Behind Enemy Lines

COALITION FORCES FIND TORTURE ROOM, DESTROY WEAPONS CACHE IN SADR CITY

2007-05-06T08:02:00.000-07:00

Sunday, 06 May 2007

MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ COMBINED PRESS INFORMATION CENTER BAGHDAD, Iraq

Coalition Forces destroyed a torture room, a large cache of weapons and improvised explosive device-making materials Sunday morning while targeting terrorists in Sadr City.

Coalition Forces targeted the location based on intelligence reports that indicated the presence of suspected members of a secret cell terrorist network known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training.

During a search of the objective, Coalition Forces found a torture room and cache of over 150 mortar rounds, ammunition and IED-making materials.

Because the explosive nature and instability of the materials, Coalition Forces cordoned off the area and an explosive ordnance team detonated the materials in place.

When ground forces initially approached buildings at the targeted location, they began receiving heavy small arms fire, including rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons, from one of the buildings. Coalition Forces, using appropriate self-defense measures, returned fire.
Four more armed men engaged Coalition Forces from behind a vehicle, which was struck when Coalition Forces returned fire, reacting to the hostile actions with appropriate self-defense measures and fired on it. The vehicle was destroyed.

Despite efforts to subdue the armed terrorists, Coalition Forces continued to receive enemy fire. Coalition Forces used actions to react to the perceived threat in self-defense and called for close air support to suppress the armed terrorists who were firing rocket propelled grenades.
Coalition Forces estimate eight to 10 armed individuals were killed during the exchange of fire during the operation.

Intelligence reports indicate that the secret cell has ties to a kidnapping network that conducts attacks within Iraq as well as interactions with rogue elements throughout Iraq and into Iran.
“Coalition Forces continue to target terrorists who use torture, improvised explosives devices, and facilitate the training of those who would use the same methods,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, MNF-I spokesperson. “We continue to strike at the networks around Iraq that disregard the safety of all Iraqis.”

Joy

2007-04-30T05:48:00.000-07:00

So the Maze got melted yesterday. This is going to be fun. I'll time it and maybe even post some photos or video later.

In other news, I promise I will post some more tales of interest soon. I realize my "Fatted Calf" post below may have been a bit presumptive.

US, Iraqi raid in Mahmudiyah nets Iranian-marked rockets

2007-04-28T19:11:00.000-07:00

From Camp Victory

Saturday, 28 April 2007
Multi-National Corps – Iraq
Public Affairs Office, Camp Victory
APO AE 09342
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASER
ELEASE No. 20070428-13April 28, 2007
US, Iraqi raid in Mahmudiyah nets
Iranian-marked rockets, mortars
Multi-National Division – Center PAO
Mahmudiyah, Iraq – A U.S. and Iraqi
raid in a Mahmudiyah apartment complexdetained eight suspected extremists and
discovered three caches containingmortar systems, rockets and ammunition April
22.
Soldiers of 4th Battalion, 4th Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division and the
2ndBattalion, 15th Field Artillery Regiment of 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th
Mountain Division, from Fort Drum, N.Y., discovered the caches at about 6:30p.m.
local time.
Coalition forces have found many weapons caches in the
Mahmudiyaharea, but most rocket and mortar rounds found there have been
deteriorated andapparently intended for use in improvised explosive
devices. In contrast, the 60mm and 82mm mortar systems, three 107mm
rockets,three 60mm and three 82mm rounds found in the latest cache were nearly
new.
Soldiers of the unit examined the weapons, which were stamped with
recent dates and Iranian markings.
Also found was bulk ammunition for a PKC
machine gun. The munitions were seized for further investigation.
The
detainees were taken into Iraqi Army custody for further questioning.

Slay the fatted calf

2007-04-09T20:53:00.000-07:00

"It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found."

Today in Crazy Town

2006-11-14T23:38:00.000-08:00

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors voted to essentially decriminalize marijuana by making it the lowest police priority. Henceforth let it be known that you may grow, sell and consume marijuana in San Francisco, but don't spit on the sidewalks or the cops will bust your ass.

San Francisco's Board of Education kicked out the 90 year old JROTC program from City schools at the behest of anti-war activists and Viet-Nam era draft dodgers. 1,600 students now have no real reason to stay in school because Dan Kelly and his ilk think that the military is "bad". The same article also notes as a sideline how the Board of Education also introduced racist quotas to school assignments in the same meeting.

Breaking the "Berlin Wall" meme

2006-11-14T23:31:00.000-08:00

I've been seeing a fair amount of comparisons lately between the proposed fence seperating Mexico and the United States and the old Berlin Wall that seperated East and West Berlin during the Cold War.

There's only one problem: The East Germans built their wall to keep their people in.

Happy 231st Birthday Marines

2006-11-10T06:46:00.000-08:00

Voter turnout: 40%

2006-11-08T08:20:00.000-08:00

According to MSNBC, voter turnout for this mid-term election was just slightly over 40%.

Think about that for a minute when you hear people trumpeting about how this election signals anything about the will of Americans be it disatisfaction with Iraq, the President, the economy, whatever.

40%

Why did the Democrats take control of the House? Easy. They voted (or there was massive voter fraud on their part...oh wait, I forgot, that's the Democrats line whenever they lose anything ;) ).

Faux Fauxtography

2006-11-07T20:45:00.000-08:00

So, on YouTube, some guy posted a video claiming that the Whitehouse had edited President Bush's speech on the USS Lincoln to hide the "Mission Accomplished" banner. He claimed that there a "black box" at the bottom of the video was evidence that the video had been stretched and squished upwards to hide the sign.

Let's look shall we?

Wow, he sure seems impressive. And that black box is weird huh?
Was it an evil edit by the Chimpy McBushitler?? Of course not!

The "evil black box" he posted about is actually just a placeholder for CLOSED CAPTIONING text!

