Me: Frank Lynch

Home
(Current commentary)

These are my mundane daily ramblings.
For something less spontaneous, I maintain The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page (over 1,800 Johnson quotes), with a weekly essay springing from one of Johnson's quotations.

Email:
frank
dot
lynch2
at
verizon
dot
net

Dump your Rudy Giuliani futures. Now, before they're worthless. Newsday reports on how the Kerik dust-up will be a blemish on any future presidential aspirations for Rudy. (Of course, Giuliani has other problems too, in order to please die hard Republicans: he supports reproductive rights and is considerably more liberal about homosexuality than the most vocal members of the GOP.)
Link 8:15 PM Home

Some really poor reporting of the Kerik story over at CBS. Although they point out the failure of the White House vetting proces, they make some weird points...

• Like referring to the affair as an "unusual disruption in the White House's normally well-choreographed personnel moves." What's the standard here? Treasury Secretary John Snow was left to publicly twist in the wind for about a week before Bush announced he wanted him to remain. And John Danforth's resignation as ambassador to the U.N. was an embarrassing surprise. And the sheer number of changes is disruptive.
   
• Like referring to his early 80's security position in a Saudi Arabian hospital as "anti-terrorism."
   
• Discussions of the Taser conflict don't go far enough: it mentions that Taser will have Homeland Security as a client, but doesn't mention the NYPD, which Kerik ran.
   
• And no mention, either, of the unsavory aspect of his having a child born out of wedlock in Korea, whom he abandoned.

All that aside, the article also notes a striking lack of concern on Bush's part: "A senior official tells CBS News that Mr. Bush thought Kerik was the right man for the job, and still does, though he must now seek another nominee."

These guys don't make me feel very safe...
Link 1:15 PM Home

Knowing what we're learning about Bernard Kerik, I'm not even thrilled he was head of the NYPD, much less a nominee to head Homeland Security. It's not so much hiring a nanny with questionable legal status — affordable child care continues to be a problem in this country — but it's part of a much larger picture of a guy who exercises bad judgment time and time again. And that, my friends, is not conducive to national security. Further, the Bush failure to properly vet him looks like a threat to national security, too.

Via Josh Marshall, I read a Newsweek article detailing Kerik's failure to pay $5,000 in condo maintenance, leading to a 1998 warrant for his arrest. This was well before his brief tenure atop the NYPD. (Did you know it was only 16 months?) I live in a co-op, and have been a board president; when a member defaults on their maintenance, it's serious business. Put simply, I'm not thrilled that this apparent deadbeat was the head of the NYPD at all.

(An article in the Washington Post on Wednesday highlighted Kerik's position in security for a hospital in Saudi Arabia 20 years ago, and some employees accuse Kerik of having carried out an administrator's vendetta. "Kerik was a goon," said one former employee, and was deported from Saudi Arabia in 1984.)

Thinking about him as head of Homeland Security introduces lots of other aspects of his resume since 9/11, continuing a questionable c.v.

• As head of the NYPD, he abused his power: he had staff do research for his book, and gave his publisher special attention in finding a stolen cellphone.
   
• He apparently benefitted from his NYPD position in public life; according to the Newsweek article, the NYPD was a major client of a company (Taser) that hired Kerik for its board after he left the force. As part of that position, Kerik was awarded stock options which he sold for more than $6 million just before Amnesty International raised warnings about deaths from Taser's stun guns.
   
• He signed up to train Iraq security forces, and cut it short.

I'm not shedding any tears over the change in his career path, believe you me. I'm just amazed that Giuliani didn't know all this (did he?) when he started campaigning with the Bushies to choose Kerik; and that the Bushies didn't check him out better.

Does the Bush process, then, represent a threat to our national security? I think there's room for worry here, don't you?
Link 11:45 AM Home

They're off their game. Doesn't Karl Rove know how to vet these guys? Kerik was clearly unqualified for the job, but to have him fall on his sword because he paid a nanny off the books who may have been an illegal alien (as was just mentioned on Aaron Brown's show) seems wrong. Heck, Kerik has passed up an opportunity to be a poster child regarding child care. But no...
Link 11:13 PM Home

Regarding Donald Rumsfeld.

From the Miami Herald's Jim Morin.
Link 3:23 PM Home

Want a great reason for not investing in a new stadium for the local team? How about if they have no loyalty to the municipality? The Florida Marlins look like they're trying to pressure Miami, and have opened up discussions with the city of Las Vegas, which wants a team. On learning the team would be meeting with Las Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman, Miami's mayor said:

"Quite frankly, since [Goodman's] a good friend, I wouldn't wish the Marlins on him," said Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, who was unaware of the meeting in advance. "It's very, very shocking to all of us.

"We've had a deal in front of them for months now, and they keep nickel and diming us. I don't know what else we can do."

