powerful as anything on earth to produce an actual string and test the theory.

String theory also stubbornly requires space-time to have 10 dimensions, not the 4 (3 of space and 1 of time) that we experience. Preferring to stay closer to testable reality, Dr. Randall was drawn to a bottom-up approach to theoretical physics, trying to build models that explain observed phenomena and hoping to discover principles with wider application. But Dr. Randall and string theory had their own kismet.

In the mid-90's, theorists discovered that the theory was even richer than its founders had thought, describing not just strings but so-called branes, as in membranes, of all dimensions. Our own universe could be such a brane, an island of three dimensions floating in a sea of higher dimension, like a bubble in the sea. But there could be membranes with five, six, seven or more dimensions coexisting and mingling like weird cosmic soap bubbles in what theorists sometimes call the multiverse.

That theory, known as supersymmetry, was invented in turn to solve another problem - the enormous gulf known as the hierarchy problem between gravity and the other forces. Naïve calculations from first principles suggest, Dr. Randall said, that gravity should be 10 million billion times as strong as it is. You might find it hard to imagine gravity as a weak force, but consider, says Dr. Randall, that a small magnet can hold up a paper clip, even though the entire earth is pulling down on it...

But there was a hitch with the way the theory worked out in our universe. It predicted reactions that are not observed.

Dr. Randall wondered if the missing reactions could be explained by positing that some aspects of the theory were quarantined in a separate universe...

When Dr. Randall and Dr. Sundrum published their first paper, describing the two-brane scheme, in 1999, she said that many physicists did not recognize it as a new idea and not just an elaboration on the large extra dimensions of the A.D.D. group. In fact, she said, the extra dimensions don't have to be very large in the two-brane theory, less than a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch.

When they published their second paper, about the infinite dimension, she said, even some of their best friends, reserved judgment.

But by the time a long-planned workshop on strings and particle physics at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara rolled around that fall, string theorists were excited about the Randall-Sundrum work and the earlier A.D.D. proposal.

The reason was simple: If they were very lucky and one of these versions of string theory was the one that nature had adopted, it could actually be tested in the Large Hadron Collider, the giant particle accelerator due to go into operation at CERN near Geneva in 2007. Colliding beams of protons with a combined energy of 14 trillion electron volts, the collider could produce particles like gravitons going off into the fifth dimension like billiard balls hopping off the table, black holes or even the illusive strings themselves.

"If this is the way gravity works in high-energy physics, we'll know about it," Dr. Randall said.

I do wish the Times would spare us more of the "human interest" stuff that comes lamely across the printed page like the local news story about the lost dog. And I'm really not feeling that misanthropic/misogynistic this morning.

But this is potentially a really cool result- it would be amazing if the multiple universies or branes could be indirectly observed.

It would also lend less credence to the "Intelligent" "Design" folks' argument that "theoretical physicists' theories can't be observed either," although, in fact it's a false argument because an experiment that would falsify the theory could at least be constructed as an idea, something "Intelligent" "Design" cannot do.

They used to say in the USSR, this did not happen by accident. Another accident?

The New York Times reports that a top American intelligence official has publicly revealed the US intelligence budget: $44 billion.

At an intelligence conference in San Antonio last week, Mary Margaret Graham, a 27-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency and now the deputy director of national intelligence for collection, said the annual intelligence budget was $44 billion.

The number was reported Monday in U.S. News and World Report, whose national security reporter, Kevin Whitelaw, was among the hundreds of people in attendance during Ms. Graham's talk.

"I thought, 'I can't believe she said that,' " Mr. Whitelaw said on Monday. "The government has spent so much time and energy arguing that it needs to remain classified."

The figure itself comes as no great shock; most news reports in the last couple of years have estimated the budget at $40 billion. But the fact that Ms. Graham would say it in public is a surprise, because the government has repeatedly gone to court to keep the current intelligence budget and even past budgets as far back as the 1940's from being disclosed.

