May 2004 Archives

A litigating plagiarist:

A student who was booted off his degree course for plagiarism is to sue the university. He says tutors at the University of Kent should have spotted what he was doing and stopped him sooner.

Michael Gunn, a 21-year-old English student, freely admits using material downloaded from the Internet to complete his assignments. He told the Times: "I hold my hands up. I did plagiarise. I never dreamt it was a problem."

His problem, then, is not that he was caught, but that he was caught too late. He argues that the university should have warned him of the consequences earlier.

I suspect the University of Kent has your typical student policies forbidding plagiarism. In which case I'm afraid Mr. Gunn is going to have a hard time making the case that his getting away with cheating for a while created a reasonable expectation that he could plagiarize and still receive a degree.

Say Uncle set up a Feedroll aggregator which lists recent posts by Rocky Top Brigade bloggers.

Cool. I'll see if this post temporarily gets positioned at the top of the list.

UPDATE: I don't see this post on the list, but one of my earlier posts is there. Odd.

UPDATE: Finally made the aggregator, about an hour and a half after posting.

Compare:

On Monday night, President Bush made the dramatic announcement that the United States would demolish Abu Ghraib prison and build a modern maximum-security center in Baghdad to replace it. But on Wednesday, Pentagon officials said the president's words had taken them by surprise, and they scrambled without success to come up with details of the plan.

"This office was not aware of any plans to raze Abu Ghraib or build another prison," said a Pentagon spokesman who insisted that he not be identified because he did not want to be seen as contradicting the president.

And:

When Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the latest terror warning, the rest of the government -- including the Department of Homeland Security -- heard the details on television.
. . .
Sources tell CBS News Correspondent Bob Orr the Justice Department did nothing to put other agencies in the loop before broadcasting "be-on-the-lookout" pictures of seven suspected terrorists.

The information was not shared with state and local police forces, or even with the FBI's field offices. It wasn't supposed to be this way after 9/11, said one administration official, who noted "the whole warning process was usurped by the Attorney General."

Beyond that, senior counterterrorism officials question the legitimacy of the bulletin, saying there is no new, specific, credible evidence pointing to an imminent attack in the U.S.

Should we surprised that Ashcroft unilaterally makes a politically-tinged announcement without consulting the government agency primarily responsible for that area? Isn't he simply following the example of his boss?

Another example of how government incompetence flows down from the top.

The good folks at the Tennessee Department of Transportation are developing a Long-Range Multi modal Plan (LRTP) which will "bring together the needs for ALL modes of transportation, including rail, transit, ports and waterways, aviation, pedestrians and bicycles in addition to highways." This is TDOT's "first MULTIMODAL plan that strives to integrate all modes of transportation into a seamless system."

Ha ha.

At any rate, you participate in this effort by filling out a survey here.

I'm filling one out which requests better accommodations be made for bicyclists and pedestrians in future road projects.

General Anthony Zinni (Ret.), Former Commander, Central Command, on Iraq:

We, unfortunately, went into this war despite the fact of my disagreements of going into it the wrong time, wrong place, wrong threat, wrong priority. We went into it ill equipped because we went into it with a pie in the sky best case. We bought into what ever the exiles were selling us, and what we wanted to believe: flowers in the street, to go in and score a quick victory and this would turn almost automatically.

A handful of people from the Pentagon going in trying to reconstruct the country, pulling together the CPA from embassies around the world and dragging people in that weren't cohesive part of an organization like the military, that have worked together that understand the problem.

You can see the results we've got. If you disagree with me or if anyone disagrees with me, tell me you're satisfied with the planning, the strategy, the decisions that have led us to this point. We are about to have our 800th kid killed out there. I believe we're at 799 today. We have had 4,500 kids wounded, injured, maimed, some of them, tragically, severely.

We are about to approach $200 billion of our treasure. Where are we for all of that? I think the American citizens have to ask that question. For someone to tell me it's unpatriotic to question this while our troops are out there doing this and to see what is happening to our image and our reputation around the world, I think it is unpatriotic not to ask these questions and not pose these challenges.

I was a bit surprised to see that Tom Clancy also views the war as a "mistake."

Who will be the next to jump ship?

Volume XXIX at Rebel Yell.