Are you hearing this, New York? We don't need to get further into bed with the Jets.
Link 3:11 PM Home

Nice work if you can get it. Halliburton's Iraq contracts have now surpassed $10 billion in spite of the fact that "Allegations of financial misdeeds, including corruption and overcharging, have led to criminal, congressional and Pentagon investigations of Halliburton's work in Iraq."

The article also mentions where their former CEO currently works.
Link 9:49 AM Home

Jerks. The White House is planning on the most expensive inaugural celebrations ever, in spite of one of the slimmest election margins of all time, our being at war, inadequate economic growth, and a deeply divided country.

Organizers also insisted that the event would be for the whole country, not just Mr. Bush's supporters. "I don't view it as a partisan thing as much as I do a great celebration for America," said one inaugural official who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject. "We're not going 'na, na, na, na, na.' Not out loud, anyway."

They're actually doing that already, what with their claims of a nonexistent mandate, showing their hypocrisy over Tom Delay's ethics problems, and strong-arming Arlen Specter to toe the line. (And, since this was a party which was happy to wear Purple Heart bandages to mock Kerry and ultimately discredit so many veterans, I have trouble believing all the faithful are going to be restrained.)
Link 9:00 AM Home

Being President is hard work. Really, it can't be a pleasant job. It's not easy ratcheting up support for a war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction — Americans generally have too much self-interest to think about it unless they're directly threatened. And then, what are the thanks you get? There aren't any WMD. And it's not easy getting Americans to accept the sleight of hand explanation that we're really there for humanitarian reasons, only to have the Pope and Human Rights Watch say, "not so fast." Being President means you have to think fast on your feet, and adopt rhetoric like "Democracy is on the march" and repeat it as a mantra. Very nicely done, except now the populace is pessimistic about that, too:

Fewer than half, 47 percent, think it's likely Iraq will be able to establish a stable government, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. A little more than half, 51 percent, said they think it's not likely.

In April, 55 percent said they believed a stable, Democratic government probably would be established in Iraq, and 44 percent thought it was not likely.

Some of those who have doubts acknowledge they still see a stable Iraq as an important goal.

"Once you made that initial step, you can't backtrack," said Richard Bates, 50, a Democrat who works at a steel mill near Pittsburgh. "But I'm concerned Iraq is going to become another Vietnam."

But the good news is that in spite of being a complete screw up, with support for staying in Iraq being based on fears regarding what would happen once we leave (this is not what is referred to as "golden handcuffs," by the way), you get to keep your job.
Link 8:15 AM Home

The White House continues to claim broad popular support. Today, regarding Social Security, Scott McClellan said,

[The President] made it very clear that he does not believe we should raise payroll taxes; that was something he campaigned on during the campaign, it was one of the issues that was discussed at length. And the American people spoke very clearly in support of his approach to strengthening Social Security.

Of course, if you go back and look at this analysis I did after the election, you see that Bush was elected on the slimmest difference for an incumbent in over 75 years, and while war presidents typically benefit from a "rally 'round the flag" feeling, Bush did not. And beyond that early November analysis, Bush's lead in the popular vote is deteriorating. And I still don't know how you get from a slim preference to a presumptive endorsement of every single policy, but perhaps I quibble.

Just for hypothetical purposes, let's say that 65% of Americans support the President's call to reform Social Security. I have no idea what the real figure is, I just made that up, because it's a number that's roughly close to the percentage of Americans who supported our war against Iraq at the start of the invasion. And I chose that because there's a distinct parallel: do you think that Americans are any better informed about the truth of Social Security than they were about Iraq not really having weapons of mass destruction? What would make anyone think that the populace had spent enough time reading wonkish pieces on the program when they hadn't really done their homework on something like a mushroom cloud? Does anyone really think that Americans have read Paul Krugman's Monday column, entitled Inventing A Crisis? (Krugman pointed out that there is no crisis, that Social Security is solvent for another 50 years, and if it went "bankrupt" it would still be paying 80% of the promised benefits.) Really, just how relevant is popular opinion here at this point?

And of course, to my original point, we have to push back on the White House claiming popular support that hasn't even been shown to exist.
Link 9:33 PM Home

We are the peacekeepers, apparently. Not.

"Life is normal in Ramadi if there are no Americans," said Iraqi police Lt. Baraa Mohammed. "But when the Americans enter, the clashes start. The resistance goes out to face them immediately, just like a swarm of bees."