It's hilarious. Just use Real Player and tell it to open the following url: [Note: you will probably have to copy it and paste it into the "open" dialog in Real Player

rtsp://a661.v59136.c5913.g.vr.akamaistream.net/ondemand/7/661/5913/3eb1d821/whitehouse.download.akamai.com/5913/20030501-ussabraham.v.rm

Notice that the black box is gone.

That is the video link contained in the .smil file which is used to layout the form for Real Player in the link from the Whitehouse video server site.

The details:

.smil files are used to describe the layout of the Real Player viewer. And that's just what happened here.

In the .smil file there is a section titled "<region>" with an ID of "textregion". This is the "black box" in the video

<region id = "textregion"
background-color = "#000000"
top = "190"
left = "0"
height = "50"
width = "320"/>

Notice the size spacing etc are all consitent with the "evil black box"
It is defined as a place holder for closed captioning information.

To confirm this go into Real Player and choose "Tools | Options" this will open the options window. Go to "Content" on the left hand side and then look at the "Accesibility" section. In that section choose "Use supplemental text captioning when available". Apply that setting and watch the video again. Lo and Behold the "stretched video" is placeholding for the captioning and the captions appear in the "evil black box". [Note these are instructions for Real Player 10, your instructions may vary]

You can also confirm this by checking the .smil file from the Whitehouse web server. Near the bottom of the .smil file there is the following entry

<switch>
<textstream
src="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.v.rt"
region="textregion"
system-language="en"
system-captions="on"
title="President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended"
alt="President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended"/>
</switch>

It's a block region tag for the closed captioning text stream. See how it refers back to the "textregion" id? This tells Real Player to run the closed captioning stream in that section. Removing the "textregion" block and the closed captioning block will remove the black box completely.

Why is that there? Simple. The feds operate under very strict accessibility rules and this was probably done to be compliant. How damned evil of them!

The moral of the story is don't listen to technically illiterate fools on the internet.

Moral for the guy who posted the video ("Mike Mcintee"): Understand the techonology involved before you go off an make a video making yourself look like a paranoid nut job on the Internet.

Link to .smil file for video : http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.v.smil
Link to html page containing link to .smil file; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.v.html

Hat tip: HotAir

Breaking the [shari'a] law in Minneapolis

2006-10-01T08:43:00.000-07:00

Apparently "[h]undreds of Muslim cabdrivers " are refusing to carry passengers from the airport in Minneapolis-St. Paul if they have alcohol because "[i]t is forbidden in Islam to carry alcohol"

There's only one little problem with that: It's forbidden in Minneapolis to refuse to convey a passenger in a taxi cab.

341.170. Duty to accept passengers.
No driver shall refuse or neglect to convey any orderly person or persons upon request anywhere in the city unless previously engaged, provided that such person agrees to pay the legal rate of fare. No taxicab driver shall refuse or fail to provide services to any person protected under the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances section 139.10. No taxicab driver shall carry any other passenger than the person first employing the taxicab, except as provided in section 341.730, and then only with the consent of the first passenger or passengers. (88-Or-004, § 5, 1-15

Minneapolis Municipal Code
Title 13; Chapter 341; Article 1A

The only reason they could legally refuse to carry the alcohol carrying passengers is if the passenger refused to pay the fare or the cabby already had a passenger. The airport is trying to sanction the cab drivers actions by offering the cab drivers a way to signify they won't carry alcohol bearing passengers via a special light on the cab roof. How are the airport workers going to direct people to the correct cabs? They are going to have to interrogate them about what they are carrying no? Therefore to not "offend" a cab driver who is in violation of the law, the onus of burden is put onto the passenger. That's just not right.

I have no problem with the cab drivers religious beliefs at all. If they don't want to carry alcohol, fine. But when they take the job of a cab driver then they are beholden to the laws and regulations the cover their job. If they violate the rules or so devoutly disagree with the rules, then they shouldn't be cab drivers.

Condoning the actions of the drivers in this case is wrong since under the secular municipal code of Minneapolis the drivers are in violation. Period. Where does it stop? Will they soon refuse to carry women who aren't wearing the hijab? What special colored light would they get on the top of the cab for that? What if there was another group of cab drivers whose religious beliefs forbade them from carrying anyone who was not caucasian? Or what if their religion forbode adherents from carrying anyone who wasn't of their religious order? Would everyone have to wear little pins or badges identifying their religious beliefs so as to be instantly identifiable?

Are some of these scenarios far fetched? Prior to this cab incident I would have said yes, but when you begin to bend the rules for one religion or religious edict you eventually have to bend it for all and that's not the point of the United States. We are a secular nation of law under the guiding beacon that is the Constitution which while respecting the religious beliefs of citizens, trumps all other law espoused by religion, be it shari'a, Torah, or Bible.

Your lying heart...

2006-09-23T10:08:00.000-07:00

...will undo you

In my opinion, Natalie Maines in a no-talent hack. She's also in the news again:

"...but if you live in Lubbock, Texas, where I'm from -- you just have one paper and one radio station and unless you're savvy on the Internet, that's it for you."
-Natalie Maines

Vancouver Sun, September 15th, 2006 (subscription)

Apparently Ms. Maines isn't "savvy on the Internet":

From OnTheRadio.Net:
Radio Stations in Lubbock Texas [yes, some of them are physically based in different towns, but they can be heard in Lubbock]