I finally broke down and bought a digital camera. I've posted a few pictures I took Saturday at Cades Cove.

I'll rotate new pictures into the gallery from time to time.

Yesterday:

THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- what President Chirac and others have said is they want to make sure that the transfer of sovereignty to the interim government is a real transfer. And that's what we want. We want there to be a complete and real transfer of sovereignty so that the Iraqi citizens realize the fate of their country is now their responsibility. And we'll be there to help. And we'll help in a variety of ways.

Isn't there a joke about this? The joke is definitely on anyone who believes we invaded a country just to hand power to its citizens with no strings attached.

Anyway, here we are five weeks from the "transfer of sovereignty" and coalition of the willing leaders are busy working out the final minor details. Like whether or not the Iraqi government will have any say over the 138,000 foreign troops within the country.

Looks like we've got everything set to go.

So Coca Cola unveils a new Coca-Cola C2, "with half the carbohydrates, calories and sugar of regular cola, and "all the great taste" of Coca-Cola.

Seems to me if you are really worried about the above, you'd drink Diet Coke.

I've been away from the computer for much of the past few days. Went to the mountains one day and have been helping a friend prepare a house to move into the others. Strangely, he didn't have a blogging station set up in between the ladders, sander, saws, and paint cans. Anyway, house builders sure could save a lot of work if they got things right the first time so no one ever had to mess with this type of work.

It's hard to get a grasp on the latest Ahmed Chalabi saga. This Robin Wright piece reads like an obituary, but the TV shot of the busted Chalabi picture in yesterday's "raid" seemed a bit photo-optish to me.

Anyway, you gotta love one of Chalabi's classics:

"We are heroes in error," he told the Daily Telegraph of London in February. "As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."

Great line. With material like that, Chalabi he can always hook up with a talk radio slot at WGOP if all else fails for him. He'd fit right in.

U.S. troops and Iraqi police raid the offices of Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi. A breaking of ties?

Robert Dreyfuss is suspicious:

In other words, it�s all a big con game. The still-neocon-dominated Pentagon�which this week stopped funding Chalabi�s INC �is playing its last card, hoping that it can boost Chalabi�s sagging fortunes by pretending to sever ties with him. That, the neocons hope, will allow Chalabi to strengthen his ties to Sistani, the king-making mullah who, they hope, holds Iraq�s fate in his wrinkled hands.

Who knows. But comments like this do make one wonder:

He [Chalabi] also said he believed his deepening standoff with U.S. authorities over exactly how much power will be handed over to Iraqis when the country regains sovereignty on July 1 had been an impulse behind the raids.

"Let my people go. Let my people be free. It is time for the Iraqi people to run their affairs," an impassioned Chalabi said.

That does sound a little staged by a man who supposedly just had his house raided by the "Iraqi people."

Well, at least we didn't hang them from bridges:

ABCNEWS has obtained two new photos taken at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq showing Spc. Charles Graner and Spc. Sabrina Harman posing over the body of a detainee who was allegedly beaten to death by CIA or civilian interrogators in the prison's showers. The detainee's name was Manadel al-Jamadi.

Cuing the moral relativists. . . .

Today discount airline Independence Air began selling tickets to 35 destinations including Knoxille.

It will make flying from Knoxville cheaper should give local tourism a boost. Now if we only had a hotel for that convention center. . . .

From this morning's White House cabinet meeting (emphasis added):

Q Sir, Senator Kerry has suggested halting shipments to the emergency oil reserves. Your energy bill is a long-term strategy. What are some short-term steps that can be taken?

THE PRESIDENT: If people had acted on my energy bill when I submitted it three years ago, we would be in a much better situation today.

Secondly, we will not play politics with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That Petroleum Reserve is in place in case of major disruptions of energy supplies to the United States. The idea of emptying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve plays -- would put America in a dangerous position in the war on terror. We're at war. We face a tough and determined enemy on all fronts. And we must not put ourselves in a worse position in this war. And playing politics with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do just that.

Newsflash! Did anyone else know we were at war? Maybe President Bush should start emphasizing that. Really. I know Bush's pollsters tell him he needs to perpetuate the myth of the strong wartime president, but doesn't common sense place a boundary on this? Must we tie everything to terrorism? What does the war on terrorism have to do with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

I know, I know. If we don't march lockstep with Bush's agenda it weakens America and the terrorists win. . . .