So is the resistance a group of terrorists, or a bunch of homesteaders protecting their turf? Are these the people killing the Iraqis who sign up for the security force jobs?
Link 8:44 PM Home

What a picture of of Paul Bremer...
Link 3:56 PM Home

Miles to go before we breathe easier. The benefits of the Kyoto Agreement are only a drop in the bucket compared to what really needs to be done, according to a leading expert on climate change. The reason is that the emission cutbacks by developed nations will be compensated for by emission increases from countries that are not on board (such as China and India). Professor Wallace Broecker of Columbia University says that what needs to be tackled is finding a way to get the emissions out of the air. No commentary on the likelihood of figuring that one out... Do I recommend junking Kyoto? Nope: I'll take the drop to start.
Link 3:48 PM Home

Rumsfeld supports our troops by LYING to them. Yesterday Wednesday in Kuwait, Rumsfeld fielded tough questions from our troops regarding the lack of adequate armor and protection with a sincere and caring response...

Rumsfeld replied that, "You go to war with the Army you have," not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

Why is this a lie? Well, in Bob Woodward's book we read of round after round of efforts by Rumsfeld to make the war effort as skimpy as possible, with as few troops and as short a time line as possible. Each time Tommy Franks came back with a plan, Rumsfeld insisted that it be trimmed further. "The one you might want" was never an issue, it was always "I want fewer." Rumsfeld never thought once about a troop strength that would lead to the greatest safety, and I'm sure he never thought in terms of whether or not they would be safe. It was always Operation Skimp: he was always determined to do the most with the least. (Maybe Woodward got it wrong, but no one has complained about this aspect of the book, and the Bush-Cheney campaign recommended that the faithful read it.)

His logic in further answers is also stupid:

And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents' weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

Ya know something? You can take precautions in NYC and still get mugged, so why bother taking precautions? Isn't that just stupid? He's claiming that additional armor won't make you safer, as if every day our soldiers only face threats that won't be stopped by armor.

There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops, Mr. President: get rid of this clown.
Link 12:46 PM Home

The silliness of satraps. Federal air marshals are being told that if they don't fly in a sport coat or suit that they risk being fired. The horror of casual dress was noticed by Thomas Quinn, director of the Federal Air Marshal Service on Thanksgiving Day, when he was expecting to thank a crew for working on the holiday.

One air marshal who asked not to be identified called it "ridiculous" that marshals are expected to blend in with holiday travelers by wearing a suit.

"On Thanksgiving Day, travelers don't wear business suits to visit family and friends," the marshal said.

The dress-code policy is a sore point among the traveling marshals, who say it compromises their undercover status.

A provision included in the intelligence-reform bill would allow the air marshals to wear less-conspicuous clothing. The final vote on the bill is expected today in the Senate.

Pulling air cops from flight duty because of attire puts a strain on an agency already stretched for manpower, say marshals, who cover less than 2 percent of an estimated 30,000 daily flights. Suspending one marshal means the suspension of an entire team, which can affect two to four flights per day, the second marshal said.

"Of all times to do this, during the holidays, this is insane," the second marshal said.

Marshals say they need to protect their undercover status so terrorists cannot determine which flights are protected.

The Feds don't even know the concept of "business casual." Can you imagine?
Link 9:12 AM Home

What stains must this nation bear? It wasn't enough that our government made early noises about not adhering to the Geneva convention; it wasn't enough that the abuses at Abu Ghraib occurred, nor that the Red Cross determined that our procedures at Guantanamo were "tantamount to torture." The ACLU has released government memos revealing that our special forces personnel threatened US Defense Department witnesses to Iraqi abuses. Not enemies, not Iraqis, not reporters, not "humanitarian do-gooders," but our own personnel. Just who is the enemy, now?

The release of the ACLU documents comes a day after The Associated Press reported that a senior FBI official wrote a letter to the Army's top criminal investigator complaining about "highly aggressive" interrogation techniques at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay dating back to 2002 - more than a year before the scandal broke at the Iraqi prison.

The memos reveal behind-the-scenes tensions between the FBI and U.S. military and intelligence task forces running prisoner interrogations at Guantanamo and in Iraq as the Bush administration sought better intelligence to fight terrorists and the deadly Iraq insurgency.

"These documents tell a damning story of sanctioned government abuse - a story that the government has tried to hide and may well come back to haunt our own troops captured in Iraq," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the New York-based ACLU.

The dates for all the memos aren't provided in the article (one is dated June 25, 2004), but the activity they describe was happening in 2003. Thus, it couldn't be more apparent but that when Rumsfeld, Myers et al appeared before Senate and House panels this year, they were doing everything they could to keep the lid on the scandal: I doubt it will be long before there is sufficient evidence to prove, unequivocally, that a cover-up was in progress. And Rumsfeld, of course, is the only major cabinet member retaining his post. I full expect that all those who are calling for Kofi Annan to resign from the UN simply because oil-for-food happened on his watch will do the same about Rumsfeld. This is reprehensible. And if you're a U.S. taxpayer, YOU are paying Rumsfeld's salary.
Link 6:19 PM Home

