April 2004 Archives

Milk.

I know very little about horse racing, other than that the horses go around the track. But I was interested to learn that Kentucky Derby jockeys had to sue to win the right to wear advertising.

I had thought the Kentucky Derby was a private, rather than a public enterprise. So I'm not sure why the state is regulating jockey attire in the first place. But I was a bit amused by a legal argument made by state regulators:

Attorneys for the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority, the state agency that regulates the sport, argued during a two-day hearing that letting jockeys wear ads could lead to corruption. They also argued that the presence of ads or other patches could hamper racing officials' ability to determine a winner in a tight finish, or whether a foul was committed.

Advertising patches would make it difficult to determine who won the race? Does that pass the straight face test? Don't they have cameras to figure out who won if there's a tight finish?

It's not too surprising that the state lost.

Busy Mom Blog has the screen capture edition of the festivities.

Hasn't NASA already joined the crowd by adopting its own abstinence-only educational program?

Dr. Rachel Armstrong, speaking yesterday at a British Interplanetary Society symposium on the Human Future and Space, said the US space agency Nasa was considering how to deal with the natural urges of astronauts travelling on long journeys such as a three-year trip to Mars, where the six-strong crew would be likely to include two women.

"Nasa is talking about the chemical sterilisation of astronauts on longer journeys," Dr Armstrong said, in a talk discussing the problems humanity may face in trying to reach the planets and, eventually, the stars.

Nasa was nonplussed by the suggestion yesterday. "I haven't heard anything about that," said a spokesman at Nasa's Johnson Space Centre, where the long-range trips announced by President George Bush in January are being planned.

But that denial may hide a reluctance, in a nation where the showing of a nipple on national television provokes a religious outcry, to discuss the rather delicate subject of sex in space.

Congratulations to the Knoxville metro area for having the 12th worst air particle pollution and 9th worst ozone pollution in America!

More information from the American Lung Association's report here.

Police in Highland Park, TX follow the letter of the law:

When they found that 97-year-old Harriette "Dolly" Kelton had an outstanding warrant for failing to pay a traffic ticket, they handcuffed her, put her in the squad car and hauled her to jail.

Officers stopped Ms. Kelton, who has lived in Highland Park for at least 60 years, for having an expired inspection sticker and registration last week. When checking her name and license, they discovered an arrest warrant for failure to pay a prior ticket for no registration.

Drivers who don't have their license or have an outstanding warrant go to jail if they're stopped in Highland Park. No exceptions.

TalkLeft's TChris observes that this is another illustration of how zero tolerance statutes often make zero sense in allocating government resources.

Elton John says the voting on a recent American Idol was "incredibly racist" because three black female performers received low scores.

I've only watched a few minutes of American Idol ever, and I haven't see any of these performers. So I can't comment on this issue other than to note that I thought this was a subjective contest. At any rate, I'm somewhat confused by this graf in the article:

The New York Post reported it was deluged with calls complaining that the voting was racially motivated. (The Post is owned by News Corp., which also owns Fox TV.)

Why are viewers calling the Post to complain about a TV program? Is the Post involved in the production or promotion of the program? Even though the two entities are both part of the same corporate body, it strikes me as odd that people would think to call a newspaper to complain about the results in a reality TV series.

According to new intelligence estimates, President Bush's name-calling policy toward North Korea has limited the growth of the rogue state's nuclear arsenal to 400%. That's steady leadership for you.

No need to worry about some pesky little nukes, however. The real threat to our shores--Iraq's aerial drones--have been safely secured.

No, I'm not talking about comment spam or broken Blogger permalinks.

Justene at Calblog has been served with a legal petition (from Quebec, of all places) demanding she reveal information on a comments arising from this post on Infotel Publications. The motion demands the name, address, zip code, and telephone number for a commenter on the blog, information Justene claims she doesn't have.

I'm not technically savvy enough to know if there is a way for a blogger to track down this personal information using an e-mail and IP address. And frankly, there have been a few comments on this site which make me not want to find out.

At any rate, the legal system is still attempting to come to terms with the Internet, and the blogosphere must keep a close eye on it.

A contestant makes a splash in a belly-flop contest but never makes it back to shore to claim his prize:

Dorl Gates, 52, was the fourth contestant Saturday in the Diamond Jim bar's World Belly-Flop Contest. The bar, on Illinois 51 by the Beloit/Townline Bridge, had advertised the contest with fliers and promised the winner $300. Rock County Sheriff's Department Commander Tom Gehl said the contest originally was supposed to take place on the pier at the back of the bar, but some of the contestants wanted to jump off the bridge.

Gehl said the bridge is about 20 feet above the river, which is about 15 feet deep along that stretch of the river.

There were no boats ready to pick up contestants, he said, and the first three managed the jump and got to shore. But Gates jumped, bobbed up a couple of times and disappeared.
. . .
He said the department has conflicting information about how much Gates might have been drinking, and it also is still trying to determine if he could swim.

Not to make too much light of the tragedy, but if you can't swim and are drunk, it's probably not a good idea to jump into a river. Organizers of the next World Belly-Flop Contest might want to point that out.

Mark your calenders. Hesiod notes we are approaching the May 1 Flight Suit Anniversary Day. Check your local aircraft carrier for festivities near you.

The Hamtramck, Michigan City Council is expected to approve an amendment which will allow houses of worship to broadcast religious announcements over outdoor speakers. The move will allow Islamic mosques to broadcast their calls to prayer five times a day. Currently, most American mosques have their calls inside, though the tradition in much of the world is to do it outside.

Local residents are threatening to challenge the amendment in court.

One valid criticism of President Bush's last press conference is that the reporters kept trying to get the president to confess for a mistake. If you're under severe time constraints, which they were, there's really no point in asking for a mistake two or three times.

Since we've apparently swung back to the mode of digging up 30-year-old issues, why not mix things up with a flashback question? The next time Bush fields questions, I think one of the reporters should break out one of these. Could be interesting.

On Friday Thomas "Zoo Man" Huskey was found guilty in a re-trial of kidnapping and raping a prostitute 12 years ago.

I remember an evidence teacher citing this case in one of my classes . . . seven years ago.

As you might imagine, the protracted legal proceedings have come at a hefty price. It has cost the state at least $483,878 to provide Huskey a defense.

The Orange County Register has conducted an investigation on candy sold in California which in many instances has contained dangerous levels of lead. Among the paper's findings:

• 112 brands of candy - most coming from Mexico - registered dangerous levels of lead over the past decade. In 101 cases, no action was taken against the candy makers. The results were kept confidential, and the candy remained on store shelves.
• Repeated high tests aren't enough to set off the state's warning system. California health officials issued seven public-health advisories for candy but have done nothing about 37 brands that tested high multiple times. One, the Tama Roca lollipop, tested high 28 times with no action.
• Even when preliminary tests reveal candy samples with dangerous lead levels, regulators haven't always followed up with more testing.
• The state makes no effort to notify candy companies in Mexico when their brands test high enough to harm a child. Candy maker after candy maker said they had no idea regulators had found lead in their products.

Reportedly, one in four tests of Mexican candy since 1993 has come up high for lead. Yet the California Department of Health Services claims it doesn't have the resources or jurisdiction to tackle the problem.