KTXT 88.1 FM	Texas Tech University	Lubbock, TX	Alternative, Radio
KPBB 88.5 FM		Brownfield, TX	Spanish, Radio
KPMB 88.5 FM		Plainview, TX	Spanish, Radio
KOHM 89.1 FM	Texas Tech University	Lubbock, TX	Public Radio, Radio
KAMY 90.1 FM	Family Life Radio	Lubbock, TX	Religious, Radio
KPHS 90.3 FM		Plains, TX	Grade School (K-12), Radio
KBAH 90.5 FM	American Family Radio – Something Good in the Air	Plainview, TX	Religious, Radio
KKLU 90.9 FM	K-Love - Positive and Encouraging	Lubbock, TX	Christian Contemporary, Radio
KBKN 91.3 FM	American Family Radio – Something Good in the Air	Lamesa, TX	Religious, Radio
KWLD 91.5 FM	Wayland Baptist College	Plainview, TX	Christian Contemporary, Radio
KJAK 92.7 FM	Christian Radio Station	Slaton, TX	Religious, Radio
KXTQ 93.7 FM	Magic 937 FM	Lubbock, TX	Tejano, Radio
KFMX 94.5 FM	fmX 94.5 - Absolute Rocks	Lubbock, TX	Rock, Radio
KLLL 96.3 FM		Lubbock, TX	Country, Radio
KSTQ 97.3 FM		Plainview, TX	Spanish, Radio
KKCL 98.1 FM	Cool 98 - Good Times, Great Oldies	Lorenzo, TX	Oldies, Radio
KICA 98.3 FM		Farwell, TX	Rock, Radio
KYMI 98.5 FM		Los Ybanez, TX	Country, Radio
KQBR 99.5 FM	The Bear - #1 for New Music and Country Legends	Lubbock, TX	Country, Radio
KMMX 100.3 FM	Mix 100 - Lubbock's Pop-Rock	Tahoka, TX	Hot AC, Radio
KOLF 100.7 FM		Plainview, TX	Religious, Radio
KONE 101.1 FM	Rock 101 - New and Classic Rock	Lubbock, TX	Classic Rock, Radio
KSNY 101.5 FM		Snyder, TX	Country, Radio
KZII 102.5 FM	Lubbock's #1 Hit Music Station	Lubbock, TX	Top-40, Radio
KMUL 103.1 FM		Muleshoe, TX	Country, Radio
KAMZ 103.5 FM		Tahoka, TX	Spanish, Radio
KRIA 103.9 FM		Plainview, TX	Tejano, Radio
KLZK 104.3 FM		Brownfield, TX	Adult Contemporary, Radio
KBTE 104.9 FM	104.9 The Beat - #1 for Hip Hop and R&B	Tulia, TX	Hip Hop, Radio
KLVT 105.3 FM		Levelland, TX	Country, Radio
KRBL 105.7 FM	K-Rebel - Classic Country 1057 FM	Idalou, TX	Country, Radio
KFLP 106.1 FM	K-Flip Country	Floydada, TX	Country, Radio
KEJS 106.5 FM		Lubbock, TX	Tejano, Radio
KKYN 106.9 FM		Plainview, TX	Country, Radio
KPOS 107.3 FM		Post, TX	Country, Radio
KRFE 580 AM	The Station that Listens to Lubbock	Lubbock, TX	Nostalgia, Radio
KPET 690 AM		Lamesa, TX	Country, Radio
KFYO 790 AM	NewsTalk 790 AM	Lubbock, TX	News/Talk, Radio
KFLP 900 AM	All Ag, All Day	Floydada, TX	Farm, Radio
KJTV 950 AM		Lubbock, TX	News/Talk, Radio
KIJN 1060 AM	JESUS Radio KIJN	Farwell, TX	Religious, Radio
KVOP 1090 AM		Plainview, TX	Spanish, Radio
KLVT 1230 AM		Levelland, TX	Gospel Music, Radio
KKUB 1300 AM		Brownfield, TX	Country, Radio
KKAM 1340 AM	Sports Radio 1340	Lubbock, TX	Sports, Radio
KMUL 1380 AM		Muleshoe, TX	Spanish, Radio
KREW 1400 AM		Plainview, TX	Oldies, Radio
KJDL 1420 AM	News Radio 1420	Lubbock, TX	News
KLFB 1420 AM		Lubbock, TX	Spanish, Radio
KBZO 1460 AM		Lubbock, TX	Spanish, Radio
KZZN 1490 AM		Littlefield, TX	Farm, Radio
KCLR 1530 AM		Ralls, TX	Spanish, Radio
KDAV 1590 AM	Renaissance Radio	Lubbock, TX	Oldies, Radio

Television in Lubbock:
KJTV Fox
KUPT UPN (Out of New Mexico)
KBZO
KTXT-TV
KCBD TV
KGLR
KWBZ

Newspapers:
Avalanche-Journal
El Sol Latino
El Editor
The Hispano Weekly
Lubbock Southwest Digest
The Daily Toreador

And to think, Maines called President Bush a "dumb f***". Maybe she should take an old phrase to heart that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Update: Looking at the list, maybe she meant there's only one lefty oriented station in Lubbock?

Not to single any one out

2006-09-09T09:18:00.000-07:00

Honestly, I am not pulling out this comment from the "Dear Sandy" post for special attention, it's just that HaloScan won't post my reply and I really want to respond to this.

Beth,
First off, the quotes in the document were to rebut Mr. Berger's statement that there was "...nothing in the 9/11 Commission Report...to support this portrayal and the fabrication of this scene..." which I believe is, at the very least, a misleading statement. As the 9/11 Commission report excerpt clearly shows, the mission was scrubbed, and at least one person (James Pavitt, the assistant head of the Directorate of Operations,) who believed that Mr. Berger was the source of the cancellation, although possibly based on Tenet's recomendation. Therefore, the 9/11 Commission report does contain information that supports the possible mission. Whilst I agree that they *may* have dramtized (or even over-dramatized) the possible scene in question, it's a little hard to present a mission that was planned over a number of months and probably debated endlessly in a two night mini-series. Hence, the action was compressed into one scene that shows the same overall effect.