We invaded Iraq because if Saddam Hussein wasn't toppled, the UN oil-for-food scandal would have continued. Al Franken is cautioning (no link) that some conservatives are already making noises about this rationale, as a way to save Bush's face and suggest that he really had no choice in invading Iraq. This is based on Senator Norm Carlson's harsh criticism of Kofi Annan and a recent on-air statement by Bill O'Reilly. Just a warning.
Link 12:56 PM Home

The world changed on November 2. Doubtlessly, the world lost respect for U.S. voters, thanks to our knowingly reelecting Bush. We couldn't plead ignorance or that we were fooled; ungrounded emotions (Bush will protect us) ruled the day. And in that day's wake, Democrats have been self- flagellating themselves about what they did, rather than donning an "I'm With Stupid —>" t-shirt. But how far with stupid do we have to go? There are all sorts of calls that we cast Michael Moore out into a diaspora so we appear more reasoned to moderate Republicans, so that we seem less extremist. Yet as Tom Tomorrow has pointed out, the Republicans aren't trimming similar sails by abandoning Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. Who, really, are the extremists?

Bi-partisanship is not likely to happen as long as you have Republican opinionators like Grover Norquist exhuming old thoughts about bipartisanship being akin to date rape, gang. E.J. Dionne reminds us.
Link 11:21 AM Home

Fewer improvements in the area of civil rights? I'm a firm believer in the idea that it's more difficult to make improvements when you don't see the need or opportunity. Bush is letting the term of the head of the Commission on Civil Rights expire (the White House said it expired Sunday, the head says it doesn't expire until January 21). That person, Mary Frances Berry, had issued opinions which were critical of Bush's inattention to civil rights.

So in this season of removing dissent from the administration, it's not surprising that Bush would let her go. My concerns rise over her replacement, Gerald A. Reynolds, currently Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education.

Who is Gerald Reynolds? Well, at the confirmation hearing for the education post, the opening statement of Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) included this passage (emphases mine):

After reviewing Mr. Reynolds' record, I was struck by his lack of education policy experience and his longstanding hostility to basic civil rights laws — which together raise legitimate questions about Mr. Reynolds' qualifications for the job and his commitment to enforcing and defending basic civil rights protections. These concerns are shared by a broad coalition of civil rights, womens', education, and disability groups who oppose his nomination.

Even the statement from a supporting senator from his home state raises red flags:

I had the pleasure of meeting with him in October, and in that meeting he made it clear that he shares the President's commitment to closing the achievement gap and to providing every child in America access to a quality education.

We know, you see, from the report issued by the Civil Rights Commission in October that Bush has achieved little in Civil Rights, so I'm not sure if it says much about a candidate to say he shares the President's commitment to closing the achievement gap, or "to providing every child in America access to a quality education" since the No Child Left Behind Act is a political sham, a program without adequate funding, merely penalizing substandard schools without opportunities to meet standards.

There are also warning signs of bias in Reynolds' own statement to the committee, which suggest too much attention to anecdotes:

I have provided a brief introduction, but if you do not mind, I would like to stay on my family a bit because they inform my views on civil rights, the lives that they have led in the South and in the North. Their experiences have shaped my views.

I have introduced my father and mother, Arthur Reynolds and Emma Reynolds Simon. They have been the greatest influences in my life. My father was raised in Jackson, SC, in the 1940s. Back then, blacks did not have much in the way of educational opportunities, but my father had a thirst for knowledge and a devotion to reading, a level of learning that he passed on to me. He made the most of what was available. I am proud to say that he eventually became a New York City police officer. He retired from Harlem's 28th precinct.

My mother, too, has overcome large hurdles in her life. The manner in which she has conducted her life has taught me the value of fighting for my beliefs.

My mother-in-law, Janet Marie Sloan, she was a retired nurse. Now she is a world-class grandmother.

Now, after my parents left the South, they initially settled in the South Bronx near my Aunt Jane and Uncle Man. They are over there. Aunt Jane, and Uncle Man, and two of her sons, James and Larry Key, are here today. James now works for the U.S. Customs Service. Prior to September 11th, he was stationed in lower Manhattan...

I think his family deserves praise, I really do. But you have to recognize the impact of region on an African-American's opportunity. I am not saying there is no prejudice in New York City, nor that a African-American in NYC has the same opportunities as a white... But it's harsher in the South: the state flag of South Carolina still has the Rebel Cross in it; Alabamans just voted to retain the language of segregation in their state constitution.