Something isn't right with this picture.

Literally:

People who wear low-slung pants that expose skin or "intimate clothing" would face a fine of up to $500 and possible jail time under a bill filed by a Jefferson Parish [Louisiana] lawmaker.

State Rep. Derrick Shepherd said he filed the bill because he was tired of catching glimpses of boxer shorts and G-strings over the lowered belt lines of young adults.

The bill would punish anyone caught wearing low-riding pants with a fine of as much as $500 or as many as six months in jail, or both.

"I'm sick of seeing it," said Shepherd, a first-term legislator. "The community's outraged. And if parents can't do their job, if parents can't regulate what their children wear, then there should be a law."

Now if that's not an efficient use of judicial and law enforcement resources, I don't know what is. [/sarcasm]

Via Say Uncle.

One year ago today I made the first post on the Blogger predecessor to this weblog.

Thanks to everyone who has stopped by since then. And a special thanks to the Rocky Top Brigade for the community and exposure it has provided Resonance this year.

On the question of what will happen in Iraq after June 30, it appears the Bush administration is finally making an incremental movement beyond "We'll find that out soon."

Granted, we still don't know who will be in charge. But in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing the administration has presented a vague outline of what the entity might look like.

At best, what the Iraqi entity will have is only limited sovereignty. Political rhetoric which suggess otherwise is simply misleading. And there's no indication yet what will happen if there's a conflict between the Iraqi entity and the occupying American force. That's a big problem.

Still, it's more than we've seen thus far. Ten weeks to go and counting.

The three Japanese civilians who were recently held hostage in Iraq have gotten quite a reception since they returned to Japan. No yellow ribbons here:

"You got what you deserve!" read one hand-written sign at the airport where they landed. "You are Japan's shame," another wrote on the Web site of one of the former hostages. They had "caused trouble" for everybody. The government, not to be outdone, announced it would bill the former hostages $6,000 for air fare.

Beneath the surface of Japan's ultra-sophisticated cities lie the hierarchical ties that have governed this island nation for centuries and that, at moments of crises, invariably reassert themselves. The former hostages' transgression was to ignore a government advisory against traveling to Iraq. But their sin, in a vertical society that likes to think of itself as classless, was to defy what people call here "okami," or, literally, "what is higher."

Treated like criminals, the three former hostages have gone into hiding, effectively becoming prisoners inside their own homes. The kidnapped woman, Nahoko Takato, was last seen arriving at her parents' house, looking defeated and dazed from tranquilizers, flanked by relatives who helped her walk and bow deeply before reporters, as a final apology to the nation.

Dr. Satoru Saito, a psychiatrist who examined the three former hostages twice since their return, said the stress they were enduring now was "much heavier" than what they experienced during their captivity in Iraq. Asked to name their three most stressful moments, the former hostages told him, in ascending order: the moment when they were kidnapped on their way to Baghdad, the knife-wielding incident, and the moment they watched a television show the morning after their return here and realized Japan's anger with them.

Wow. That's quite a contrast from America culture, where we go the opposite direction and create "heroes" out of people who happen to get captured.

As if former Enron Corp. CEO Jeffrey Skilling didn't have enough problems already, he's engaged in some extracurricular activities while out on bond. Folks, don't try this at home:

According to the filing, Skilling and his wife, Rebecca, began the evening of April 8 with drinks with two men they met at the Four Seasons Hotel where they were staying. The group then went to Bar & Books, a cigar bar on the city's Upper East Side, around midnight.

While at Bar & Books, prosecutors said, Skilling conversed with other patrons and had "several rounds of drinks."

"The defendant during the evening invited the patrons to visit him at his house in Houston, informing them that the defendant would fly them down to Houston and provide them with their own maid," the prosecutors' filing said.

Skilling paid a $171 bar tab, and the other patrons reciprocated by buying more drinks.

Then Skilling grew hostile, the filing alleged, and accused one of the two men from the Four Seasons of being an FBI agent. That man left, and Skilling allegedly began accusing the other patrons of being with the FBI.

At 3:30 a.m., the Bar & Books manager asked Skilling and the other patrons to leave, the filing said.

Then prosecutors say Skilling tried to remove a license plate from the car of two of the patrons with whom he and his wife shared drinks, to seek proof of their identities, and tried to lift the blouse of one of those patrons - a woman - seeking a "wire" used to record their conversations.

Nothing like removing license plates from cars or lifting up a woman's blouse to spot those undercover FBI agents, is there?

It's almost like 1942, all over again:

A military contractor has fired Tami Silicio, a Kuwait-based cargo worker whose photograph of flag-draped coffins of fallen U.S. soldiers was published in Sunday's edition of The Seattle Times.

Silicio was let go yesterday for violating U.S. government and company regulations, said William Silva, president of Maytag Aircraft, the contractor that employed Silicio at Kuwait International Airport.
. . .
Her photograph, taken earlier this month, shows more than 20 flag-draped coffins in a cargo plane about to depart from Kuwait. Since 1991, the Pentagon has banned the media from taking pictures of caskets being returned to the United States.

The picture at issue is currently displayed at the above link. Recall that much of World War II passed before the government allowed a single picture showing dead American soldiers to be shown.

Meanwhile, across the pond there's controversy regarding a photo showed in a CBS broadcast on the Princess Diana accident:

Lord Spencer, the brother of Princess Diana, today said that he was "shocked and sickened" by the broadcasting of images of his dying sister on US television last night.

Grainy black and white photocopies of photographs showed the Princess of Wales being treated by a doctor as she lay slumped in the back of the car in which she was fatally injured in a crash in Paris in August 1997.

The images, in which the dying princess has her eyes closed, were aired for around 10 seconds on US network CBS's 48 Hours Investigates programme.
. . .
The photographs were copied from a 6,000-page report of a French investigation into the crash. It was the first time that they had been shown in public.

They were taken moments after the crash, which happened in a tunnel at Pont l'Alma, by photographers who had pursed the car that the princess had been travelling in. Police had seized the film at the scene.

I haven't seen the Princess Diana photographs yet, but generally I'm in favor of showing more of the graphic realism of war, accidents, and crime than the mainstream media tends to show. I don't know how much of a benefit we receive in shielding ourselves from reality.

One of the interesting aspects of Bob Woodward's new book, as I understand it, is his insights on the major players in the Bush administration during the lead up to war. Among these, Secretary of State Colin Powell appears to be the toughest nut to crack. By all accounts he very much opposed the idea of invading Iraq beforehand. But at some point he did an about-face and donned his war uniform. Why? If he thought war was wrong, how come he didn't just resign?

Last night on Hardball, Woodward offered his theory on Powell's thinking:

MATTHEWS: If that's correct, how does he maintain his honor of being opposed to the war, signing on to it without resigning and then knocking the war while he's still in office as secretary of state? How does he bring all that together?

WOODWARD: What's the important constituency for Colin Powell?

MATTHEWS: History.

WOODWARD: I'm going to ask you--no, the soldiers who are out there in Iraq, 130,000 of them.

(CROSSTALK)

WOODWARD: And we're sitting here quite comfortable.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

WOODWARD: and those people are going through hell. And Powell knows it, because he's been there. And he knows, if he quit at any point in this...