Note to self: It's really not a good idea to weedeat poison ivy in close proximity to your exposed legs.

It's odd: for years I rarely had any issues with poison ivy. But it's a different story the last few summers. My current irritation isn't too bad, but it's noticeable in the shower and when I slip into itch mode.

That's what I've heard some A.M. radio warriors advocate we do in the Middle East. Literally.

Reader jeff-perado (stutz [at] unlv.nevada.edu) dissects one such offering by Pepperdine University professor Bruce Herschensohn:

Pepperdine University is one of the more highly esteemed "Christian Colleges." They uphold high academic standards as opposed to, lets say, Liberty College. Anyway, let us just agree that Pepperdine is an upper echelon university. I
would include it in the group of Notre Dame and Loyola, for example. They also profess standard Christian doctrine. There is nothing wrong with that, again that is a good thing in my mind (even though I do disagree with the religion, the IDEALS are in the right place!)

Here is an excerpt of the essay written by Mr. Herschensohn:

It may seem to be a radical idea, but why not use every means possible -- without politically correct detours -- to win the war against terrorism?

Our victory in World War II was not achieved by trying to win the hearts and minds of Germans and Japanese. We did not dominate the newsreels with pictures of those things a few American troops did to captured enemies. We did not call for an end to domestic profiling. We did not demonstrate against our military involvement. There was not the outrageous political complaint that "I support the troops but oppose the war."

Instead of all that, we bombed our enemies to submission with all the power and weaponry we had available. After our costly invasion of Europe, with immense U.S. casualties, the atomic bomb was ready -- and to prevent another invasion we used it on Japan.

Just so I make this clear in everyone's mind, this guy is a professor at the Christian college, Pepperdine University. First, I am told, Christians profess something called "Christian Love." I know this to be true, as I see it in practice quite often with most "everyday" Christians. So then explain to me how this nut can hold a position of authority over young Christian minds at a University? Clearly, he is unhinged in the vein of Ted Kaczinsky, i.e. the Unabomber.

I mean it is appalling that a man who thinks like that is not begging for handouts out on the street while preaching from Paul's epistle to the Romans.
For he deserves no place in an institute of higher learning.

He actually suggests that we "bomb into submission" all the terrorists around the world. Now I will ask you, where and who are these terrorists? Is it Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden? How about the Iraqis? Are these terrorists called
Hamas? Should we consider Syria and Lebanon targets because of their ties to Hezbollah? How far into the terrorist ranks should we go? Should we bomb entire cities that contains even one cell of six Al Qaeda members? Remember they found on in Buffalo, New York....

I am serious here. To bomb into submission, for example, Hamas, would mean flattening Israel. Hamas members live among them. Could you imagine that? A Christian Professor at a Christian College suggesting to Bush that we nuke Israel back into Biblical times. That is one for the record books.

But let us return our attention back to Iraq. Recall, if you will, that before the war our reason for invading was WMDs. When none were found Bush scrambled to realign his motives, and came up with a war of liberation. In other words Bush told us we were fighting to liberate Iraq. Now this guy, Herschensohn, comes along, and says that we should forget about liberation, we should bomb
them into submission. The mass genocide of killing thousands of women and children seems to be the solution of terrorism in Iraq for this guy. Am I to believe that this is the Christian belief now? I don't think it is, and for Pepperdine to employ this kook is shameful.

But wait, you think that this guy has already spoken of all the craziness he could fathom? NOPE! Read the next thing he says:

But if we want to win the war against terrorism we must accept a lengthy war with many casualties, because the consequences of defeat will mean our future generations will be left to lifetimes of fear. If we lose this war, we will be on the road back to the Middle Ages.

I guess I should not have gone through with that lobotomy after all, for only a brain damaged buffoon could agree with this guy. Does anyone remember that the Middle Ages was the time of acceptable mores such as torture, and an anything-goes-in-wartime attitude, and wars (read crusades) fought on the basis of
religion reigned supreme. I have to ask this, how is resorting to these very tactics going to prevent the Middle Ages from returning. I mean the things
this guy is advocating is that very return to the Middle Ages he seeks to avoid!!!