To address your second statement: "If this plan, like in your quote says, was never presented to the White House for a decision, then how could they have turned down this request that was never requested?" "They" I assume being President Clinton? Well, it's really rather moot as Mr. Clinton's actions or inactions are not addressed by the quoted paragraph of the 9/11 Commission report. When Mr. Berger said that the plan hadn't been presented to the White House, one would know from the rest of the description of the planning of the mission as reported in the earlier unquoted section of the report (and I highly recommend you read the entire report, or at least that chapter if you can be bothered) that Mr. Berger himself was fully aware of the plan and that he claims he never passed it up the chain. However this is moot as the statement in the report rebuts his statement of "In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or US military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al Qaeda." [emphasis added]

As for being a Democrat in Arizona and not having to "hide"; congratulations. I am glad to see that the great state of Arizona is accepting of people with different political viewpoints. Unfortunately San Francisco really isn't. For all of it's much ballyhoo'd "peace, love and understanding" mantra, this city is more like a totalitarian nightmare that is completely unaccepting of anyone that is not parroting the party line than the utopian dream it purports to be.
I would recommend you come live here for a while to see what runaway liberalism can do to a place.

Here are some past postings of mine about San Francisco:

"Only In San Francisco"

Tilting at Windmills

While it does have some (ok, a LOT) of "adult language" in it, I think that this one probably sums up my personal politics and feelings about San Francisco and the Bay Area the best:

My apologies

What a long document, but it's still interesting

2006-09-08T17:31:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I just finished my first perusal of the "Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs And Links To Terrorism And How They Compare With Prewar Assesments together with Additional Views" (seriously, that's what it's called.) and have some early impressions.

1) I agree with the minority opinion that the document is a witch-hunt and that it is designed to "...point fingers in Washington and at the Administration."

2) I feel that it really glosses over a lot of data and does a dis-service to the Intelligence Community by coming to a conclusion so quickly.

In support of point two above, let me quote from the report:

"The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which is leading the exploitation effort of documents(DocEx) uncovered in Iraq, told Committee staff that 120 million plus pages of documents that were recovered in Iraq have received an initial review for intelligence information. As of January 2006, 34 million pages have been translated and summarized to some extent and are available to analysts in an Intelligence Community database"

For the math challenged (which I admit to being a member of) that means that ~30% of the "120 million plus pages...[that] have received an initial review..." have been translated and summarized, leaving only the 70% majority left to translate and finish reviewing.

"But they received an initial review!" some will say, ok, granted. But does that mean it was truely analyzed or just glanced at? You can review a lot of the declassified information for yourself at the Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center's website for Operation Iraqi Freedom documents.

(As an aside I wish I could read Arabic (meh, something to learn in my freetime perhaps?) as some of them look rather interesting:
Log Records and Microfilm of Jews[?! WTF ed.]

Telecommunication lines in (IAEC) building offices and instructions by Saddam Hussein for internet use by government to hack and gather information off of websites

)

Anyway, back to the PFAIWMDPALTTAHTCWPATWAV report. The document really only says that while everyone accepted the Democrat requested 2002 NIE was factual and accurate with the information they had available then, in 20/20 hindsight and with the gathering of more information (that hasn't been completely exploited yet) that the Intelligence Community was, in retrospect, wrong.

Wow. What a long winded title to come to that conclusion.

I think that document also does a dis-service by focusing so narrowly on al Qaeda as the (apparently) sole focus of the "links to terrorism" section of the report.

Well, I will have more later, but first I have to get the report title out of my head as it's taking up too much space.

Some more interesting tidbits from the 9/11 Commission report

2006-09-08T08:19:00.000-07:00

From Chapter 2 of the 9/11 Commission report:

There is also evidence that around this time [March 1997] Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.⁷⁴
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.⁷⁵
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a
collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.⁷⁶

I think the keyword in the above information is "operational." As one reads the footnotes for chapter two, you get a better sense for what lead to this term being used:

74. Intelligence report, unsuccessful Bin Ladin probes for contact with Iraq, July 24, 1998; Intelligence report,Saddam Hussein’s efforts to repair relations with Saudi government, 2001.

75. Intelligence report, Iraq approach to Bin Ladin, Mar. 16, 1999.

76. CIA analytic report,“Ansar al-Islam:Al Qa’ida’s Ally in Northeastern Iraq,” CTC 2003-40011CX, Feb. 1,2003. See also DIA analytic report,“Special Analysis: Iraq’s Inconclusive Ties to Al-Qaida,” July 31, 2002; CIA analytic report,“Old School Ties,” Mar. 10, 2003. We have seen other intelligence reports at the CIA about 1999 contacts. They are consistent with the conclusions we provide in the text, and their reliability is uncertain. Although there have been suggestions of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda regarding chemical weapons and explosives training, the most detailed information alleging such ties came from an al Qaeda operative who recanted much of his original information.Intelligence report, interrogation of al Qaeda operative,Feb. 14,2004.Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any such ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. Intelligence reports, interrogations of KSM and Zubaydah, 2003 (cited in CIA letter, response to Douglas Feith memorandum,“Requested Modifications to ‘Summary of Body of Intelligence Reporting on Iraq–al Qaida Contacts (1990–2003),’” Dec. 10,2003, p. 5).

The footnotes seem to imply that while there was one al Qaeda operative who was the source of "the most detailed information" there logically were other sources as well.

MSNBC / Washington Post pimp conspiracy theories

2006-09-08T07:06:00.000-07:00

Front Page Banner (used to say):

Conspiracy Theories
Many Americans suspect U.S. government involvement or complicity
(Yes, I know it now says "Many Americans distrust official 9/11 account", they changed it, but the article is still subtitled "Many Americans suspect U.S. government involvement or complicity ")

You could read that and think "Wow, a lot of Americans believe in these conspiracy theories...maybe there is something to them"

In the actual article, the author first talks about the "eminent liberal theologian and philosopher" David Ray Griffin and how he at first believed the facts of September 11th "were as stated on the screen" and that it wasn't until a year later that he "began his stroll down the path of disbelief."

Wow! "Many Americans" and an "eminent liberal theologian and philsopher" believe these theories! There might really be something to this!