MATTHEWS: Right.

WOODWARD: ... he would undermine confidence in what they're doing.

MATTHEWS: But has he undermined confidence by saying in this book to you, if he did, and he says he has, that he thought this was bad policy at the time?

WOODWARD: Well, he thought he pushed and issued very specific warnings to the president.

(CROSSTALK)

WOODWARD: Very, very clearly, no ambiguity.

But it is Powell's belief that presidents make this decision, not secretaries of state. And I believe, if he had been asked, "Hey, Colin, what do you really think? Tell me. Let's sit man to man up in that office in the residence," he might have heard. But he was never invited in and he never felt comfortable enough to go and break the china to say, you have to listen to my recommendations on the bottom line here.

That makes as much sense as any explanation I've heard. It doesn't make much sense that Powell is venting in a book now, though, since the troops are still under fire.

At any rate, if Bush wins reelection, I'd be very surprised if Powell stays in the cabinet after this term ends.

Preemptive release:

John F. Kerry yesterday disclosed nearly 200 meetings he has held with lobbyists since 1989, including dozens having business before his Senate committees, as the presumptive Democratic nominee sought to draw a sharp contrast with what he describes as the Bush administration's more secretive and expansive dealings with corporate lobbyists.

No member of Congress-turned-presidential candidate has ever listed in such detail contacts with lobbyists, who are paid to influence policy decisions.

In an 11-page document provided to The Washington Post before wider release today, the senator from Massachusetts detailed the participants and dates of private meetings in his Senate office with lobbyists representing clients including labor unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, and such major corporations as Microsoft and IBM.

Provided Kerry is offering a complete list--not an edited one--this is a refreshing move. It may not directly translate into in the polls, but it distinguishes the senator from White House, Inc. And frankly our government might be a little cleaner if we knew who all our politicians were associating with.

Via Political Animal, I see there's now a Wal-Mart blog up: "The Best and the Worst about Wal-Mart."

I shop at Wal-Mart. It's the closest store to home, and there's also that low price thing going for it. One thing that strikes me about shopping there (apart from its low wages and imports from China) is the frequency I enter the store and see short check-out lines, yet by the time I head back to the aforementioned lines myself they've magically grown much, much longer.

Okay, maybe it just seems that way, but I do find it odd how customers have to wait in line sometimes given all the employees they have roaming about there.

First, King Abdullah postponed a visit to the White House "amid Arab anger." Now there's this from another Arab ally:

Arabs in the Middle East hate the United States more than ever following the invasion of Iraq and Israel's assassination of two Hamas leaders, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said in comments published Tuesday.

Mubarak, who visited the United States last week, told French newspaper Le Monde that Washington's actions had caused despair, frustration and a sense of injustice in the Arab world.

"Today there is hatred of the Americans like never before in the region," he said in an interview given during a stay in France, where he met President Jacques Chirac Monday.
. . .
"At the start some considered the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred of the Americans. After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it," Mubarak said.

"People have a feeling of injustice. What's more, they see (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon acting as he pleases, without the Americans saying anything. He assassinates people who don't have the planes and helicopters that he has."
. . .
"The despair and feeling of injustice are not going to be limited to our region alone. American and Israeli interests will not be safe, not only in our region but anywhere in the world," he said.

This isn't the direction we want to be heading.

Last year Congress appropriated $87 billion for our efforts in Iraq. But all the "progress" we've been making over there is consuming money faster than expected. The Bush administration had anticipated funds to last into early 2005 and did not include another request in the budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. Despite the fact that some military requests are now going unfunded, the administration is refusing to submit a supplemental spending bill.

Why, you ask? Rep. Curt Weldon offers his explanation:

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, charged that the president is playing political games by postponing further funding requests until after the election, to try to avoid reopening debate on the war's cost and future.

Weldon described the administration's current defense budget request as "outrageous" and "immoral" and said that at least $10 billion is needed for Iraqi operations over the next five months.

"There needs to be a supplemental, whether it's a presidential election year or not," he said. "The support of our troops has to be the number one priority of this country. . . . Somebody's got to get serious about this."

The administration has no qualms in forcing the troops to face extra heat in Iraq by extending terms. Why can't it face some election year heat of its own and submit a bill to support the troops?

The Pittsburgh airport wants to become the first since 9/11 to allow people without tickets past security to the gates. That's awful thoughtful of it, allowing the passengers to have one last farewell. Or is it?

Just as important to the cash-strapped airport, it will allow more shoppers into its Airmall, a sprawling zone of stores and restaurants that has lost business in recent years.
. . .
Pittsburgh has seen a 28% reduction in passengers since 2000. US Airways, which controls about 80% of the airport's gates, dropped about 100 flights a day there in an attempt to reduce costs. The airline has been struggling financially.

Ahh. Who would have guessed money was involved? Shocking. I suspect there are a number of airport owners which now wish their facilities had been designed differently to facilitate commerce with security.

Airlines and security consultants are against the proposal because they say it will put more stress on security personnel. It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out.

Today is the ninth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. And with it comes a report of a 1995 Secret Service memo referring to security video footage of the bombing:

"Security video tapes from the area show the truck detonation 3 minutes and 6 seconds after the suspects exited the truck," the Secret Service reported six days after the attack on a log of agents' activities and evidence in the Oklahoma investigation.

The government has insisted McVeigh drove the truck himself and that it never had any video of the bombing or the scene of the Alfred P. Murrah building in the minutes before the April 19, 1995, explosion.

Several investigators and prosecutors who worked the case told The Associated Press they had never seen video footage like that described in the Secret Service log.

The document, if accurate, is either significant evidence kept secret for nine years or a misconstrued recounting of investigative leads that were often passed by word of mouth during the hectic early days of the case, they said.

It's hard to believe such explosive evidence could have been kept secret for nine years. Then again it wouldn't be the first time things have gotten "lost" inside the government.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has conducted another round of safety tests, and if your in a car which gets broadsided by an SUV, things may bot be good for you:

Ten of 13 midsize car models tested by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research group financed by car insurers, received the lowest of four possible ratings, indicating a likelihood of serious or fatal injury. The tests also showed that women were at disproportionate risk in truck-car side-impact collisions.

But the tests also showed that, in some cases, side airbags could make a difference, potentially between life and death. Two cars, the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord, received the highest of four ratings, though only when equipped with optional side airbags that offer head protection. The standard version of both cars received the lowest ratings.

Even if you emerge from an accident unscathed, you may still get a headache once you take your vehicle to the repair shop. An article in The Christian Science Monitor examines the rising costs of vehicle repair:

Costly air bags, expensive electronics, and lightweight body materials are driving up the cost of fixing new cars. Not only do many more parts have to be replaced rather than repaired, but fewer and fewer body shops can afford the special equipment and training required to do the work."We're moving closer and closer to the disposable car," says Dan Bailey, an executive vice president at Carstar, the largest auto-body repair franchise in the United States.

Repairing a new car a decade ago, for example, cost an average of $2,578 per claim, while in 2003, the cost had ballooned to $3,681, a 43 percent increase that has outpaced inflation, says Kim Hazelbaker, senior vice president and head of loss claims analysis with the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) in Arlington, Va.