Apparently to this guy if "our" side commits acts of torture, genocide, infanticide, rape, and humiliation, and religious coercion, then we are
preventing the return of the Middle Ages and are acting to "preserve" our society. But if the "other" side, that of the terrorists, commits acts of torture, genocide, infanticide, rape, and humiliation, and religious coercion, then we are sliding into the Middle ages.

I guess that this guy feels that morality and civilization hinges only on whose blood is flowing freely in the street.

Listen to his tool of fear to promote his vision of an all out bloodbath and nuclear fire:

If we should lose this war on terror, Americans could march to re-education camps, others will become boat people and the U.S. will become a Western mirror of Cambodia's genocide.

How does he think this is going to happen? Is he suggesting that Osama bin Laden is going to blow into this country and take over? This is pure paranoia.

Let me lay some reality on you. The U.S. is currently fighting two "wars," the war on terror and the war on drugs. Terror has killed dozens in Iraq (where we don't belong in the first place -- at least on the basis of fighting terror), and over 3,000 on 9-11 in this country. That is it. Drugs, on the other hand kills literally thousands of Americans EVERY SINGLE YEAR, and if alcohol were included, then tens of thousands of Americans dead at the hands of drugs.

It doesn't take a brain scientist to figure out this guy is barking up the wrong tree when it comes to the real threat to America. Besides, the strategy
of "bombing into submission" ultimately would lead to America destroying every other country on the face of the planet, beginning with the Muslims, then the communists, the Chinese, the ...

The realistic strategy for protecting America from terrorists would be homeland security. Preventing attacks on our soil means tightening up our borders, and protecting our infrastructure. The international side to protecting ourselves from terrorists is better relations with the Muslim world, and other "problem areas" of diplomacy.

This frees up resources to fight the real war, on drugs.

You know I wish I could say that the piece Mr. Herschensohn wrote was just a joke. But it was not, there are actual Americans who are just that deranged. And the fact that this man is connected with Christianity is all the worse, because it further stains an already battered belief system.

By the way, I can prove to you that this guy is insane with one simple observation. But first I wish to provide one last quote of his:

The devil with allowing privileged sanctuaries for the enemy as we did during much of the Vietnam War.

I should point out that these "sanctuaries" he refers to include Saudi Arabia, and much of OPEC for that matter. By "bombing them into submission" would destroy those countries. And as we are still totally dependent their oil... I guess with no source of energy, after this bombing campaign this crackpot
suggests, we really will be in the "Dark Ages" with no gas for our cars, and no electricity for our lights.

This effort to compare how we fight al Qaeda with how we fought WWII or any other war completely misses the mark. There we were fighting nation states which waged war with armor and thousands of troops. There we could, to some degree, "bomb our enemies to submission " by destroying their infrastructure and capacity to produce tanks, planes, and ships. Here we are confronting a foe who wields box cutters, suicide bombs, and hatred. A bombing into submission strategy isn't effective in combating the first two and will only increase the latter element. That's why this is primarily a battle of ideas and intelligence, not military might.

By the way, I don't quite agree with jeff-perado's characterization of terrorism above. On a global level, it's a bigger issue than a paragraph suggests. But he is correct in pointing out that an American is far more likely to fall prey to a drunk driver than a terrorist. But drunk driving isn't nearly as sexy an issue in the news room or on the campaign trail, is it?

It's about time:

The United States government has decided to halt monthly $335,000 payments to the Iraqi National Congress, the group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, an official with the group said on Monday.

Mr. Chalabi, a longtime exile leader and now a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, played a crucial role in persuading the administration that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power.
. . .
Internal reviews by the United States government have found that much of the information provided as part of the classified program before American forces invaded Iraq last year was useless, misleading or even fabricated.

That was money well spent, wasn't it? But hey, the ends justified the means and Mr. Chalabi served his purpose by facilitating the war some in the government wanted. It's all good.

This sheds more light on Abu Rhraib:

The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.

The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes--and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves-- is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes--defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions--such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners--was "undefined."

Props to Newsweek for more investigative work on this--I wonder who's been leaking. At any rate the evidence is growing of a systematic U.S government effort to skirt or even disregard the Geneva Convention.

So much for moral authority.