Carl Kropf, a spokesman for the office of the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, said Ms. Graham would not comment...

Negroponte, eh?

Forgive my cynycism, but he's the guy from all the shadowy stuff in Honduras. Would it -could it- be possible that he's making it seem like "secrets slip out all the time?"

I mean, this is the most secretive administration in history. Bush is trying to keep -by executive order- his secrets secret after he's left the White House. Like he's going to let this pass?

Only for a few past years has the budget been disclosed. After Mr. Aftergood's group first sued for the budget figure under the Freedom of Information Act in 1997, George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, decided to make public that year's budget, $26.6 billion. The next year Mr. Tenet did the same, revealing that the 1998 fiscal year budget was $26.7 billion.

But in 1999, Mr. Tenet reversed that policy, and budgets since then have remained classified with the support of the courts. Last year, a federal judge refused to order the C.I.A. to release its budget totals for 1947 to 1970 - except for the 1963 budget, which Mr. Aftergood showed had already been revealed elsewhere.

Yeah, last time I had a security clearance this was a classifed number - and that was the early 90s.

Jimmy Massey, Iraq, Malkin, and, you know, war crimes...

Michelle Maglalang is up in arms about one Jimmy Massey. I don't get a lot of what she gets her panties in a buch over, frankly. I mean, it's not like Maglalang ever served in Iraq.

So anyway, a web search of "the anti-war left's favorite smear artist" (I never heard of the guy, I guess I really am not so 'leftist')
turns up this link.

I'm not going to bother to track down every "false claim" made by Massey as swift-boated by Maglalang (although some of this stuff is admitted by Massey now); but of course her past makes her totally disreputable about such things. One might wonder, though if she'll be just as up in arms about the breaking story of America's use of WMDs on Iraqis. And yes, I think the way it was used, white phosphorous is indeed a WMD.

Dick Cheney: He's got to go

As Holden points out, it's all over the media today.

The most damning bit I've read is in the Boston Globe:

[I]t seems as tragic as it was inevitable that Cheney was behind the wheel again when the next fork in the road appeared before the nation. When the World Trade Center towers were hit in New York, it was Cheney who told a shaken President Bush to flee. The true nature of their relationship (Cheney, not Bush, having shaped the national security team; Cheney, not Bush, having appointed himself as vice president) showed itself for a moment.

The 9/11 Commission found that, from the White House situation room, Cheney warned the president that a ''specific threat" had targeted Air Force One, prompting Bush to spend the day hiding in the bunker at Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska. There was no specific threat. In Bush's absence, Cheney, implying an authorizing telephone call from the president, took command of the nation's response to the crisis. There was no authorizing telephone call. The 9/11 Commission declined to make an issue of Cheney's usurpation of powers, but the record shows it.

At world-shaping moments across a generation, Cheney reacted with an instinctive, This is war! He helped turn the War on Poverty into a war on the poor. He helped keep the Cold War going longer than it had to, and when it ended (because of initiatives taken by the other side), Cheney refused to believe it. To keep the US war machine up and running, he found a new justification just in time. With Gulf War I, Cheney ignited Osama bin Laden's burning purpose. Responding to 9/11, Cheney fulfilled bin Laden's purpose by joining him in the war-of-civilizations. Iraq, therefore (including the prewar deceit for which Scooter Libby takes the fall), is simply the last link in the chain of disaster which is the public career of Richard Cheney.

Really, the guy needs to be rendered somewhere, in order to spare America and the rest of the world further harm.

Spotlight on Kiyoshi Itō

Joe Carter again mangles mathematical history and philosphy, and brings to my mind Kiyoshi Itō.

Itō's Lemma is most famously used in the development of the Black-Scholes stochastic differential equations for the pricing of derivative securities.


It could be worse; he could have brought up Dembski again, I guess.

Secret detention facilities= the horror of the gulag

When Iwas a kid I was brought up to believe that we did open war crimes trials, not committed war crimes. This stuff is reprehensible, and if laws were broken, the perpetrators should be brought to justice, regardless of their status.