If that's not factoring in inflation, then a 43 percent increase (over a decade) isn't quite as bad as it sounds. Still, there's really nothing to look forward to in taking a car to the shop.

I didn't catch the Woodward piece on 60 Minutes last night, but here's an interesting nugget from the web site:

Having given the order, the president walked alone around the circle behind the White House. Months later, he told Woodward: "As I walked around the circle, I prayed that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty. Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I be as good a messenger of his will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for forgiveness."

Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, 'Well, no,' and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, "He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.' And then he said, 'There's a higher Father that I appeal to."

That's a weird statement. Bush says he isn't justifying the war based on God. Yet he implies that he's God's messenger.

I have my doubts that God approves of elective wars, but that may just be me. Putting that aside, isn't it strange Bush says he didn't seek any advice from his father? Who as I recall just happened to be president the last time America was involved in a war with Iraq. Bush the elder might have useful experience.

That's not all:

Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either.

"The president, in making the decision to go to war, did not ask his secretary of defense for an overall recommendation, did not ask his secretary of state, Colin Powell, for his recommendation," says Woodward.

But the president did ask Rice, his national security adviser, and Karen Hughes, his political communications adviser. Woodward says both supported going to war.

So Bush asked his political communications adviser about the propriety of war, but not the secretary of defense or the secretary of state?

That's a weird decision tree.

Which recent president said the following:

I do not believe, therefore, that the local commanders on the ground, men who have already suffered quite enough, should be punished for not fully comprehending the nature of today's terrorist threat. If there is to be blame, it properly rests here in this Office and with this President. And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good.

[Emphasis added.]

Was it:

(A) Ronald Reagan
(B) Bill Clinton
(C) George W. Bush

Answer here.

Quite a contrast with the here and now, isn't it?

Newsrack blog has the latest edition. Just point and click.

The BBC has a message allegedly from Osama bin Laden, in which he offers a truce with Europe if it ceases "the destruction and killing of our kinfolk in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine":

Based on the above, and in order to deny war merchants a chance and in response to the positive interaction shown by recent events and opinion polls, which indicate that most European peoples want peace, I ask honest people, especially ulema, preachers and merchants, to form a permanent committee to enlighten European peoples of the justice of our causes, above all Palestine. They can make use of the huge potential of the media.

I also offer a reconciliation initiative to them, whose essence is our commitment to stopping operations against every country that commits itself to not attacking Muslims or interfering in their affairs - including the US conspiracy on the greater Muslim world.
. . .
The reconciliation will start with the departure of its last soldier from our country.

The door of reconciliation is open for three months of the date of announcing this statement.

For those who reject reconciliation and want war, we are ready.

As for those who want reconciliation, we have given them a chance. Stop shedding our blood so as to preserve your blood. It is in your hands to apply this easy, yet difficult, formula. You know that the situation will expand and increase if you delay things.

If this happens, do not blame us - blame yourselves.

I've never fully understood how al Qaeda works. The standard media analysis has been that the organization has assumed a more loosely-knit horizontal structure since 9/11. If that's the case, does Osama even have the influence to control the so-called terrorist cells, even if he wanted to? After all, there's nothing he can do about free-lance attacks.

This is a moot issue, since no country is going to cut a deal with bin Laden. But it is interesting how little the public knows about how al Qaeda actually functions, despite all the media attention the group receives.

Not exactly breaking news:

Uncontrolled U.S. budget deficits would pose a serious threat to global prosperity in coming years as rising interest rates depress economic growth in the United States and the world, the International Monetary Fund warned yesterday.

The IMF released a new analysis predicting that if nothing is done to control soaring U.S. deficits, it would cut global economic output by 4.2 percent by 2020 and reduce U.S. economic growth by 3.7 percent during the same period.

IMF economists said much of the damage would occur because of increased borrowing demands in the United States to finance the deficits. This would drive up U.S. interest rates and interest rates in other countries as the global supply of available capital is reduced, they said.

"The rest of the world is affected seriously by the U.S. fiscal deficit," IMF chief economist Raghuram Rajan said.

Oh yeah--I forgot. Bush promises to cut the budget in half after his supposed second term ends.

During the summer of threat:

ROEMER: Would it have made any difference if you had mentioned -- did you ever mention it, for instance, to the president -- your briefing the president from August 6th on?

TENET: I didn't see the president. I was not in briefings with him during this time. He was on vacation. I was here.

ROEMER: You didn't see the president between August 6, 2001, and September 10th?

TENET: Well, no. Before -- saw him after Labor Day, to be sure.

ROEMER: So you saw him September 4th -- at the principals' meeting?

TENET: It was not at principals' meeting.

ROEMER: Well, you don't see him...

TENET: Condoleezza Rice -- Condoleezza -- I saw him in this time frame, to be sure.

ROEMER: OK. I'm just confused. You see him on August 6th with the PDB.

TENET: No, I do not, sir. I'm not there.

ROEMER: OK. You're not -- when do you see him in August?

TENET: I don't believe I do.

ROEMER: You don't see the president of the United States once in the month of August?

TENET: He's in Texas and I'm either here or on leave for some of that time, so I'm not here.

ROEMER: So who's briefing him on the PDBs?

TENET: The briefer, himself. We have a presidential briefer.

ROEMER: But you never get on the phone or in any kind of conference with him to talk at this level of high chatter and huge warnings during the spring and summer to talk to him through the whole month of August?

TENET: We talked to him directly throughout the spring and early summer almost every day.

ROEMER: But not in August?

TENET: In this time period, I'm not talking to him, no.

TENET: I don't have a recollection of being called, Mr. Roemer. But I'm sure that if I wanted to make a phone call because I had my hair on fire, I would have picked up the phone and talked to the president.

ROEMER: It was just never made.

TENET: No.

So despite all the threats, warnings, increased "chatter," and other clues pointing toward a terrorist strike, President Bush never once talked to the CIA director in the month leading up to 9/11?

That speaks volumes on how our "steady leadership" has performed behind the scenes.

UPDATE: Via Atrios, a CIA spokesman claims Tenent briefed Bush on August 17.

One Iraqi at a time:

AN Iraqi has died of his wounds after US troops beat him with truncheons because he refused to remove a picture of wanted Shiite Muslim leader Moqtada Sadr from his car, police said today.

The motorist was stopped late yesterday by US troops conducting search operations on a street in the centre of the central city of Kut, Lieutenant Mohamad Abdel Abbas said.

After the man refused to remove Sadr's picture from his car, the soldiers forced him out of the vehicle and started beating him with truncheons, he said.

From Great Britain, no less:

George Bush has had a "devastating impact" on global sustainable development and set the world back more than ten years, says Jonathon Porritt, the prime minister's senior adviser on the subject, today.

Writing in Guardian Society Mr Porritt, who is the chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, says it is hard to exaggerate the damage done to the planet by Mr Bush's drive for a "new world order".

On a whole series of issues including climate change, international aid, family planning, nuclear proliferation, trade and corporate responsibility, "staying true to a discredited model of extreme economic liberalism has set the world back a decade or more", says Mr Porritt.

He says it is not surprising that the rest of the world has done so badly because Mr Bush has given them the perfect "out" from their responsibilities.