Last week the U.S. Olympic Committee told Olympians to tone down post-event celebrations:

In a series of unprecedented meetings, the U.S. Olympic Committee is urging prospective Olympians to mute their celebrations, refine their behavior and refrain from public criticism during the 2004 Games in Athens in an effort to avoid provoking anti-American passions.

USOC officials fear unruly, taunting or inappropriate behavior by U.S. athletes during the Aug. 13-29 Games in Greece would at best evoke embarrassing condemnation from other athletes or international officials and at worst retaliation from anti-American groups.

I think this recommendation is warranted on grounds of general sportsmanship, but do we really need to make a political issue about it? If I was a Middle Eastern terrorist type, I don't think I'd need a prancing sprinter to stoke the anti-American coals. There's already plenty of fodder out there. Like 150,000 warring troops parked in the fertile crescent.

But I'm not the Middle Eastern terrorist type. So perhaps I'm not looking at it the right way.

Juan Cole writes on the assassination of Izzedine Salim.

I think it's a telling indication of the power of the governing council (or lack thereof) that the discovery of an 80's-era sarin gas shell is getting more media play than this suicide attack.

Now they've done it in Homochusetts (more pictures here).

Can another 9/11 be far off?

[/Jerry Falwell]

According to Re. Ike Skelton (D-MO), 47 % of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan and 44% of those killed in Iraq come from "small town and rural America."

I'm not sure how that area is defined for this statistic, but undoubtedly it's paying a disproportionate price in the military campaigns.

First came Seymour Hersh's article, which links the prison abuse at Abu Rhraib to a Pentagon strategy against al Qaeda.

Now there's this:

By Jan. 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by NEWSWEEK, it was clear that Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. In the memo, which was written to Bush by Gonzales, the White House legal counsel told the president that Powell had "requested that you reconsider that decision." Gonzales then laid out startlingly broad arguments that anticipated any objections to the conduct of U.S. soldiers or CIA interrogators in the future. "As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales wrote to Bush. "The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians." Gonzales concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

It's not yet clear who planted the seeds which lead to Iraqi prison porn. But if you believe this was merely a handful of troops engaging in frat house fun, I've got some Niger yellowcake to sell you.

It's interesting that under the administration's "war on terror" paradigm, basic human dignity is now a quaint notion. This is all typical of what we have seen on a number of policy fronts. The administration declares itself not bound to old, pesky standards. They obfuscate lines of authority so when things get screwed up they can simply assert plausible deniability, benign neglect, or bureaucratic disarray (thanks to Clinton) so no one at the policy level ever gets held accountable. And thanks to a media which is generally unwilling to take stories to a degree of complexity beyond the picture-level, the ineptness continues.

In the wake of the Barcelona train bombings, which were detonated by cell phones, the L.A. County Sheriff floats the idea of jamming cell phone signals at crowded facilities:

Cell-phone use could be blacked out at Los Angeles International Airport, the Rose Bowl and Universal Studios under an anti-terrorism plan being formulated by L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca and other law enforcement authorities.

Baca is exploring the use of jamming equipment -- already used widely in foreign countries and to protect President Bush -- to interrupt cell-phone signals if a terrorist attack was expected in Los Angeles.

The issue gained urgency after terrorists used cell phones to detonate explosives March 11 in railway bombings in Spain. Baca, who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Pakistan, said a cell-phone jamming device helped avert the attempted assassination of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Dec. 14.

Interesting idea, but one not likely to go over well with the masses. And resourceful terrorists can always rig up a device which operates outside the cell phone range on the wave frequency spectrum. So there's no guarantee this would thwart remote detonation.

Jefferson Morley notes that there is dissension in the ranks of the International Division of the 101st Keyboarders.

Thankfully, troops on the domestic front have been there to pick up some of the slack. Though even some of those may be starting to falter.

Resolve! Resolve!

Via Attaturk.

To: United States Congress
From: Dick Cheney President George W. Bush
Date: 13 May 2004
RE: Funding Request

Members of Congress:

Please help me win our crusade against the evildoers by appropriating another $25 billion according to the detailed schedule below:

$14 billion supporting our troops +
$11 billion bringing freedom to the Iraqi people
------------
$25 billion

Thanks.

George W. Bush

P.S. May God continue to bless America.

A handful of bad soldiers:

Sex and alcoholism were commonplace among guards at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison even though they were forbidden, and soldiers set up a candle-lit room for sex shows, US troops who served there say.