I'm all for individuals taking the reigns and maximizing their opportunities, but there are limits to what you can do with initiative and talent, and Reynolds has to recognize that. His statements in confirmation sound many of the right notes regarding discrimination, and I'm glad for that, but there is an important difference with respect to heading the Civil Rights Commission and that of his current post. The Civil Rights Commission has no teeth — it can make noise, but cannot enforce. Reynolds' current position is about enforcing current laws, and his statements are about enforcing the current laws, with no real attention given to how they fall short or can be improved. As head of the Commission on Civil Rights, he won't be enforcing; he'll need to be leveling a critical eye at the laws and government. And despite his protestations in his hearing that he is not an outright opponent to Affirmative Action, he is quoted here as having once said, "Affirmative action is the big lie. It is a corrupt system of preferences, set-asides and quotas, a concept invented by regulators and reinvented by political interest groups seeking money and power." It may be true that that is Affirmative Action's origin, but its positive impact on America is undeniable. And I'm just plain uncomfortable with Bush eliminating another critical voice in government by retiring Mary Frances Berry.
Link 10:39 AM Home

I didn't hear all the evidence, but I'm baffled. A jury has decided that the 9/11 attacks on the WTC were two events, not one, to the chagrin of the insurers (who now face higher payments) and the smiled of the developer. I don't think it was a frivolous suit, but I don't understand. I hope this doesn't mean that each of Muhammad Ali's punches represents a separate boxing match...
Link 7:39 PM Home

And as a side benefit, it would hurt California and New York hardest, both of them Blue States. Some Republicans are arguing that an effort to simplify the federal tax code should include ending deductions for state and local income taxes, which would coincidentally hurt states which went for Kerry in 2004.

"There's no question this effort would punish blue states," said Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), a member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. Over time, he said, it could force state and local governments to cut expenditures.

That could happen if taxpayers, stung by the higher tax burden that would come from losing the deduction for state and local tax payments, demand a cut in local and state tax rates and become unwilling to approve any increases.

Supporters of the change insist the disproportionate effect on blue states is a coincidence, but they acknowledge that the proposal could hurt most in states that voted against Bush.

"Let me put it like this: It certainly isn't something that's a discouragement," said one prominent conservative. "Yes, we talked about this. The fact that it hits blue states is not something that's been missed among Republicans."

You can see how the planets align in states like California and New York having higher taxes: its more liberal residents see a stronger role for government, allow higher local taxes, and ascribe to philosophies in alignment with Democratic Party principles. But the odd thing here is that Blue States are already net "givers" in federal taxes (the dollar flow is towards Red States). Unless there are other compensating changes in the tax plan, this would further increase the national burden borne by Blue States. I'm not calling Red States "freeloaders" because I believe in the value of federal programs; but property taxes (which are also tax deductible, last I heard) don't get any mention in the article. If they aren't also taken out of the Federal tax equation, look to have that shifted on the local level. State governments have to run, and if there will be less revolt over property taxes than local income taxes, expect the local revenue sources to shift. I don't see this ultimately accomplishing what is being argued for, but it will certainly have huge transitional friction. It has to be set up as a down the road in five years kind of thing in order to make it equitable.

Is it real, or just fear mongering?

"This is very real," said one congressional staffer close to the tax discussion. "They need the money desperately . It's one of the only things they can attempt to do to finance tax reform."

"They need the money desperately." I wonder why that is...
Link 11:45 AM Home

Companies profiting off consumers' enthusiasm. I'm not convinced this is a good thing. We all know the value of word-of-mouth in promoting a product; companies are harnessing their fans by using them in product promotion, sometimes compensating them financially, sometimes not. It's a new form of guerilla marketing (I think it's called "viral marketing"): in the old days, companies would have to use standard marketing techniques like advertising or sending out coupons and free samples; in the 90's Hennessy started sending actors into bars who would act like they were enthusiastic Hennessy fans, and get patrons to try Hennessy martinis; now, apparently, brand users are enthusiastic enough that they will become billboards.

I don't think I care much about whether or not the two-legged billboard is being paid, or whether they're doing it because they're really enthusiastic about whatever they're pushing. But as a consumer I want to know when I'm being advertised to with some company's cooperation. In their lead example, guests to cook-outs arrived with a new brand of sausage and talking points, all provided by the manufacturer; and they reported reactions back to headquarters, if you're not creeped out enough yet. You see, if my guest brings a brand of sausage to my cook- out, I presume they put out their own money and made that choice over another brand using their own money. They were paid, because they didn't buy the sausages they brought. I also figure that everyone's reactions are intimate, and not the subject of some research project. This is really not for me, and if I find out anyone's doing it on my turf, I'll be livid afterwards.
Link 11:16 AM Home

Tiring of being target practice while being the flag bearer. The Bush administration's position of leading democracy in the Arab world is getting adjusted, with an apparent decision to do it more quietly, letting others take the lead here and there.

President Bush started speaking in 2002 about the need to bring democracy to the Arab nations. Since then, however, the popular view of the United States in the region has grown so dark, even hateful, that American officials are approaching the meeting with caution and with a package of financial and social initiatives that have only a scant relationship to the original goal of political change.

Administration officials and their allies defend the change in strategy, saying the United States should no longer try to take the lead.