Ouch.

Another interesting moment from last night's press conference.

The standard rightist talking point after the U.N. failed to endorse Bush's invasion of Iraq was that the organization had become "irrelevant." Imagine the surprise last night when this came out:

Q. Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30?

A. We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.

Let me get this straight. After expending hundreds of American lives and over $100 billion on this effort in Iraq, we are now relying on someone from the irrelevant U.N. to come up with the plan to fix up the mess?

I just don't understand it.

UPDATE: In a press conference today, Brahimi expressed confidence that an interim Iraqi government could be in place by the scheduled transfer of power on June 30.

Better late than never:

On April 12, 1994, a pair of attorneys in Arizona launched a homemade marketing software program that forever changed the Internet.

Hoping to drum up some business, Laurence Canter dashed off a Perl script that flooded online message boards with an advertisement pitching the legal services of Canter & Siegel, the law firm he ran with his then wife, Martha Siegel.

The response was immediate and harsh, offering one of the loudest signals up to that point that unchecked marketing would not be tolerated in the new medium. Thousands of recipients registered their displeasure, and a new label for the burgeoning business of unsolicited mass Internet advertising was coined.

"Send coconuts and cans of Spam to Cantor & Co.," one outraged Usenet reader wrote amid the uproar that followed the Canter & Siegel message. "(Be sure to drop the can of Spam on its seam first.)"

Celebrated responsibly.

Since the Presidential Daily Briefing was released, the Bush administration has tried to dismiss its importance because it didn't lay out the time, place, and manner of the September 11 attacks. Which indeed it did not. But it did warn of hijackings. Thus the question naturally follows: how did the president respond to a threat of hijackings? After all, measures to prevent hijacking might have inadvertently thwarted the 9/11 plot.

Last night at the press conference someone posed this to Bush. See if you can locate the affirmative step(s) he took:

Q. You've talked � I'd like to ask you about the Aug. 6 P.D.B.

A. Sure.

Q. You mentioned it at Fort Hood on Sunday. You pointed out that it did not warn of a hijacking of airplanes to crash into buildings, but that it warned of hijackings to obviously take hostages and to secure the release of extremists being held by the U.S. Did that trigger some specific actions on your part and the administration since it dealt with potentially hundreds of lives and a blackmail attempt on the United States government?

A. I asked for the briefing. And the reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas. And part of it had to do with the Genoa G8 conference that I was going to attend. And I asked at that point in time, let's make sure we are paying attention here at home as well. And that's what triggered the report.

The report itself, I've characterized it as mainly history. And I think when you look at it you'll see that it was talking about a '97 and '98 and '99. It was also an indication as you mentioned that that bin Laden might want to hijack an airplane, but as you said, not to fly into a building but perhaps to release a person in jail. In other words, serving as a blackmail. And of course that concerns me. All those reports concern me.

As a matter of fact, I was dealing with terrorism a lot as the president when George Tenet came in to brief me. I mean that's where I got my information. I changed the way, the relationship, between the president and the C.I.A. director. And I wanted Tenet in the Oval Office all the time. And we had briefings about terrorist threats. This was a summary.

Now in the, what's called the P.D.B. there was a warning about bin Laden's desires on America. Frankly, I didn't think that was anything new. I mean major newspapers had talked about bin Laden's desires on hurting America. What was interesting in there was that there was a report that the F.B.I. was conducting field investigations. And that was good news that they were doing their job.

The way my administration worked was that I met with Tenet all the time. I obviously met with my principals a lot. We talked about threats that emerged. We had a counterterrorism group meeting on a regular basis to analyze the threats that came in. Had there been a threat that required action by anybody in the government, I would have dealt with it. In other words, had they come up and said this is where we see something happening, you can rest assured that the people of this government would have responded and responded in a forceful way.

I mean one of the things about Elizabeth's question was I stepped back and I've asked myself a lot, Is there anything we could have done to stop the attacks? Of course, I've asked that question as have many people of my government. Nobody wants this to happen to America. And the answer is that had I had any inkling whatsoever that the people were going to fly airplanes into buildings we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country. Just like we're working hard to prevent a further attack.

No, I see a step taken against hijackings in that answer, either. It's nice to know Bush was "concerned" when hearing reports entitled "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing," "Bin Laden threats are real," and, of course, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." But what did he do? Obviously, if he had taken some sort of aviation-related precautions, we would have heard of them by now.

What did Bush do following the August 6th P.D.B? Dana Milbank and Mike Allen take us back in time:

President Bush was in an expansive mood on Aug. 7, 2001, when he ran into reporters while playing golf at the Ridgewood Country Club in Waco, Tex.

The day before, the president had received an intelligence briefing -- the contents of which were declassified by the White House Saturday night -- warning "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." But Bush seemed carefree as he spoke about the books he was reading, the work he was doing on his nearby ranch, his love of hot-weather jogging, his golf game and his 55th birthday.

"No mulligans, except on the first tee," he said to laughter. "That's just to loosen up. You see, most people get to hit practice balls, but as you know, I'm walking out here, I'm fixing to go hit. Tight back, older guy -- I hit the speed limit on July 6th."

Fore!

One last note on this question and answer. It's ironic that Bush made reference to the G8 conference in Genoa, since the threat feared at that event was . . . a terrorist attack using suicide-piloted airplanes.

No one could have imagined. . . .

Then:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

President Bush
"State of the Union" Address
January 28, 2003

Now:

There was nothing in there that said, you know, there's an imminent attack. There was nothing in this report to me that said, oh, by the way, we've got intelligence that says something is about to happen in America. That wasn't what this report said. The report was kind of a history of Osama's intentions, I guess is the best way to put it, kind of a history of what the agency had known.

President Bush
On his non-reponse to the August 6, 2001 Presidental Daily Briefing
April 12, 2004

I guess this would qualify as reality TV:

Digital TV channel BBC Three is to broadcast what it says is the first televised sperm race later this month.

The race, to be shown as part of the educational Lab Rats series, will pit the sperm of presenters Dr Mike Leahy and Zeron Gibson against each other.

It will be filmed inside two tiny glass tubes by a microscope and relayed to a crowd watching a pub's big screen.
. . .
They will then have their sperm measured and tested by fertility expert Allan Pacey from the University of Sheffield, who will predict which man is likely to win.

The programme will be shown on 15 April at 2330 BST and is one of a four-part Lab Rats series.

Alas, no BBC Three TV for me. I wonder if there is a betting line on this one.

Someone in a volunteer organization from Senator Edward's presidential campaign has e-mailed out links to this petition and this website in an effort to generate public support to put Senator Edwards on the Democratic ticket. As a supporter of Edwards during the primaries, I have mixed feelings on this, and I'm not even certain he wants to run of vice president. But there's no question he would be an asset on the ticket.

Speaking of the presidential race, the main argument touted in favor of the condensed primary season by the Democratic party command center was that it would be good for the party to rally around the nominee early. The early selection has provided a focal point for fund raising, and that's probably the only thing the DNC cares about. But Senator Kerry has hardly used this early period to generate campaign momentum. While the Bush administration has been imploding, Kerry has (1) been off on a sky vacation, and (2) had surgery. Time to get things in gear.