Of course when you get below the fold you find that the "many Americans" is from a Scripps Howard survey of 1,100 Americans polled that reports that 36% "suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands." and that
that little bit of datum was part of a survey that also came to results such as:

Even motorcyclists favor tougher safety helmet laws

It's True: Men really won't stop car to get directions

Bush couldn't beat Gore or Kerry, or even his father

Personally I don't know how much one can trust that poll. First off it's a web poll, secondly it's such a mishmash of questions that I think you could draw a huge number of results from it, but they would be so oddly correlated as to be meaningless, and lastly there are some very weird issues with some of the questions. There is one question for example that talks about re-running the 2004 Presidential election and who the respondent would vote for.

How about the 2004 election among Republican George W. Bush, Democrat John Kerry and third part candidate Ralph Nader?*
Bush 40%
Kerry 46%
Nader 7%
Don't know 6%
Other response 1%

See the footnote asterik after Ralph Nader? It says "*This question had 0 respondents..."

Ummmm, hello? How does that work?

Anyway, back to the Washington Post / MSNBC article; while the article does go on to present the evidence from NIST about the collapse and spend some time talking to real scientists about the events of that day, but the main bent of the article seems to me to be promoting the conspiracy theories more so than just commenting on it. There is more time devoted to the conspiracy nutters than is spent disputing their statements. "But that's the point of the article is to talk about conspiracy theorists!" I can hear some of you saying. True. However, if I were to write an article about say the Nazi party in WWII, would I be doing a service to people to only discuss what the Nazi's believed and thought and didn't present a balanced counterpoint their insane beliefs?

(image is owned by MSNBC, reprinted / linked under the Fair Use clause of applicable U.S. Copyright law)

Dear Sandy

2006-09-07T17:04:00.000-07:00

"There is nothing in the 9/11 Commission Report (the purported basis of your film) to support this portrayal and the fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license. In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or US military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al Qaeda."

Sandy Berger in letter to Robert Iger of Disney in re "The Path to 9/11"
September 5, 2006

But Sandy, that's not what the National Commission Report says:

On May 29, “Jeff ” informed “Mike” that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division.The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation.“Mike” cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for the time being.”He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties—“collateral damage”—was too high.They were concerned about the tribals’ safety, and had worried that “the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation—and probably recriminations—in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive.”²⁹
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed.He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision. [emphasis added]

National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States
"The 9/11 Comission Report"
Chapter 4, Page 7

While I will grant that ABC probably took dramatic license in presenting an operation that was planned, rehearsed, gamed and simulated over six plus months and compressed it into one scene, it still doesn't diminish the fact that the snatch plan was scrubbed by either someone in the White House, NSC or Cabinet and that at least one person thought you were the reason it was scrubbed.

And that is just one example of "missed opportunities" to do what was right and necessary, what about Kandahar in '99?

Of couse Chapter 4 also doles out this little paragraph that apparently you and the rest of the Democrats don't really want people to think about now do you?

On November 4, 1998, the U.S.Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictmentof Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998"
National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States "The 9/11 Comission Report"
Chapter 4, Page 21 (page 128 of the entire report)

Sure you don't want to rethink that statement there Sandy? You might open up a whole can of worms that y'all have fought to keep closed for a long time no? I mean, Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism right?

Updated:9/7/2006

I completely forgot how interesting the 9/11 report was...especially if you read the footnotes:

On December 4, as news came in about the discoveries in Jordan, National Security Council (NSC) Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke wrote Berger,“If George’s [Tenet’s] story about a planned series of UBL attacks at the Millennium is true, we will need to make some decisions NOW.” He told us he held several conversations with President Clinton during the crisis. He suggested threatening reprisals against the Taliban in Afghanistan in the event of any attacks on U.S. interests, anywhere, by Bin Ladin. He further proposed to Berger that a strike be made during the last week of 1999 against al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan—a proposal not adopted.¹¹
The 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 6, Page 176 (Page 3 in the linked PDF)

Footnote 11 for Chapter 6 reads:

11. NSC note, Clarke to Berger, Dec. 4, 1999; Richard Clarke interview (Jan. 12, 2004). In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote “no.”

I guess technically speaking though it is only the National Security Council and not the CIA or military making the recommendation / request.

Correction:9/7/2006

I mistakenly stated that the letter was from Berger to Mr. Iger at ABC, Mr. Iger works for The Walt Disney Company

Updated 9/8/2006
Added the sentence "On November 4, 1998, the U.S.Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictmentof Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations." to the information from the report on Page 128 (page 21 in chapter 4) as it better clarifies the context of the original quote. The added sentence is part of the original quote and was inadvertantly clipped in the original posting.

In other news: California Assembly Approves Financial Aid for Illegal Immigrants

2006-08-30T08:24:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it, the California State Assembly approved bil SB160 which requires the University of California, California State University and state community colleges to allow illegal immigrants be eligable to apply for all of the student aid programs.

Let me get this straight: Come to the United States illegally and feel free to consume taxpayer funded resources.

"...[b]ut Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate (Los Angeles County), argued that students who work hard shouldn't be punished because of their immigration status. "This simply allows these kids that are working their butts off to live their version of the American dream," he said. "
(San Francisco Chronicle 08/30/2006)

By that arguement I shouldn't be punished if I were to rob a bank and use that money to live my fantasy version of the American dream. I mean, I work hard, a hell of a lot harder than an illegal immigrant who has time to go to school, so I should be able to commit crimes and use that as an excuse no?

Castro has surgery;"provisionally" passes power to Raúl

2006-07-31T22:14:00.000-07:00

My bet: "Il Comandante" is really dead. I mean come on, in all the years of his dictatorship he's never given up power, not once. He's dead and they are covering for him to prevent the people from true Libertad de la tiranía . Face it folks, he's taken hells version of the Granma and is crossing the river Styx right now, late for his appointment.