"There was lots of affairs. There was all kinds of adultery and alcoholism and all kinds of crap going on," said Dave Bischel, a National Guardsman with the 870th Military Police unit who returned home last month after service at Abu Ghraib.

"There was a bed found in one of the abandoned buildings, there was a mattress on the ground, they had chairs all circled around it and candles all over the place," he said. "Chairs (were) around it obviously for an audience."

I blame William Jefferson Clinton. His escapade with Monica while commander in chief generated the sexual permissiveness in today's military. We're lucky we have George W. Bush as president to clean things up.

[/right wing radio]

This is something literary types might call ironic:

VETERAN French lawyer Jacques Verges will today file a war crimes suit against Britain at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Mr Verges, who says he has been asked to act for former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, said the suit would be on behalf of "the families of prisoners of the coalition in which Britain participates".

Oliver Willis says he got 100,000 visitors yesterday stemming from a post Google picked up on the Nick Berg video.

On a much smaller scale, I had about 800 visits yesterday from Google for a post entitled "Al Qaeda Website Downloads."

American ghoulishness is alive and well.

Scratchcard Edition, at Medb's Montage.

This pretty much sums things up:

"I don't know how the hell these people got into our army,'' said Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., after viewing the images.

That could be said both for those involved in the pictured activities and those up the chain of command.

It also highlights a pitfall of the draft: things could be even worse if we bring in people who haven't volunteered to serve under such conditions.

A Wisconsin newspaper runs an editorial asking readers to send in pro-Bush letters:

Faced with a scarcity of letters praising the president, a newspaper in a Republican-leaning district appealed for pro-Bush letters, then backed off the request Tuesday amid complaints of blatant politics.

Last week in an editorial, the Post-Crescent of Appleton said most of its letters had been coming from one side and asked readers "to help us 'balance' things out."

"We've been getting more letters critical of President Bush than those that support him," the editorial said. "We're not sure why, nor do we want to guess. But in today's increasingly polarized political environment, we would prefer our offering to put forward a better sense of balance."

Hmmm. Perhaps the newspaper is receiving more critical than positive letters because the president is doing a lousy job. Just a guess. Anyway, it appears the Bush astro turf generator needs revamping.

Via TalkLeft.

Tennessee Legislative update from Rep. Doug Overbey:

Audit -- A TennCare audit released this week showed that -- TennCare has failed to recover $782,075 of money paid to managed care organizations for enrollees that have died; paid $1,208,292 for services to the Department of Children's Services for children that were not in state custody; and incorrectly reimbursed behavioral and managed care organizations, and the Department of Children's Services for services that were either not performed or allowed. The audit found 22 problems from previous years that have not been corrected, and eight new problems. The audit can be found here.

Probably not much of a surprise to anyone.

2004 Top Ten Favorite Words at Merriam-Webster Online:

1. defenestration
2. serendipity
3. onomatopoeia
4. discombobulate
5. plethora
6. callipygian
7. juxtapose
8. persnickety
9. kerfuffle
10. flibbertigibbet

Looks like the latest "Million Mom March" didn't quite live up to its billing:

Organizers this time put the crowd at close to 3,000, a figure that could not be confirmed because police no longer estimate crowd sizes.

In the spririt of Million Mom March organizers, I deem Resonance a Million Visit Blog.

With all the Abu Ghraib prison brouhaha in the news, I'm surprised I haven't heard more discussion on what changes, if any, we should expect to see after the so-called June 30 transfer of power.

A good way to help get this disaster behind us would be to raze that prison and let the Iraqis take over the system, but I don't see that happening.

Someone leaked the Red Cross Iraq prison report:

The report by the International Committee of the Red Cross supports allegations that abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers was broad and "not individual acts"--contrary to President George W. Bush's contention that the mistreatment "was the wrongdoing of a few."

It also quoted U.S. officers as admitting that up to 90 per cent of the detainees had been arrested by mistake.

The story just keeps getting worse. It would be bad enough if we were mistreating known criminals. But mistreatment at a facility where the majority of inmates are probably innocent? Up to 90% arrested by mistake?

Horrible.