Or that which has been released from it.

6 August 2001 President's Daily Brief:

Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa'ida members--including some who are US citizens--have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a -- service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

--Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

No Victoria's Secret television fashion show this year:

Victoria's Secret is dropping its nationally televised fashion show this year, at least partly because of criticism following Janet Jackson's breast-baring faux pas at the Super Bowl.

Ed Razek, chief creative officer for the Columbus-based lingerie chain, said Saturday the main reason for the decision was so the company can look at new ways to promote the brand.

Still, he said, "We had to make the decision probably six to eight weeks ago when the heat was on the television networks."

The announcement came less than three months after the Jackson uproar and a week after federal regulators proposed $495,000 in fines against Clear Channel Communications for sexual material on the Howard Stern show.

We don't know exactly what lead to Victoria's Secret's decision. The implication of this report (and my suspicion) is that political rather than business considerations prompted the cancellation. If so, this is more evidence that our nanny state is getting out of hand.

The Janet Jackson's Super Bowl display was rightly condemned because it (1) subjected an unsuspecting family audience to (2) public nudity.

Is that a risk with here?

I've only seen clips from prior Victoria's Secret broadcasts. While they did generate controversy from interest groups, I'm not aware of prior FCC indecency complaints over the show's content. And as far as audience expectations go, can viewers reasonably complain that they didn't know what they were going to see when they a Victoria's Secret show?

The government regulatory pendulum is swinging too far to the right. We've heard a lot of chatter about freedom in Iraq recently. How about our freedoms in America?

I'm not sure which is the odder part of this story:

(a) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promising to stop posthumously baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims, then continuing to do it, or

(b) A Jewish group threatening "legal steps" to get them to stop.

The dispute is so significant that last month a Jewish group got Senator Hillary Clinton to meet with Senator Orrin Hatch.

"You may wonder what makes our Constitution so special. I am here to persuade you that our Constitution is something extraordinary, something to revere."

So waxed our great defender of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, even as a federal marshal was seizing reporters' tape recordings of the speech. The marshal claims that Scalia didn't want the event recorded, but according to the story that announcement was never made at the event.

The incident raises a couple questions: First, why does Scalia refuse to allow his remarks to be recorded? Is he that prone to make comments which would come back to haunt him? And second, why are marshals, who are supposed to be providing protection doing Scalia's dirty work and seizing tapes?

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is protesting the incident as a violation of the Privacy Protection Act.

WendellGee points out this coincidence.

One of Rice's repeated excuses in her testimony before the 9/11 commission (emphasis added):

"The restructuring of the F.B.I. was not going to be done in the 233 days in which we were in office," she said. Nor, she said, was the country about to make its aircraft cockpits more secure, or threaten to invade Afghanistan, or conduct any other kind of preemptive military strike in the name of counterterrorism.

And from Dana Milbank and Robin Wright's column in the Washington Post:

This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency.

I wonder if Milbank and Wright slipped that in ironically.

A president may not be able to reconstruct the FBI in 233 days, but it sure makes for some great down time, eh?

According to the Which Apprentice are You? test, I'm David, the first person fired: "I'm smarter than the competition. I'll out-think them."

Via Apprentice Watch.

Heard on the radio:

Non-
Athletic
Sport
Centered
Around
Rednecks

Quiddity at uggabugga diagrams William Safire's model of the Middle East: "We think it's a highly unstable molecule, likely to break down - and emit plenty of energy in the process."

One of the interesting subplots of the whole 9/11 commission is reviewing the priorities government agencies had at the time and how they translated into government policy. This issue, of course, has been at the heart of Richard Clarke's criticisms--that the administration didn't make counterterrorism a high priority.

But this is all 20/20 hindsight. 9/11 changed everything. The administration is now all about using the power of government to keep us safe and secure, right?

This explains why the Department of Justice has opened a new front on the War Against . . . Porn?

In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains.

Nothing like a supposed freedom-loving government cracking down on the freedoms of consenting adults. Even usual blogosphere allies like Instapundit are on this one.

Here's another approach to fighting porn: since the administration is so intent on funding religious faith-based organizations to solve America's problems, perhaps they should have this group take the lead in tackling our national crisis.

Take this, Richard Clarke:

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has faced a steady exodus of counterterrorism officials, many disappointed by a preoccupation with Iraq they said undermined the U.S. fight against terrorism.

Former counterterrorism officials said at least half a dozen have left the White House Office for Combating Terrorism or related agencies in frustration in the 2 1/2 years since the attacks.

Some also left because they felt President Bush had sidelined his counterterrorism experts and paid almost exclusive heed to the vice president, the defense secretary and other Cabinet members in planning the "war on terror," former counterterrorism officials said.

"I'm kind of hoping for regime change," one official who quit told Reuters.

I've not read Richard Clarke's book, but I've seen him on TV quite a bit. Undoubtedly his own biases have shaded some of his views, particularly the subjective commentary (e.g., Rice appearing as if she'd never heard of al Qaeda before). But almost all of the reporting since Clarke came out has substantiated his thesis on counterterrorism and the war in Iraq. No, terrorism wasn't a high Bush priority prior to 9/11, and yes, Iraq has been a diversion from fighting al Qaeda. It turns out that all the foot soldiers who came out to discredit Clarke a couple weeks ago are, uh, being discredited.

I just heard Rush Limbaugh parroting President Bush's standard rhetoric on Americans needing "resolve" to deal with the situation in Iraq. Limbaugh was saying we need to show the backbone of the troops (and their families), the ones who are actually paying the price for our militarized foreign policy experimentation.

How does Limbaugh show his "resolve"? What does he have on the line in this fight? What kind of sacrifice has he been willing to make? The only effort Bush has requested of Limbaugh or anyone (outside the military) during the "war on terror" is that he spend his tax cuts rather than hoard them. What a burden he is shouldering. What fortitude. What courage.

I wonder how long Limbaugh and company would support the war in Iraq if the government did now what it has done in every previous war--raise taxes to pay for it. How tough do you think Limbaugh's "resolve" would be if Bush asked him to help foot the bill?

One wonders.

The blogger of Baghdad Burning offers a report on the conflict Iraq. Highlights:

This [fighting in Fallujah] is supposed to be 'retaliation' for what happened last week with the American contractors- if they were indeed contractors. Whoever they were, it was gruesome and wrong. . . I feel for their families. Was I surprised? Hardly. This is an occupation and for those of you na�ve enough to actually believe Chalabi and the Bush administration when they said the troops were going to be 'greeted with flowers and candy' then I can only wish that God will, in the future, grant you wisdom.

This is crazy. This is supposed to be punishment for violence but it's only going to result in more bloodshed on both sides� people are outraged everywhere- Sunnis and Shi'a alike. This constant bombing is only going to make things worse for everyone. Why do Americans think that people in Baghdad or the south or north aren�t going care what happens in Falloojeh or Ramadi or Nassriyah or Najaf? Would Americans in New York disregard bombing and killing in California?