My feeling if he is dead: Oddly torn. I mean, it's not that I wish to kill him, it's just that I don't want him to be alive anymore.

My feeling if he is alive: Missed him by *this* much.

I really don't like dictators, can ya tell?

We'd better be careful, we're risking a "backlash!"

2006-07-30T23:16:00.000-07:00

Oh no, we're risking a backlash in the Middle East!

I mean, everybody already loves us in the Middle East right? Isn't that what all of the polls are saying all the time?

Why I hate Hizballah

2006-07-29T08:57:00.000-07:00

I have nothing but utter contempt for Hizballah and their ilk.

Many people ask why the United States is against a cease-fire with Hizballah, it's really really damn simple folks

1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hizballah. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad (a.k.a Hizballah) claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers (linked to Hizballah) exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.

1985
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hizballah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hizballah , were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

(above source information culled from InfoPlease listing of terrorist attacks within the United States or against Americans abroad)

The last multi-national force that the United States was involved in with Lebanon was a total cluster f**k that got 241 Marines killed when Hizballah blew up the barracks.

"Why were Marines in Beirut!? They must have been Crusaders!"
I've seen many in the Middle-East still use the involvement of the United States in Lebanon in the Multi National Force against us, claiming that we "attacked" Lebanon. We went into Lebanon with the French, Italians and British to try and stabilize Beirut. Do we get thanks for that? No. We get blamed for everything even though it was Hizballah, Syria, Iran, Israel, etc. who were doing all the fighting.

It's not often that I post something from the media that is worth reading...

2006-07-20T05:55:00.000-07:00

...and not criticizing. Rabbi Marc Gellman wrote this piece for Newsweek and I think it's a very good read: What the Bible says about terrorism

Stupid stupid stupid move by Hizbollah

2006-07-12T07:06:00.000-07:00

That was the dumbest move that Hizbollah, Syria and Lebanon could have possibly made.

Hizbollah has now given Israel casus belli in attacking Lebannon. The U.N. can't even decry this latest move as it falls under self-defense. I wonder how Nicaragua v United States of America or The Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic can be applied as Hizbollah is effectively under the control of the Lebanese government no?

Wondering why your Residential Parking Permit more than doubled in cost?

2006-07-08T13:30:00.000-07:00

Thank these guys

San Francisco Budget and Finanace Committee

Supervisors Daly, Dufty, Peskin, Mirkarimi, Elsbernd

It was on their recommendation that the fee be increased

Recommendations of the Budget and Finance Committee

050329 [Parking Permits] Ordinance amending San Francisco Traffic Code sections 308, 308.1, 308.3, and repealing section 314, to: clarify the requirements for issuance of Residential Parking Permits; increase parking permit fees for Residential Parking Permits and Health Care Worker Permits to sixty dollars ($60) if purchased in the first six months of the permit year or thirty dollars ($30) if purchased in the last six months of the permit year; increase Educational Institution Permits to sixty dollars ($60) for each permit regardless of the date of purchase or repurchase; increase temporary parking permit fees for Residential Parking Permits to twenty dollars ($20) for each week for up to four weeks or forty dollars ($40) for a four week permit; increase visitor parking permit fees for Residential Parking Permits to five dollars ($5) per day, twenty dollars ($20) for two consecutive weeks, thirty dollars ($30) for four consecutive weeks, forty dollars ($40) for six consecutive weeks, or fifty dollars ($50) for eight consecutive weeks; and, delete previous permit fee amounts. (Municipal Transportation Agency)

Enacted Number: 108-05 FINALLY PASSED by the following vote: Ayes: 11 - Alioto-Pier, Ammiano, Daly, Dufty, Elsbernd, Ma, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Mirkarimi, Peskin, Sandoval

Some may think the the Liberaleliti aren't backing North Korea

2006-07-08T09:25:00.000-07:00

But consider that in this age of "Bush is responsible for everything bad" (BIRFEB) that any excuse to bash the President is a good one.

From the San Francisco Chronicles "World Views" blog in an article titled "Why the confusion? North Korea says why it test-fired missiles", Edward M. Gomez virtually parrots the official "Democratic" Peoples Republic of Korea's official news agency:

"North Korea's early-morning test launches of seven missiles on Wednesday provoked alarm in Washington and Tokyo, allowing both the Bush administration and the Japanese government to do what they do best. Team Bush quickly put its fear-mongering mechanism into high gear, while officials in the government of soon-to-retire Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi wrung their hands, shifted into high-victim, they-could-target-us-next mode, and then wrung their hands some more."

"In Australia, George W. Bush's sidekick, Prime Minister John Howard, dutifully parroted Washington's no-nukes-for-the-North line."

Mr. Gomez goes on to talk about the 1999 self-imposed moratorium where North Korea agreed to stop its testing of long range missiles in exchange for easing of economic sanctions (Mr. Gomez overlooks the money issue). He states (quoting the double-think of the DPRK news service) that the agreement was only valid in so long as the United States continued its dialog with North Korea and essentially blames the United States for the missile launch (he also throws in a jab at the media claiming that the "...tidbit of recent history has not and is not being widely reported by U.S. mainstream news media." Of course Mr. Gomez is technically correct in it "not being widely reported", since saying that is akin to saying "there have been no news stories specifically talking about this facet of the issue" (which I have to assume is correct, I mean, they do still have fact checkers at the Chronicle right? Or does that not apply to blogs?) . However, Mr. Gomez apparently forgot to fact check himself as a quick search via Google reveals the following:
New York Times coverage
CNN Coverage
Los Angeles Times Coverage

Unless of course three of the biggest news services in the country don't count.

Mr. Gomez also fails to recall other recent history about North Korea including its kicking out of U.N. IAEA inspectors, resumption of nuclear weapons development, threats against the United States and Japan, and North Korea's production of counterfeit U.S. currency. In fact, the counterfeit money is probably the real central issue here, since Banco Delta Asia was forced to freeze the North Korean money laundering accounts which resulted in depriving North Korea of one of their biggest influxes of illicit cash. Mr. Gomez fails to note that the re-opening of those accounts is also one of North Korea's demands for them to return to multi-national talks.