Three Yemeni nationals who were arrested in late 2003 say they were transferred to U.S. custody and kept isolated in at least four secret detention facilities that Amnesty International officials believe could be part of a covert CIA prison system...

During their separate incarcerations, the detainees were never visited by the International Committee of the Red Cross, never had access to lawyers, were unable to correspond with their families and had no contact with the outside world, the report said. Their families believed they were dead or were told that they had gone to Iraq to fight the United States.

The accounts, taken in independent interviews by Amnesty International researchers over the past few months, appear to be consistent with reports of a network of secret CIA detention facilities, according to the report. The detainees could not determine where they were because they were hooded during the flights, but because of the travel time they assumed they were in Europe or the Middle East, according to Amnesty International...

Salah Ali and Muhammad Bashmilah, who were living in Indonesia, were arrested in August and October 2003, respectively; Ali in Jakarta and Bashmilah in Amman, Jordan. They were taken to a Jordanian prison and tortured -- badly beaten and chained in uncomfortable positions -- by Jordanian authorities before being transferred to U.S. custody, according to Amnesty International. Both men had traveled to Afghanistan in 2000 to learn about jihad, but neither man fought against the United States, according to FitzGerald.

Ali said he was stripped and beaten with sticks by a ring of masked soldiers. "They tried to force me to walk like an animal, on my hands and feet, and I refused," Ali told Amnesty, "so they stretched me out on the floor and walked on me and put their shoes in my mouth."...

Such "incommunicado" detentions are against international standards but are consistent with recent reports of how the CIA operated its detention network.

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. rapporteur on torture, said in an interview last week that secret facilities are a particularly important issue because there is no outside oversight and no ability to know which detainees are in custody or where they are held. He condemned the practice.

"Incommunicado detention forms inhumane treatment in and of itself," Nowak said.

The evidence is emerging - from innocently detained people (after why else would they be let go?)- that this stuff happened. That - unsaid in this article- is even more damning.

Good News

Link

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 6 - A startling change has come over California's larger-than-life governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, as voters prepare to head to the polls on Tuesday for an unpopular statewide election. His television advertisements have taken on an uncharacteristic tone of humility. And ordinary people, no longer awed by his Olympian¹ persona, are openly challenging him in public.

The four ballot measures Mr. Schwarzenegger supports are trailing in the polls, and his re-election prospects next year appear, for now, to be dimming. His approval ratings are in a tailspin, and his stage presence has been drained of much of its bombast and bluster.

At a televised forum here last week, with audience members picked to represent a cross-section of voters, several questioners interrupted Mr. Schwarzenegger and accused him of distorting facts to sell the four ballot measures, which are among eight up for a vote in an election ordered specially by the governor.

Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, was explaining Proposition 75, a measure he favors that would require public-employee unions to receive the written permission of members before their dues could be used for political campaigns.

Democrats and union leaders who oppose the proposition have called it a naked attempt to silence the unions' political voice. The governor says the proposition is about protecting workers' paychecks.

An audience member who gave his name as Chris Robeson and said he was a health care worker from Camarillo angrily cut the governor off. "That's just Rovian spin," Mr. Robeson said, referring to Karl Rove, the White House political guru. "That's fraudulent."

Which is why George W. Bush does the handpicked thingies; he can't stand the truth.

1. A subtle reference to "Hercules in New York," perhaps? A conservative would call this "liberal bias," but I'd call it wallowing in understatement.

Yeah, keep right on going, there's no subtext here...

Link

BRASILIA, Nov. 6 - President Bush, in tough remarks aimed at Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez, called on Latin America today to choose between two competing futures - an American-supported "vision of hope" and another that "seeks to roll back the democratic progress of the past two decades."

Such a democratic retrenchment, the president said, would be "playing to fear, pitting neighbor against neighbor, and blaming others for their own failures to provide for their people."