River at Baghdad Burning offers advice on what the U.S. should do with Iraq:

I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out while you can- while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We'll take our chances- just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go.

Doesn't sound good. If this is the prevailing sentiment on the Baghdad street the American loses in Iraq are sure to continue indefinitely.

I've been loosely monitoring the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Iraqi prisoner abuse this afternoon.

One of the interesting things about this hearing is that, in contrast to typical senate committee hearings where only 2-8 members are present, this time you get to see everyone. Ah, the power of live cable news channel broadcasting.

The full roster of examiners may partially explain why I haven't found this session particularly informative. Since there's so many questioners, the senators are only getting five minutes a shot. And once they get through the mandatory spiel on how outraged they are about this incident, that leaves time for one question with little or no follow up--no a very efficient fact finding format.

But it does allow each of the senators the opportunity for a good TV sound byte. And that's perhaps the most important aspect of this exercise, isn't it?

Josh Marshall notes that none other than Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin ("I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol") is the superior to a number of the military intelligence officers involved in Iraqi prisoner porn.

Speaking of which, where's Attorney General Ashcroft and his DOJ anti-porn unit? Shouldn't they be going after the civilians involved in the production and distribution of these pictures?

I just found out that the last episode of the sitcom Friends will be broadcast tonight. You'd think NBC would try to alert viewers of this.

Anyway, this is a tragic turn of events. I am suspending blogging operations until further notice while I cope with the loss.

Later.

UPDATE: Okay, I'm back. I was out and only got to see the last ten minutes of the finale. But knowing that Ross and Rachel are together has given me the strength to blog on. And it's wonderful that the Knoxville News Sentinel devoted nearly the entire A1 front page to a sitcom having nothing to do with East Tennessee.

I'm sure I saw an entire episode at one point, but I don't recall the last time I watched the entire episode of Friends. I caught short segments every now and then, but the show just didn't have what it took to hold me through a commercial break. It's not just Friends, either. The only one that's had it in the last decade is Seinfeld. I'm not sure if that's a reflection on the quality of the sitcoms or just me.

Members of Congress are supposedly outraged that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld didn't warn them about Abu Ghraibgate:

Lawmakers are incensed that Rumsfeld gave no hint of the oncoming controversy when he was on Capitol Hill last week for a classified briefing, hours before CBS' 60 Minutes broke the story. Even Bush administration loyalists are expressing outrage over the lack of communication.

"If we are going to be a partner in this war on terror, then we should be completely briefed, not just on things they want us to hear," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Had these same lawmakers paid close attention to the news, they might have picked up on advance hints of the controversy themselves. As early as January CNN reported that the military was conducting an investigation into the allegation of prisoner abuse.

Apparently the Congresscritters needed the media herd's prompting to get worked up about this story.

In his column today he offers five recommendations President Bush needs to follow in order to "restore our honor."

First, Rumsfeld should be fired immediately. Then:

Mr. Bush needs to invite to Camp David the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the heads of both NATO and the U.N., and the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. There, he needs to eat crow, apologize for his mistakes and make clear that he is turning a new page. Second, he needs to explain that we are losing in Iraq, and if we continue to lose the U.S. public will eventually demand that we quit Iraq, and it will then become Afghanistan-on-steroids, which will threaten everyone. Third, he needs to say he will be guided by the U.N. in forming the new caretaker government in Baghdad. And fourth, he needs to explain that he is ready to listen to everyone's ideas about how to expand our force in Iraq, and have it work under a new U.N. mandate, so it will have the legitimacy it needs to crush any uprisings against the interim Iraqi government and oversee elections -- and then leave when appropriate. And he needs to urge them all to join in.

Can you imagine Bush doing any of the steps, much less all of them? I can't.

World O'Crap monitors the propaganda on WGOP AM.

I suspect if President Bush went out on Pennsylvania Avenue and shot a five-year-old in cold blood, we'd have plenty of talk radio apologists using 9/11 to justify the murder.

This came as a bit of a surprise to me:

A senior U.S. administration official said for the first time Tuesday legalizing prescription drug imports is inevitable and would save consumers money.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, whose agency has led the opposition to imported drugs, also said he would advise President George W. Bush not to stand in the way of legislation to make it legal for drugs to be imported from abroad.

"I think it's coming," Mr. Thompson said at a news conference devoted mainly to the new U.S. Medicare discount drug cards.