But, possibly because of BIRFEB, that little tidbit of recent history isn't being reported much either.

Kim says: "Don't complain about our launching missiles at Hawaii...

2006-07-06T22:15:00.000-07:00

...or we'll attack you. "

According to Japan's Sankei newspaper, North Korea's launch of the Taepong 2 missile on the 4th was aimed at the waters near Hawaii. [electronic translation version here / MarketWatch report here]

Japan, who has imposed basic economic sanctions against North Korea in response to the missile launches, has been told by North Korea to stop the sanctions....or else, with North Korea stating

"Any criticism of this [the launches] will be met with a stronger and physical response ,Japan is uppermost in this regard."

So, let me get this straight big boy: You fired missiles at the United States (ok, the waters near the United States) and when people criticize you for that you threaten them with violence? And we are all supposed to believe that "Dear Leader" Kim is completely harmless right?

Just wanted to make sure we are all on the same line in the "Kim Is Koo-Koo Krazy, But The Moonbats Still Love Him" songbook

Nothing more need be said today

2006-07-04T17:39:00.000-07:00

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for
establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to
harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil
power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of
pretended Legislation:For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For
protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they
should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:For cutting off our Trade with
all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For
depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:For transporting us
beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offencesFor abolishing the free System of
English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary
government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example
and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &
perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the
inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.

We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Georgia: Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton

North Carolina: William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr. Arthur Middleton

Maryland:Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:George WytheRichard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin HarrisonThomas Nelson, Jr.Francis Lightfoot LeeCarter Braxton

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas McKean

New York: William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart Abraham Clark

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett William Whipple

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire: Matthew Thornton

I often wonder

2006-06-30T06:30:00.000-07:00

If anyone is reading this blog or am I just wasting my time?

How Berkeley can they be?

2006-06-27T21:13:00.000-07:00

The Berkeley City Council is set to vote on whether or not to place a referendum on the ballot in Berkeley this November to establish a "task force" to seek the impeachment of President Bush as recommended by the Berkeley "Peace and Justice Commission"

Now, interestingly enough, rather large parts of the proposed law are based on lies, misstatements and unsubstantiated claims almost straight from IndyMedia and the mooniest of Moonbat theories and claims.:

Lie
"They claimed, and the President asserted in the 2003 State of the Union
address before a joint session of Congress that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium for a
nuclear weapon from Niger"

No, the President asserted no such thing. What he said was "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Notice, not one word about Niger. In fact, President Bush has been backed up on his statements by not only the US Senate Intelligence Committee but by a seperate British investigation as is ellucidated by FactCheck.Org "Bush's '16 Words' on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying"

Unsubstantiated Claims:

There are numerous, but let's cover just one:
The claim that: "They have permitted the torture of detainees in violation of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions."

They provide no evidence of this. None. Zip. Nada. "But what about Abu Ghraib!" That's not torture people. That's not even close to torture. Even so, the actions were not permitted nor condonded as evidenced by the various investigations, trials and sentencing of guilty parties. In point of fact, the military had already begun investigations into treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib BEFORE the media found out about it. But the media (and the Moonbats) took credit for "breaking" the story

Misstatements

"In violation of federal statutes, they have caused to be published the identity of a CIA covertagent after that agent's husband published a newspaper article revealing that his officialinvestigation had shown that claims Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium for nuclearweapons from Niger were not reliable."

Hmm, first of all, neither the President nor the Vice-President have been charged with revealing Ms. Plames name. Secondly, there is some serious question about whether Ms. Plame was even a covert agent (Chicago Tribune investigation). Lastly, the US Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the "16 words" stated that Mr. Wilson's report actually "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

"They have declared that the Executive Branch is not bound by the Detainee Treatment Actof 2005..."

The administration argued that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 did not apply to detainee's at Guantanamo Bay. Not that the Executive Branch was not bound by the act, just that the act itself stripped the detainee's at Guantanamo Bay from using it. An assertion backed by Human Rights Watch

Aww heck, while we're at it, let's just finish out the above misstatement:

"...and onmore than 750 occasions, President Bush has executed "Signing Statements" asserting the Executive's right to ignore provisions of Acts of Congress as his Administration sees fit,including provisions requiring the Executive to report its activities to Congress and provisions enacted specifically to prohibit activities the Bush Administration had previously undertaken."

Oh no! Not a "Signing Statment"! Horror! Wait, what's a "signing statement" you ask? It means that when the President signed a bill (thereby making it law) he attached a statement to the Bill, noting which provisions he believes interfere with his powers. Oh that wascally wabbit! He's using some evil thing called "Freedom of Speech" to make his opinion known! The "signing statements" have, and let's be perfectly clear on this, absolutely no impact on the law and do not change, alter, negate, nor enhance any law that they are attached to. Therefore, the statements are a free speech matter. Apparently President Bush is not entitled to the very thing that the "Peace and Justice Commission" is so adamant to enforce in Berkeley.

The "Peace and Justice Commission"'s mission statement states that it "Advises the Council and the School Board on issues of peace and social justice. Creates citizen awareness and develops educational programs."

Please note that this is the very same "Peace and Justice Commission" that:

1) In essence Blamed the United States for the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Berkeley encourages the Administration and Congress to undertake a comprehensive review of United States policies to identify which policies can be changed to help redress legitimate grievances and improve the underlying conditions in which people live, so as to reward the support we have been given in these difficult times, to increase the respect and goodwill of people toward our country, and to reduce animosity toward the United States. "

2) Killed a resolution in January calling the denial of the Holocaust by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mohamed Mahdi Akef "profound[ly] dismay[ing] to the people of Berkeley" by tabling it at each meeting that it came up at (which is technically a violation of Roberts Rules of Order as there was no pending priority business to address first and is considered unfair as a simple majority vote can effectively kill an issue whereas it normally it would take a two-thirds vote to do that.) and during the February meeting it was tabled indefinately (or at least it is so in the meeting minutes)

Of course the real telling as to the "Peace and Justice Commission"'s attitudes towards Holocaust denial is exemplified in the two abstentions in the original move to table the issue:

"Commissioner Beltran abstained because she was not clear on the issues concerning the Holocaust and Israel."