Mr. Bush spoke before Brazilian business leaders, diplomats and students at the luxury Blue Tree Park Hotel, in an isolated section of the capital, and did not mention Mr. Chavez by name.

But his barbs at the populist president were clear, and were in effect Mr. Bush's response to the fiery populist who led an anti-American rally of more than 25,000 people on Friday in Mar Del Plata, Argentina, while Mr. Bush was attending a summit meeting there.

Mr. Bush's remarks were also directed in general at Latin America, where recent financial shocks have led to a disenchantment in young democracies like Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Argentina, in particular, that have not delivered the social and economic justice expected at their birth two decades ago. The administration worries that the region may slip into the authoritarianism of the past, and that other leaders like Mr. Chavez may emerge.

"Only a generation ago, this was a continent plagued by military dictatorship and civil war," Mr. Bush said. "Yet the people of this continent defied the dictators, and they claimed their liberty."...

Yeah, the CIA at the instigation of Republicans had no role in any of this. Riiiighhht...

But there's a nuggest of truth buried in this Times bit:

Mr. Bush, who was in the Brazilian capital on the third day of a four-day trip to Latin America, tried earlier today to minimize the differences with Brazil and three of its neighbors that led to the collapse of trade talks late Saturday in Mar Del Plata.

Standing at the side of the Brazilian president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Mr. Bush acknowledged that to satisfy Brazil, which has the largest economy in South America and is co-chairman with the United States in the trade talks, he would have to reduce United States tariffs on Brazilian products and also cut back on billions of dollars in subsidies paid to American farmers and agri-businesses.

Mr. da Silva had opposed the American timetable for the talks in Mar Del Plata, preferring to await the outcome of global negotiations sponsored by the World Trade Organization. Brazil has long complained that trade barriers have limited its ability to sell products like oranges, sugar and cotton in the United States, and has in fact obtained rulings in its favor from the World Trade Organization.

"I heard that loud and clear," Mr. Bush said under a tent at Granja do Torto, Mr. da Silva's weekend farm just outside the capital. "And so recently I made a statement, or a series of statements, that said the United States will reduce subsidies and tariffs, so long as we get the same treatment from trading partners."

"The same treatment?" Even Steven? Well, you can imagine what that might involve...

Bad brains...

I sit in wonder when I contemplate how otherwise intelligent people can be hoodwinked by the proto-fascists of the Bush regime. It's not like they're good liars, or even good proto-fascists or propagandists. In fact, Fox News is pretty bad propaganda compared to what I used to hear from Radio Havanna. Fox is more like the way Radio Tirana used to be when Enver Hohxa ran Albania. So ridiculously false yet compelling.

So being a bit bored this morning, I happened over to Glenn Reynolds. Besides, the shit's hitting the fan, so to speak, re: Republicans, Bush, Rove, criminality, Alito being unfriendly to pretty much anybody who's not an "artificial person," and basically the withdrawl of even the pretense of the mandate of heaven.

So Glenn points me to the illustrious Victoria Toensing.

Apparently Ms. Toensing doesn't realize:

1. The issue of whether or not Plame was a covert operative is pretty much already decided, and if Ms. Toensing wasn't motivated by her 15 minutes of fame on the right-wing talking heads shows, she'd be honest enough to understand that an indictment is issued by a grand jury when they've determined there's a preponderance of evidence in the indictment. Among the facts therein was that indeed, Plame was covert. That wasn't ever an issue.

2. There's other laws besides the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in play here, among them, the Espionage Act. And Toensing wasn't exactly, shall we say a lawmaker at the time, only the person who drafted it.

3. Minerals ("yellowcake") are not in and of themselves weapons of mass destruction.

4. What does the signing of a confidentiality agreement have to do with anything? Oh, yeah, they're pissed because Wlson called the Bush regime on its lies. Remember, a covert operative was outed. I would suspect also that there is a good reason why such an agreement wasn't signed.


5. Ms. Toensing's obviously got no idea of what covert operatives do. Bush pere was head of the CIA. Can we assume that Barbara Bush is a spook because Bush was also chief diplomat to China at one time?