"I think Congress is going to pass it."�

That last line is telling, as this "principled" administration has a history of reversing itself and trying to take credit for something once it becomes inevitable in Congress (see Department of Homeland Security, 9/11 Commission).

At any rate, importing prescription drugs from Canada is not the ultimate long-term solution for skyrocketing costs. But it is refreshing to see someone in the administration responding to the concerns of ordinary Americans over those of big business, even if his hand was forced into it.

Ambassador Joseph Wilson was on last night's Lou Dobbs Tonight and made a notable prediction:

DOBBS: What would you have the United States do now in Iraq?

WILSON: Anything I say about that now is likely going to be overtaken by events within the next 48 hours. I believe, as a former Reagan official and good friend of mine said just the other night, we are on the eve of a strategic catastrophe.

Now, if we don't have a plan already off the shelf which basically involves putting in massive amounts of military soldiers and material and heavy armor -- one of the big problems in this is not the lack of body armor. It is the lack of Bradley fighting vehicles and M-1 tanks to protect our forces out there.

You contrast what we did in Baghdad with what we did in Bosnia, where we took no battlefield deaths during the eight years that we did that, to the 700 deaths we're taking now.

But in order to recoup the situation, you've got to quell the insurgency. You've got to shock it, and at the same time you've got to demonstrate to the international community that you are serious. And the only way you can demonstrate that is through this massive new investment of military and material.

I don't know what Wilson is hinting about "within the next 48 hours," and in typical TV fashion Dobbs didn't follow up on this intriguing statement.

We'll soon see if anything happens.

I didn't realize--really hadn't even thought about it--that some state sex offender registries include juveniles guilty of consensual statutory rape. The Michigan State Senate is currently considering its list to remove the names of teenagers who had consensual sex with someone close in age.

One really has to question why the social stigma of a dangerous predator should be attached to teenagers who have consensual sex.

If I frequented these New York City locations, this kind of thing would make me nervous:

Five suspicious bags have been found unattended this year at Penn Station and other sensitive locations, prompting an investigation into whether they were left by terrorists attempting to gauge the city's response.

Could just be some forgotten bags. Could be someone pulling a hoax. But it could also be someone probing security for a future event.

The Knoxville News Sentinel plays to anti-war emotionalism by covering the funeral of a fallen American sailor.

It's time we stop undermining the war on terror. We know people are dying; no need to get in our face with it.

[/Bill O'Reilly]

What's become of the "bold," optimistic plan for the moon station/mission to Mars?

Bush unveiled the "Vision" in a Jan. 14 speech, promising to "extend a human presence across our solar system," starting with a return to the moon by 2020 and an eventual human spaceflight to Mars.
. . .
Despite charges of election-year grandstanding, Bush appears to have gained nothing politically from the announcement. A Jan. 18 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 62 percent of Americans opposed the plan. Bush has not mentioned it since the speech.

[Emphasis added.]

I wonder why that is?

I don't know enough about the situation on the ground in Nigeria to tell if this is largely political rhetoric, or an actionable call to violence, but Governor Ahmed Sani of Zamfara State has called for the destruction of all churches in the state.

Appears to be another example of hardline radical Islam finding a voice in government.

Since the first Israeliesque version didn't go over so well with the locals, Quiddity has uncovered a flag redesign with some new symbolism.

I'm not sure this one will win much public support, either.

Josh Marshall raises a good point in calling out President Bush for invoking race when discussing Iraq.

At last month's press conference, Bush pontificated:

Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing and free. I strongly disagree with that. I reject that, because I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul, and, if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society.

I thought this was just one of those weird comments he makes when not reading off the teleprompter. But he raised this point again yesterday:

There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern.

Last time I checked, America, or India, or a host of other countries where the citizens govern themselves aren't just white. But as for his point, who is criticizing our nation-building foray into Iraq on the basis of race? I've heard plenty of people who are skeptical on our chances of establishing a full democracy in Iraq, but the difficulties they always discuss are (1) the fact that Iraq has never been a democracy, or (2) how the rival factions make it difficult to construct a new government. I don't hear any one playing the race card . . . except for Bush.

Seems like this is another way the administration is going after those who question it's policies--brand them as racists.