And

Then Bremer makes an appearance on tv and says that armed militias will *not* be a part of the New Iraq� where has that declaration been the last 12 months while Badir's Brigade has been wreaking havoc all over the country? Why not just solve the problem of Al-Sadr's armed militia by having them join the police force and army, like the Bayshmarga and Badir's Brigade?! Al-Sadr's militia is old news. No one was bothering them while they were terrorizing civilians in the south. They wore badges, carried Klashnikovs and roamed the streets freely� now that they've become a threat to the 'Coalition', they suddenly become 'terrorists' and 'agitators'.
. . .
The only people still raving about 'liberation' are the Iraqis affiliated with the Governing Council and the Puppets, and even they are getting impatient with the mess.

John Dean is right; the White House's penchant for secrecy never ends. Now we have a confidential public speech:

The White House has refused to provide the panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks with a speech national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was to deliver on that day touting missile defense as a priority rather than al Qaeda, sources said on Tuesday.

With Rice slated to testify publicly before the commission on Thursday, the commission submitted a last-minute request for access to Rice's aborted Sept. 11, 2001 address, sources close to the panel said.

But the White House has so far refused on the grounds that draft documents are confidential, the sources said.

Josh Marshall:

Unless the argument is that we can't let our enemies know the depth of the poor judgment displayed by the president's national security team, it is searchingly hard to fathom what possible national security issue could be implicated by handing over the speech since it was -- do we have to say it? -- a speech! A speech for public consumption.

Like almost all the other restrictions the White House has placed on the Commission, this is just so they won't be embarrassed politically. They don't like the Commission. Again and again they display open contempt for its work. They didn't want it created in the first place. And they've tried to obstruct its work at almost every turn.

All that's different here is that the political nature of the obstruction is undeniable.

Yep. And perhaps someday the major media will stand up and call them on it.

For years reports have swirled about al Qaeda's proclivity to experiment with chemicals and the like. What have they been working on? The secret is now out. They've developed a method to regenerate lost limbs!

Senior U.S. officials told CNN on Tuesday that they now believe fugitive terrorism suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not have a leg amputated in Iraq, as the Bush administration had previously said.

Although the administration pointed to Iraq's medical assistance to al-Zarqawi as evidence of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime, it's now believed that al-Zarqawi still has both legs.

Surprise. Another Bush pre-war claim gone bad. By now it's easier to count the administration's true statements than it would be to tally the false ones.

Another political advertisement:

1910's-quality black and white film played at fast speed. Goofy silent-film era background music.

SUV driver fills up tank. Checks price on pump display. Wipes eyes with both hands. Checks price again. Strikes forehead with palm. Pulls out handkerchief and wipes sweat from face. Opens up back of truck and pulls wheelbarrow. Loads wheelbarrow with cash and heads toward cashier (1920s German style).

Text slide:

"Some people have wacky ideas like taxing gasoline more so oil companies make more money. That's Dick Cheney."

Dick Cheney voice-over (or actual footage, if available):

"Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States"

Text slide:

Bush/Cheney:

Wrong for Drivers
Wrong for America

New Slide:

The End.

Once again, include nothing which puts the quote in context.

Taxpayers for Common Sense lists the amount of earmarks in the HR 3550 (Highway Bill) by state (through April 1).

As you might expect, the larger, more populous states generally top the list. Tennessee fares relatively well, ranking 13th ($220,900,000 for 83 earmarks).

The state that really sticks out is Alaska, which ranks 4th among states in earmarks ($590,200,000 for 30 earmarks). Compare this to similarly-situated states (large area, small population) like Wyoming ($10,000,000 for 5 earmarks) and South Dakota ($0--representative in jail). Is it a coincidence that the chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is Don Young, (R-AK)?

Oink, oink.

Study:

The more television children watch between the ages of 1 and 3, the greater their risk of having attention problems at age 7, researchers reported on Monday.

They found that each hour of television that preschoolers watched per day increased the risk of attention problems such as attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, by almost 10 percent later on.

The study, published in the April issue of Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, adds inattention to the list of harmful effects of excessive television viewing that also includes obesity and violent behavior.

Huh?

Since the current trend is to delink websites with content someone may disagree with or be offended by, I guess it's time for me to update my blogroll:

Links

Resonance*

* Recently updated

Added bonus: faster downloads!

The British press is running with a Vanity Fair article which alleges the Bush administration made it clear to Britain that Iraq would be next within days of 9/11:

President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.

According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner when Blair became the first foreign leader to visit America after 11 September, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy.

It was clear, Meyer says, 'that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions'. Elsewhere in his interview, Meyer says Blair always believed it was unlikely that Saddam would be removed from power or give up his weapons of mass destruction without a war.

As Kevin Drum notes, this revelation won't startle anyone who's been following the news closely. But how about this paragraph:

[T]he implications for Blair may be still more explosive. The discussion implies that, even before the bombing of Afghanistan, Blair already knew that the US intended to attack Saddam next, although he continued to insist in public that 'no decisions had been taken' until almost the moment that the invasion began in March 2003. His critics are likely to seize on the report of the two leaders' exchange and demand to know when Blair resolved to provide the backing that Bush sought.

Why single out Blair here? Bush played the "we don't want to go to war" card just as much as Blair. Clear up until the eve of the invasion he continued to manufacture a phony sense of doubt, as if he would only invade if Saddam forced him to.

The administration decided it was going into Iraq in 2001. I suppose there was a theoretical possibility that armed conflict might have been avoided if Saddam had turned himself in and allowed U.S. forces to take over the country without resistance, but no one expected that to happen. The plan was for war. And the sole purpose of the next 17 months of "diplomacy" was to garner political support for the invasion.

I wonder when we can expect the Bush/Cheney ads informing us that their own economic adviser has advocated raising the gasoline tax 50 cents per gallon? Oh yeah, with no burdensome background context provided.

Probably not any time soon.

Via Andrew Sullivan.

Police think Audrey Seiler's claim that she was abducted is a hoax.

This incident certainly wasn't good from the standpoint of her family/friends who were worried about her, or the law enforcement and other resources wasted in the investigation.

But I think it's hilarious that the national media herd good snookered into covering this fraud. Serves them right for blowing a single, everyday case all out of proportion because the rest of the pack was doing so. The criminal investigation/missing persons gurus, the press conferences, and wost of all the live aeriel coverage of cars driving around Madison.

They should feel stupid.

Democratic National Convention planners still haven't resolved how they will accommodate protesters. Fortunately, watchdogs are following the situation closely:

A judge may be forced to decide how close protesters can get to the Democratic National Convention this summer, as was the case in Los Angeles four years ago, a Boston Police official said Saturday.
. . .
Convention officials planned to create a ''free speech zone'' out of sight of the FleetCenter, but they were challenged by the ACLU and the Massachusetts chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, both of whom want space closer to the main facility. The sides met last week, but there's no agreement.

''We may end up in court,'' Dunford said at the John F. Kennedy Library during a media conference sponsored by The Associated Press, the Radio-Television News Directors Association, and Emerson College. ''We just have to find a space that's suitable for security reasons and also meets the First Amendment rights.''

I didn't post on Google's "free" 1GB e-mail service yesterday, because I didn't want to get April fooled. Now details are starting to emerge, and--surprise, surprise--Google plans to search through the e-mails to power its corresponding advertising:

Privacy advocates are concerned that there's one big flaw with Google Inc.'s free e-mail service: The company plans to read the messages.