6. The CIA is not an agency in the Justice Department. It's in the Defense Department.

This is the kind of garbage that passes for right-wing discourse these days, and if anyone gives credence to this kind of thinking, they're basically believing in fantasies.

Holy cow, Bush really can be impeached for lying about Iraq

I had thought this was just something that people talked about because they were angry that Bush lied over Iraq. But the Left Coaster's analysis of why Reid did what he did in "going into conference," points out that evidently Bush violated real laws in doing this Iraq adventure.

It really is time for Bush to resign.

Supboena time for Andrew P. Napolitano

According to Media Matters (which doesn't provide a timeline, and neither does Napolitano):

On the October 31 broadcast of the nationally syndicated radio show The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, guest host Andrew P. Napolitano -- who serves as Fox News' senior judicial analyst -- cited "at least one" of his Fox News colleagues who Napolitano said claimed to have been present at a party where former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV introduced Valerie Plame as "my CIA operative wife." Napolitano used this anonymous claim to question whether Plame "was, in fact, undercover" when her identity as a CIA employee was allegedly leaked to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who published it in a July 14, 2003 column. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, was indicted on October 28 for obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements in connection with the leak investigation.

Napolitano did not explain why his mystery Fox News source has not publicly reported the story. Nor did he explain the apparent discrepancy between this claim and the Libby indictment, which states: "At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie [Plame] Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

So I guess Mr. Napolitano will be expecting to hear from Patrick Fitzgerald.

technorati tags: Treasongate, Faux News, Valerie Plame, Bush, Republican Agenda,

More Bush Regime Corruption

Let's see if the people decrying the oil for food scandal also speak up about this:

An auditing board sponsored by the United Nations recommended yesterday that the United States repay as much as $208 million to the Iraqi government for contracting work in 2003 and 2004 assigned to Kellogg, Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary.

The work was paid for with Iraqi oil proceeds, but the board said it was either carried out at inflated prices or done poorly. The board did not, however, give examples of poor work.

Some of the work involved postwar fuel imports carried out by K.B.R. that previous audits had criticized as grossly overpriced. But this is the first time that an international auditing group has suggested that the United States repay some of that money to Iraq. The group, known as the International Advisory and Monitoring Board of the Development Fund for Iraq, compiled reports from an array of Pentagon, United States government and private auditors to carry out its analysis...

The K.B.R. contracts that have drawn fresh scrutiny also cover services other than fuel deliveries, like building and repairing oil pipelines and installing emergency power generators in Iraq. The documents released yesterday by the monitoring board did not detail problems with specific tasks in those broad categories, but instead summarized a series of newly disclosed audits that called into question $208,491,382 of K.B.R.'s work in Iraq.

A member of the monitoring board said questions about the contracts "had been lingering for a long time." Once the audits are completed, said the board member, who asked not to be identified because he did not want to be seen as speaking for the United Nations, the results will give the Iraqi government "the right to go back to K.B.R. and say, 'Look, you've overbilled me on this, this is what you could repay me.' "

The monitoring board authority extends only to making recommendations on any reimbursement. It would be up to the United States government to decide whether to make the payments, and who should make them. But Louay Bahry, a former Iraqi academic who is now at the Middle East Institute in Washington, said the board's findings would stoke suspicions on the street in Iraq, where there had always been fears that the United States invaded the country to control its oil resources.

"Something like this will be caught in the Iraqi press and be discussed by the Iraqi general public and will leave a very bad taste in the mouth of the Iraqis," Mr. Bahry said. "It will increase the hostility towards the United States."

The audits may also come at a bad time for the Bush administration, since Vice President Dick Cheney's former role as chief executive of Halliburton has led to charges, uniformly dismissed by Mr. Cheney and the company, that it received preferential treatment in receiving the contracts. The early Kellogg, Brown & Root contracts in Iraq were "sole sourced," or bid noncompetitively.