Somebody must have pointed out that the process of innovation needn't be aggressively rushed; so far it's certainly hurt our image in the Arab world. Earlier this week, Sidney Blumenthal reported on an analysis of the skepticism with which Arabs greet our claims of beneficence in their region, and the tough hurdles we face in convincing them of our altruism. (Sadly, the report wasn't made available until the day before Thanksgiving, although it had been signed off on in late September. You don't think it was held back because of the election, do you?)
Link 7:13 PM Home

There is nothing complex about supporting our troops.

Army Pvt. Jessica Rich was medically evacuated from Iraq in January. Eleven months and two misdiagnoses later, she is still waiting to see a specialist who can treat the autoimmune disease hardening her muscles and attacking her joints.

Sgt. Michael Lemke spent two months after returning from combat dealing with flashbacks of a mass grave at Abu Ghraib prison and dodging phantom sniper fire. Finally, an Army nurse asked him if he might like to see a psychologist.

Sgt. Irene Cornett spent a year in treatment for a wrist injury that occurred when a tent rope snapped. After a bad infection, doctors fused the bone, leaving her with 10 percent movement and eligible for disability pay, according to her hand surgeon. But the officer who summarized Cornett's medical records to determine her eligibility for disability payments reported she had twice as much movement, ultimately disqualifying her from a lifetime pension.

All three, along with more than 13,000 others nationwide, have spent time in a "medical holdover" unit, a system now under congressional scrutiny and the source of seemingly endless frustration to members of the Army Reserve and National Guard.

From the Denver Post, by Marsha Austin and Eileen Kelley. More there worth reading...
Link 6:10 PM Home

I refer you to a post from Digby today, because I have hungry dinner guests coming tonight and I know you have hungry minds. It's about how a student's intolerance of her professor's liberal views leads to the professor getting death threats. Be enlightened!
Link 3:53 PM Home

My prediction on the Iraqi elections. I'll go out on a limb. They will happen on January 30, as scheduled, because Bush is not only incapable of taking no for an answer, he can't even conceive that the answer no exists. And Allawi has called for them to proceed on January 30, too. BUT here's the twist: afterwards they'll call a "do over," and they have the Ukrainian call for a re-vote as a precedent. So that's the trick, Bush meets his deadline, and then says it has to be done over again, at a to-be-determined date.
Link 1:18 PM Home

This is so discouraging. The November jobs report is out, and only half as many jobs were added as was expected. Further, the number for October was recalculated down by 10% (from 337,000 to 303,000). And September's figures were also adjusted down, by 14% (they fell 20,000, to 119,000).

Now, keep in mind, just this past February Bush signed a report projecting 132.7 million non-farm jobs by the end of 2004. After September's numbers, it was clear that in order to meet that figure we would need about 400,000 new jobs per month for each of the last three months of the year. It ain't happening, and since that projection was made well after the 2001 recession and 9/11, it's impossible to blame the shortfall on those events: the shortfall is due to unrealistic expectations by the White House.
Link 1:04 PM Home

It must be a great place to work. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson has officially announced his resignation — yet another cabinet member. Remember how Bush behaved during that first debate against Kerry? Remember how he reacted to criticism and observations he disagreed with? Can you imagine what it's like to be in cabinet meetings and have to give that guy advice?
Link 12:50 PM Home

How is the public interest being served? Baseball is only entertainment; there really is nothing especially sacred about it, no matter how much time you've spent arguing the superiority of Mantle and Mays. So I just don't understand the willingness of the press to print leaked grand jury testimony from Barry Bonds about potential steroid use. New York Yankee 1st baseman Jason Giambi supposedly testified about steroid use in the same case, and he's being pilloried in the New York tabloids.

There is no justifiable reason for printing secret grand jury testimony. None. The public can wait for a real trial. If the press had been half this aggressive in hunting down the truth about Iraq, a story of far greater importance, maybe we wouldn't be there now?
Link 12:17 PM Home

A team exploding faster than a World Series Champion. When the Florida Marlins won the World Series for the first time, fans locally and nationally were astonished at the speed with which the owner, Wayne Huizinga, sent players off to other teams, and the roster of next year's "defending" team looked nothing like the roster that actually won. Is this different than the Bush Administration as it goes into its second term? Ashcroft, Powell, Ridge, to name some biggies. John Snow has been told he can stay, as long as it's "not very long." Now we have a change in our ambassador to the UN, too. And out of the blue, Bush seems to have chosen ex-NYPD head Bernard Kerik to lead Homeland Security. Say what? I'm sorry, but there's a huge difference between the NYPD and the diverse organization we call our Department of Homeland Security. The position really needs someone who's visionary; and while I'm somewhat encouraged by his ability to thrive under the close-minded Rudolph Giuliani, my encouragement pretty much ends there. I'm not alone, according to the same Washington Post article in the last link:

A high-ranking executive in private industry who is familiar with Kerik's tenure as police commissioner and as head trainer of Iraqi police recruits expressed shock at his selection, and said Kerik is not an accomplished manager. "Management just simply isn't his strong suit," the executive said.