The Internet search firm insists that it needs to know what's in the e-mails that pass through its system -- so that they can be sprinkled with advertisements Google thinks are relevant. After all, revenue from those targeted ads will pay for the Gmail service, which began a limited test Thursday, offering up to 500 times as much e-mail storage as competing Web e-mail programs from Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp.

The electronic letters won't be read by Google employees; computers will handle that chore. Nonetheless, the specter of seeing an ad for an antacid beside a message from a friend complaining about stomach pain is enough to make some people nervous about the e-mail service.

Spam-filtering programs, of course, already do this; so the practice isn't new for a lot of e-mail users. Still, if Google gets too cute with its data collection, the potential is there for it to breach privacy expectations.

UPDATE: Wired News has more, including this interesting legal detail: law enforcement has a lower threshold to meet in requiring the disclosure of private e-mail after it's been stored on servers 180 days than it does to obtain more recent e-mail.

"Contraceptive Sponge to Return to U.S. Market?"

This, of course, hearkens back to a classic Seinfled episode.

The unfortunately thing is that if the FCC continues on its warpath, such topics will soon be taboo.

"FCC Leader to Stay Tuned to Racy Soaps"

Soap operas have become a potential target in the Federal Communications Commission's crackdown on broadcast indecency, according to a key official who said the programs might be too "steamy" for daytime television.

Michael J. Copps, the FCC commissioner who has led the agency's campaign against adult-oriented radio programs, told reporters Wednesday that the FCC should review whether soap operas violate the agency's indecency prohibitions, according to Television Week, an industry trade publication.

Our regulators are becoming awfully busy these days, aren't they?

Condoleezza Rice:

"I never sat down and thought, I'll major in political science and Soviet studies, get a Ph.D., become a professor, serve in the first Bush administration, become provost at Stanford, and then become national security advisor. Not planning has permitted me to accept the twists and turns."

Maxim Online's Girlfriend of the Day (April 1st)

Incidentally, this also explains the administration's approach to the twists and turns in Iraq.

More from the purported whistleblower:

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used� but not specifically about how they would be used� and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers."
. . .
Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps.

She said said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission � 90 per cent of it � related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."

As the article indicates, it's currently not possible to verify Ms. Edmond's claims without seeing the evidence. Moreover, she was working backward with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Still, if her allegations are true, they will expose yet another systematic White House effort to mislead the American public:

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.

To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."

Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."

This is the third time I've linked to stories regarding Ms. Edmonds. First, from a federal employee's trade publication, second from Salon, and now from the British press. Where's the mainstream U.S. media? The New York Times? The Washington Post? The 24-hour news channels? Ealier today they were all over a press conference which revealed the breaking news that there are "inconsistencies" in the investigation of a once-missing college student. How about some investigative journalism to uncover what's going on in the halls of power?

A few weeks ago, in testimony not widely covered by the press, Allan Greenspan sang the praises of adjustable-rate mortgages. Given that fixed-rate mortgages are at near-record lows, and that interest rates are expected to raise sooner or later, many analysts have questioned these remarks.

Benjamin Wallace-Wells views Greenspan's speech as a sign of an approaching decline in the housing market. The current recovery has largely been fueled by a wave of mortgage refinancings, which have pumped money into consumer's hands. This cycle may be near an end, and Greenspan's comments are calculated to squeeze one last round of cash out of homes.

Moreover, Wallace-Wells contents that housing prices in some markets are not sustainable:

Truth is, in most of the country there's no housing bubble. Perhaps the crucial ratio from which economists determine whether housing markets are out of whack is the ratio of home prices to annual income. In most of the country, it is modest, 2.4:1 in Wisconsin, 2.2:1 in Kentucky, 2.9:1 in Illinois.

Only in about 20 metro areas, mostly located in eight states, does the relationship of home price to income defy logic. The bad news is that those areas contain roughly half the housing wealth of the country. In California, the price of a home stands at 8.3 times the annual family income of its occupants; in Massachusetts, the ratio is 5.9:1; in Hawaii, a stunning, 10.1:1. To some extent, there are sound and basic economic reasons for this anomaly: supply and demand. Salaries in these areas have been going up faster than in the nation as a whole. The other is supply: These metro areas are "built out," with zoning ordinances that limit the ability of developers to add new homes. But at some point, incomes simply can't sustain the prices. That point has now been reached. In California, a middle-class family with two earners each making $50,000 a year now owns, on average, an $830,000 home. In the late 80s, the last time these eight states saw price-to-income ratios this high, the real estate market collapsed.

This argument about inflated housing prices seems strong. But people have been talking about a housing bubble for a year or more, and it has yet to become evident. So we'll continue to wait and see.

. . . at Inn of the Last Home.

In a comment below, Len suggests the reason Bush and Cheney insist on testifying before the 9/11 Commission together is so they can coordinate their memories. Ron Hutcheson elaborates further:

As anyone who has ever watched a cop show knows, witnesses and suspects are best grilled alone to expose any inconsistencies in their stories.

"Get 'em alone, keep 'em alone, and don't even let them talk to each other immediately after, if you can help it," former New York police detective Robert Louden said Wednesday, recalling the tactics he used during his 21 years on the force. "In an ideal world, you want them separated."

But Louden, who now teaches at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said normal rules don't necessarily apply to a case involving the president.

Bush insisted on the joint appearance in agreeing to take questions from all 10 members of the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. He initially had offered to meet only with the commission's top two members, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, the chairman; and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman.

No date has been set for the tag-team testimony. The arrangement virtually eliminates any possibility of divergent answers from Bush and Cheney, and lets Bush pass off any question he'd rather avoid and makes it impossible for the commission to ask either man any follow-up questions.

Speaking of memory, it Richard Clarke's is looking better and better as more facts emerge. And those who attempted to question his credibility are looking, well, discredited:

On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.

The odd thing is that in and of itself, Clarke's "scoop"--that terrorism wasn't an urgent Bush administration priority prior to 9/11--is largely already factored into the electorate and probably doesn't have a huge political impact. Voters are willing to give the government some leeway in not anticipating the extent of the al Qaeda threat. But this administration is so obsessed with image management that they go all out on the war path against anyone who dares question their carefully-crafted myth.

Matt Feeney writes on the turn of SportsCenter in not-so-flattering terms:

It's strange that ESPN added Dream Job to its lineup since they already have a show in which aspirants compete, with an irritating surfeit of eagerness and theatrical sarcasm, to capture the singular vibe of Dan and Keith. It's called SportsCenter.

Feeney goes on to contrast the current anchors with the legendary Dan Patrick/Keith Olbermann duo. Strangely, in diagnosing the current SC cast's shortcomings, Feeney omits who in my view is one of the worst anchors, the ironically casted host of Dream Job, Stuart Scott, whose "hip" gibberish can be hazardous to your vocabulary.

Apart from the anchors, SportCenter--and much of ESPN for that matter--has gotten far too cute and full of itself. Outside of football season, I usually find it a chore to watch the show for more than a couple of segments. Guess I've developed the short attention span and can't handle much more. Ironic, given that that's the type of viewer ESPN apparently targets.