So the "judge"is not unbiased

Not that it comes as any surprise, but "Judge" Alito doesn't like the common man, be it the laborer, the consumer, or the shareholder:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 - Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. has reliably favored big-business litigants as he has pushed the federal appeals court in Philadelphia in a conservative direction.

His extensive paper trail of 15 years of opinions reveals a jurist deeply skeptical of claims against large corporations. A review of dozens of business cases in which Judge Alito has written majority or dissenting opinions or cast the decisive vote shows that, with few exceptions, he has sided with employers over employees in discrimination lawsuits and in favor of corporations over investors in securities fraud cases.

Judge Alito, President Bush's choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, cast the decisive vote in a case involving a major steel company, and in another involving a large chemical maker, over environmentalists in pollution cases.

He has set aside punitive damages in some cases and reduced them in others; has handed down dissents that, if they became law, would impose higher burdens for workers to successfully sue their employers for discrimination; and has routinely upheld restrictive arbitration clauses that have limited the remedies available to plaintiffs. (In a rare instance of setting aside an arbitration decision, he reversed an arbitration panel that had ordered the reinstatement of an intoxicated seaman on a moored oil tanker against the wishes of his employer, Exxon.)

In several cases, Judge Alito has found for the defendants facing accusations of antitrust violations, including one case in which he twice found in favor of a monopolist, 3M. (In that case, LePage's v. 3M, his view was rejected by a vote of 7-to-3 by the full circuit.) And by articulating a narrow view of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, he is viewed as a judge who would be skeptical of the involvement of federal regulators in matters he views to be strictly within the province of state officials.

It is such business cases, which arise far more often than privacy and abortion cases, that are the bread and butter of the appeals courts and the Supreme Court. And, according to his supporters and detractors, it is where Judge Alito has left his mark in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Judge Alito's record in business cases presents some political strengths and weaknesses as he heads into his confirmation hearing, scheduled to begin Jan. 9. Major business groups are preparing to spend millions of dollars to lobby on his behalf, and may help him with pivotal Democrats. Liberal groups, meanwhile, have begun to cite his record to make the case that he is insensitive to the plight of minorities and the environment.

And that, folks is where the rubber hits the road.

What we have to do is to remove the legal abomination that equates corporations to people.

Companies I'm glad I don't work for: Procter and Gamble

I had the distinct pleasure - or is it schadenfreude?- of hearing a talk by Gilbert Cloyd, CTO of Procter & Gamble (be sure to click that hyperlink and surf around there)who discussed P&G's "Connect + Develop" "strategy."

They basically outsourced 50% of their R&D budget,... to what effect?

Well, they got cool packaging for Hugo Boss cologne.

But Charmin toilet paper still is a problem if you've got a 1 gallon per flush toilet last time I checked.

Something is going on in South America and you don't know what it is. Neither do I. The NY Times probably doesn't either.

This article is a jarring bit of contradiction, illogic, misinformation, and just plain ol' Alice-in-Wonderland weirdness.

It is particularly cruel and unusual punishment for the NY Times to foist this on us first thing in the morning, before coffee is made.

MAR DEL PLATA, Argentina, Nov. 3 - President Bush arrived in this beach resort city on Thursday night for a gathering of Western Hemisphere leaders after one of the worst weeks of his presidency, only to be greeted by strong anti-American sentiment and taunts from Venezuela's populist president, Hugo Chávez.

Mr. Chávez, who has repeatedly accused the Bush administration of trying to assassinate him and invade his oil-producing country,...

Let's stop right there. Didn't

• The US previously help out an attempt to oust Chávez?
  
  
• Didn't the US pick fights with Iraq, China, Syria, Canada, ...under Bush's watch?
  
  

So it's not like it's just something Chávez is saying, is it? Even if he's paranoid, he probably has real enemies?