There's a certain halo effect associated with having been there at 9/11: Giuliani was named Time Magazine's Man of the Year, but it's not clear to me that he did anything especially unique or leader-like during that time, that is, no more than you would expect from anyone aggressive enough to become NYC's mayor. Similarly with Kerik: there are plenty (I'm sure) who could have done better under the circumstances. Is Bush merely trying to bask in the same 9/11 glow?
Link 10:37 PM Home

British MP George Galloway was accused of collaborating with Saddam Hussein after some documents suggesting such a relationship were found in Iraq following the fall of Baghdad. Both the Christian Science Monitor and UK's Telegraph ran with accusations; after a thorough (but belated) re-examination of the document copies it had, the Christian Science Monitor withdrew its story, but the Telegraph didn't, and yesterday Galloway won a libel suit against the Telegraph. TAPPED has a great summary of the events, the dynamics of deception, and media biases in its write-up, here.
Link 9:20 PM Home

Your US tax dollars have funded lying to several million American children about issues such as abstinence, abortion, and AIDS, according to a congressional staff analysis. Truth is apparently insufficient in pushing Republican-supported agendas, and so children who have participated in abstinence-only programs have been told...

• You can get HIV from another person's sweat or tears;
• Condoms only prevent HIV infection 70% of the time;
• Abortion can lead to sterility and suicide;
• Touching another person's genitals can lead to pregnancy.

This is such a confusion of causality (or over-use of the slippery slope fallacy) that it's ridiculous. Mother's milk leads to heroin, too, because a high number of heroin addicts were breast fed. Cheeses.
Link 12:57 PM Home

The religious ad rejected by a couple networks is more subtle than I thought. You can see it here, for yourself. It doesn't mention sexual orientation in its voice over, and only suggests it in one small part of its visuals. People are turned away from entering a church by bouncers manning velvet ropes, and each person turned away is turned away alone (that is, they try to enter as a single person, not in pairs or groups) for no explicit reason. In the group of people who are proclaimed as being accepted are several specific people and pairs, and one of the pairs is a pair of perfectly respectable women, one of whom puts her hand on the other's shoulder. That's it, that's the only implication of sexual orientation, as if friends never do that. (This threatens my marriage, by the way.)
Link 12:19 PM Home

Of course, it's not safe even in Iraq's "Green Zone." And it's not clear how elections are going to take place. A few days ago, John Hendren of the Los Angeles Times was on Wolf Blitzer's noon show, and said the following... (emphases mine)

In al-Anbar Province, the province where Falluja is, and where Ramadi is, there is not a single election registration site open. And that means that in this Sunni-dominated area, so far nobody is registered to vote.

They're going to put registration in with the food program packets that 95 percent of Iraqis receive there. But that by no means makes it clear that people are gong to actually register and then vote in an area that is by far among the least safe areas in Iraq right now.

I just got back from Ramadi, and I can tell you that people were not out in the streets, people were not frequenting shops. There was gunfire every day during the past four days. And it is not an area where you can immediately foresee people going out to vote.

...

The Bush administration fought this war for two reasons: to find weapons of mass destruction and to create a friendly ally here in the Middle East.

They did not find the weapons of mass destruction. And now you run the risk of creating an Iranian-style theocracy if the Shiites completely dominate this election. And you also run the risk of the Sunnis feel disenfranchised and, therefore, further fueling an insurgency that already has become difficult to control.

...

The thing that strikes me the most is I no longer can walk around Baghdad. I really don't go anywhere except -- I don't go anywhere outside of Baghdad except with a helicopter or a military escort.

In Baghdad, I travel very selectively. And I travel with an armed guard. This is -- this is a year after I and other western journalists used to be able to go shopping for cigars, or going into restaurants. And we just don't do that anymore.

The basic security on the street is dramatically different. By no means is the road from here to the airport secure, on a weekly basis, anyway, there are attacks on convoys out there, if not on a daily basis.

So even in the Green Zone, it's dangerous to get there, it's dangerous to stay there, and it's dangerous to get out. But the good news is that freedom is on the march.
Link 10:34 AM Home

It's the ignorance, stupid. Bush won by such a small margin on November 2, I can't help but wonder how many of those who voted for him never considered the possibility that the number of our troops in Iraq would soon be just as high as at the start of the invasion? As a raw number (12,000), or even as a percentage of how many are already there (9%), it doesn't represent that big of an increase in and of itself. And I don't even question the wisdom of its being done, because Iraq is still not secure. What I want to know, is...