Mr. Bush and Mr. Chávez are expected to see each other Friday in a group session at the opening of the Summit of the Americas, a two-day, 34-nation gathering. The meeting is officially to focus on creating jobs and promoting democracy. But Mr. Chávez said this week that his main goal at the meeting was the "final burial" of the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas accord, which is already stalled....

Chávez's main goal is not a contraction on "creating jobs and promoting democracy" as I see it. After the experience of countries in that area under "globalization" - say Argentina- it's clear that sometimes jobs and democracy depend on some limits to globalization.

Mr. Bush did not denounce a longstanding request from Mr. Chávez that the Argentine government build a nuclear reactor in Venezuela for energy production.

"I guess if I were a taxpayer in Venezuela, I would wonder about the energy supply that Venezuela has," Mr. Bush said in an interview at the White House on Tuesday with a group of reporters from Latin American publications. "But maybe it makes sense." Mr. Bush added that "it's the first I've heard of it."

As everyone knows, Mr. Bush is the big Daddy who lets his teenager client states drive the nuclear car if they're good teenagers.

A little more than 24 hours later, Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, appeared to backtrack when he noted that Mr. Chávez had asked a number of countries to build a nuclear reactor in Venezuela, and that he was far from a deal.

"I think that's because people recognize that it would be problematic for Chávez to be in the nuclear business, if you will," Mr. Hadley said, adding that "this trip, this summit, is not about Hugo Chávez."

Mr. Hadley? Did he have a role in Treasongate?

And in true, he-said, she-said Times fashion:

At a parallel "People's Summit" in Mar del Plata on Thursday, organized by a coalition of left-wing, indigenous and antiglobalization groups, American proposals on free trade also came in for criticism, as did Mr. Bush himself.

"We Said No and No Means No: No to Bush, No to F.T.A.A. and No to Repaying the Debt," read one large banner at the conference, held in a group of tents and classrooms on the campus of a local university. Several thousand people attended.

I don't suppose folks in the White House want to paint "the mean bullies are ganging up on Dear Leader" picture. Might get him a bump in the polls.

It's the torture, stupid

"Fair and balanced" Fake ONews has on Cavuto a balance of Kristol and Krauthammer, worrying their little heads over the very real likelihood of a Bush impeachment, conviction, and criminal prosecution if the Democrats win Congress in 2006, especially over the false reasons sold to the America to get involved in Iraq. The "Democrats voted for Iraq too" canard is trotted out on cue, as expected.

The only problem is they have the crimes wrong.

It's not the prosecution of the Iraq war that's the issue- although if they were able to show the outing of a CIA agent took place with Bush's connivance that would naturally be fair game.

No, the real issue is the tortue.

As William Pfaff, no Michael Moore, in November's Harper's Magazine points out (no link):

On January 9, 2002, a memorandum co-written by John Yoo of the University of California Law School, who was serving temporarily in the Justice Department, provided arguments to support a claim that with respect to prisoners taken in Afghanistan, the United States was not bound by the Geneva Conventions. The prisoners were to be declared "enemy combatants," not prisoners of war, a legal distinction previously unrecognizedbut considred necessary to prevent American officials from being exposed to the U.S. federal War Crimes Act of 1996, which carries the death penalty

(Emphasis mine.)

Think about that. A legal fiction is created to justify torture. If torture were found to be condoned and fostered -think Abu Ghraib- violating the Geneva convention- the relevant folks in the Bush regime could be eligible for a federally supplied hypodermic needle and gurney.

Is it any wonder why the right is so supportive of Bush? It's not just hate; it's fear.

But - regardless of the fact that we most assuredly should not stoop to the level of Bush and his regime- it does underscore the gravity of the potential offenses against which Bush and his cronies may be charged.

It ain't hysteria. It's the law.

Not that I realistically think the folks involved will be brought to justice.

But they should be.

Ponies everywhere!

Laura Bush, when you're the last one left supporting your husband, can you let us know when you change your mind?


35% approval is pretty low- beats Clinton at his lowest, and comes close to Carter's lowest lows.

"No" to Alito

Renaissance place...

I'm blogging from a famous east coast technical university. I had forgotton many things about my own college days, and this place brings back much of it, not just the youthfulness of the place, but also the "scienceyness" of the place. Darwin and Galileo's names are carved in stone here. This place is ground zero for much of the religious right (and some of the extremists on the left).

They make their own viruses here; they giddily engage evolution in theory and practice, they help God play dice in His mad gambling binge, shattering notions of limits. And there is money to be made, and lots of fresh-faced kids are learning things and doing things and upending paradigms all over the place.

The ROTC walks kinhin "in honor" (by which I think they mean "in high respect") of POWs and MIAs. The odd thing about that is not the ROTC kids themselves (What do they think about Iraq? Would it really matter? Where they are likely to wind up is in the more coveted spots away from the actual fighting - I'm not in Flint Michigan). No, the odd thing is the people watching the ROTC students' kinhin. Most don't seem to know how to react, some look and turn away. One cadet salutes. One can imagine- it's an out front kind of kinhin, in full view- what might go through the minds of ths students as they watch the people watching them, which would mean that this very monkey mind path would itself be a distraction from the focus on the POWs and MIAs.

None of which is related to anything politicky or Buddhisty or economically, but it definitely stirs up something energetic in me that I'd forgotten a while back; the enthusiasm of being able to do something that makes history. I've made a bit of my own, a small bit, here and there in my career, but there's a heck of a lot more history to be made evidently.

Intel's going to have some rough times ahead in the next few years, I suspect.

Folly and News in cyberspace....

It must be the new changes at work, which among other things, have thrust a lot of good new work on me (albeit with a short amount of time).

But at any rate, today's stuff from the blogosphere looks like pretty thin swill at this early hour.

Sombebody at Kos is berating Wolf Blitzer, who for once in his life is merely playing devil's advocate.


Joe Carter completely doesn't get the phrase "religious beliefs are inadmissible in academic explanations.” And I simply have no interest today in explaining why, and his refusal to understand why - from a religious point of view- would vindicate the use of the phrase. (The writing by Scalia linked by Carter is also an interesting read for its unintentional self-referentiality.)


Wal-Mart is still evil. And with an outdated business model, too.

Wal-Mart is taking a page from the modern political playbook. Under fire from well-organized opponents who have hammered the retailer with criticisms of its wages, health insurance and treatment of workers, Wal-Mart has quietly recruited former presidential advisers, including Michael K. Deaver, who was Ronald Reagan's image-meister, and Leslie Dach, one of Bill Clinton's media consultants, to set up a rapid-response public relations team in Arkansas.

When small-business owners or union officials - also employing political operatives from past campaigns - criticize the company, the war room swings into action with press releases, phone calls to reporters and instant Web postings.

One target of the effort are "swing voters," or consumers who have not soured on Wal-Mart. The new approach appears to reflect a fear that Wal-Mart's critics are alienating the very consumers it needs to keep growing, especially middle-income Americans motivated not just by price, but by image.

The first big challenge of the strategy will come Nov. 1 with the premiere of an unflattering documentary. "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" was made on a shoestring budget of $1.8 million and will be released in about two dozen theaters. But its director, Robert Greenwald, hopes to show the movie in thousands of homes and churches in the next month. The possibility that it might become a cult hit like Michael Moore's 1989 unsympathetic portrait of General Motors, "Roger & Me," has Wal-Mart worried.

Another Republican behaved badly towards women while Republicans are pushing Samuel Alito. Which is just fine with the Bush regime, which sees no need for a shake-up of their operation. But evidently, for once, Kristof gets it.


Argentina is not happy with George W. Bush.

Chinese stocks are tanking.

I'm off on travel today. All in all, it should be a productive day as there isn't really any news of substance. Having said that the market will probably tank, North Korea will probably launch missiles, and a high-ranking Bush administration official will be either caught in a compromising position with a barnyard animal, or said official will resign and be replaced by a barnyard animal.

But I could be wrong.