• Why wasn't it done sooner? The generals and Paul Bremer did ask for more troops, long ago.
   
• What was Bush (or Tommy Franks, if we believe his story) thinking when Bush gave his "mission accomplished" speech in May of 2003, declaring "major combat operations" over? Every fair-minded person had a right to expect fewer troops from then on in.
   
• How many Americans believed the "mission accomplished" position, got wise, and then were suckered in by Bush's posturing about how many Iraqi security personnel would be in place by the end of this year? Clearly this should have been an instance of "fool me once, fie on you," but many stepped into the voting booth believing Bush in spite of having already been burned by him once.

Bush wasn't re-elected on values, he was re-elected on the shoulders of an ignorant populace. It wouldn't have taken that many more to be sufficiently better informed to have turned this election.

We know, from two PIPA studies, that Bush supporters and Fox News viewers were misinformed about events in Iraq. The FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate cable yet — and probably doesn't want to, given how great the societal threat from Janet Jackson and Monday Night Football — but local cable operators frequently work on a monopoly in their service areas, one granted by the local municipalities. What would it take for those municipalities to start complaining about the content on Fox News, and threaten to penalize the cable operators for the content they carry? What's more important, a wardrobe failure or a misinformed populace? How many citizens would it take to put pressure on the local council people who grant these monopolies to the cable operators?

I have no idea what the genuine efficacy of this approach would be, but pressure does work on many occasions, and it's working for conservatives. Look at Dan Rather's exit, ostensibly because it was "time," but quite possibly because of the ruckus over the National Guard papers; look at the refusal of 66 ABC affiliates to carry Saving Private Ryan on Veterans' Day, fearing an FCC backlash over the language; look at CBS's refusal to carry an advertisement for a church because it proclaimed its acceptance of members no matter their sexual orientation.

Attitudes are formed over time, so there's no reason to delay writing your local authorities about that Fox News channel your cable operator carries. The sooner the better: mid-term elections will be here before you know it.
Link 8:59 AM Home

I don't think the President understands it yet. In Canada,

Bush defended preemptive U.S. action, saying that "defense alone is not a sufficient strategy" against terrorism in the 21st century. "There is only one way to deal with enemies who plot in secret and set out to murder the innocent and the unsuspecting," he said. "We must take the fight to them. We must be relentless, and we must be steadfast in our duty to protect our people."

But what did we preempt in Iraq, Mr. President?
Link 4:03 PM Home

The Pentagon's paper walls between information and misinformation are being torn in Iraq, according to an article in today's LA Times by Mark Mazzetti. The military has used broad news outlets like CNN to confuse the enemy on events such as the beginning of the Fallujah offensive; yet while General Myers has called for a separation of information functions according to mission and target audience,

Myers' letter is not being heeded in Iraq, officials say, in part because many top civilians at the Pentagon and National Security Council support an effort that blends public affairs with psy-ops to win Iraqi support — and Arab support in general — for the U.S. fight against the insurgency.

Advocates of these programs said that the advent of a 24-hour news cycle and the powerful influence of Arabic satellite television made it essential that U.S. military commanders and civilian officials made the control of information a key part of their battle plans.

"Information is part of the battlefield in a way that it's never been before," one senior Bush administration official said. "We'd be foolish not to try to use it to our advantage."

A lesson, I suppose, on watching the news with a grain of salt.
Link 11:23 AM Home

This mother needs some real grief counseling, I think. Sentencing phases of trials are never happy occasions, but yesterday Laci Peterson's mom complained that her son-in-law was so callous that he dumped her dead body in the sea in spite of knowing that Laci Peterson suffered from motion sickness when she was alive.

She berated Mr. Peterson for disposing of the body at sea, knowing her daughter had a terrible problem with motion sickness.

"You knew she would be sick for the rest of eternity and you did that to her anyway," Ms. Rocha said.

A mother's grief is understandably severe, but really...

Sad to say, it reminds me of Robert Morse's scene with Liberace in the movie The Loved One. Morse is planning his deceased uncle's funeral, and is confused by his options in cloth linings for the coffin. The salesman (played by Liberace) asks, "Was the loved one a sensitive soul?" Uh, yes, Morse says, to which Liberace replies, "I'd get the silk: rayon chafes."

(My first post on the trial. Probably my last.)
Link 9:28 AM Home

Competing to out-cower the others. So the Administration has proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. And now, two major US television networks are refusing to run an advertisement from a congregation which says nothing about gay marriage, but mentions only that it welcomes congregants regardless of their sexual orientation. Save our children! (More at Talking Points Memo.) Presumably the nets are afraid of the very vocal right; that kind of fear is ridiculous, given that every single one of the broadcast affiliates borrows its license for the airwaves from the population as a whole. Time for a letter writing campaign!
Link 9:07 AM Home

Back to top.