"Commissioner Bohn abstained because she was torn about taking a position on the statements made by the public officials from Iran and Egypt because she wants to make sure we are not taking part in the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran."

Illegal Border Crossings Down After Guard Deployed

2006-06-13T07:50:00.000-07:00

According to MSNBC, Illegal border crossing detentions are down in Arizona after the National Guard deployed there.

MSNBC commits some nasty slander against U.S. forces in the article claiming that the ilegals are "...are afraid of the U.S. troops after hearing reports of abuse in Iraq."

A"migrants rights activist" (read "possibly a coyote in his spare time") is directly quoted as saying it's because the illegals "...heard about the troops on television and, because the U.S. Army doesn’t have a very good reputation, they prefer not to cross..." of course he goes on to point the more likely reason they have stopped crossing: the smugglers prices have doubled to nearly $3000 (or about $34,000 pesos).

The article is even sub-headed with the line "Some migrants say they are afraid to cross after hearing of Iraq violence" but no where in the article do I see a direct quote from an actual illegal saying that they are afraid of U.S. forces. Just the one quote from the "migrants rights activist" who runs a "migrants shelter" in Nogales.

Constitution trumps City liberaleliti

2006-06-12T21:25:00.000-07:00

California Superior Court Judge, the Honorable James T. Warren, ruled today that San Francisco's handgun ban was in violation of California State Law. In fact he stated that California law "... implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults. "

Duh gee, isn't that what we've all been saying?

Well, now that the fear of "The Man" coming in and taking my weapon has been removed, I think I will save up a little bit and go pick up one of these bad boys:

Target terminated

2006-06-08T05:36:00.000-07:00

Al-Qaida in Iraq's al-Zarqawi 'terminated'

Target termination confirmed by fingerprints, facial recognition and his own band of butt brothers

Enjoy your time in jahanam you murderous f**k.

Update:

Glad to see I'm not alone in being glad he's gone:

Sandmonkey: ZARQAWI IS DEAD! WOOHOOOOOOOOOO
Big Pharaoh: Zarqawi Killed
Iraq the Model: ZARQAWI KILLED!!
GOP Vixen: Ding Dong the witch is dead

Liberty

2006-05-25T07:16:00.000-07:00

"The Ministery of Interior had said that there will be no more protests allowed, and yet people protested anyway. So they arrested them. More poeple protested the week after, they arrested them as well. More people protested the week after that, so they arrested them as well. And now this is the 4th week, and they have finally given up. They recognized that they can't stop protests.
That's what we foght for from the begining, remember? Our right to freedom of speech? They said that there will be no more protests without arrests. And yet, we refused to give in, and now they are the ones who surrenderd. They know now that we can not be silenced any longer. That we will not give up our right to freedom of speech. Isn't that what we wanted all along?"
-Sandmonkey

A desire to resist oppression is implanted in the nature of man.
-Tacticus

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well--a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.
-George W. Bush

Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put in this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer.
-Ronald Reagan

President Bush's Homeless Plan Does Good...media ignores story

2006-05-16T06:54:00.000-07:00

"Three years after the launch of the most aggressive nationwide strategy in a generation to solve homelessness, there is evidence that it may be working:
The number of street people in cities across the United States has plummeted for
the first time since the 1980s. "
The drop-off reflected in street counts of the homeless taken over the past year has ranged from 30 percent in Miami and 28 percent in Dallas to 20 percent in Portland, Ore., and 13 percent in New York. In all, 30 jurisdictions reported declines in their homeless populations, including the 28 percent dip recorded in San Francisco a year ago and a 4 percent drop reported this week in Denver.
The figures emerged as more than 250 civic and social program leaders -- all of whom are behind 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness across the nation -- gathered in Denver last week to compare notes for the first time since the Bush administration began pushing for creation of the plans in 2003

According to the SFGate, a program heavily pushed by the Bush administration to reduce / relieve homelessness is achieving stellar results...but good luck finding the story on the wires or reported in other media.

A search at news.google.com shows that the ONLY news media source reporting this story is apparently the San Francisco Chronicle. How's that for a weird turnabout? A large meeting of city, state and Federal officials, talking about one of the largest stories in America, and only the San Francisco Chronicle covered it?

It's all part of BIRFEB (Bush Is Responsible For Everything Bad) of course. The man can't catch a break on good news. Remember when unemployment "skyrocketed" from 4.6% to 5.6%? It was all over the news right? People discussing how President Bush has squandered the "Clinton legacy". Frontpages of newspapers, splashed across websites, endlessly covered by television news...but now that it is back down to 4.7% it's reported as an "also ran" type of story. The velocity just isn't there on the good news story.

Is this due to the old "if it bleeds it leads" attitude of the media, or more evidence of media bias against President Bush?

hat tip to Tim Blair for the original reporting on the conference

Hot Damn. Jet Bug

2006-04-29T17:45:00.000-07:00

Ok, SFGate does occasionally have some interesting things :)

Jet powered VW Beetle (file size: 22mb)

New maritime security rules could cost maritime jobs

2006-04-21T20:35:00.000-07:00

While those of us in the maritime industry have known about this possiblity for quite a while now, it's interesting that the media is suddenly paying attention:

Port ID Rules Could Cost Jobs

The program they are talking about is the "Transportation Workers Identity Credential" (or TWIC) and it affects more than just maritime security. The original (and possibly current) plan called for a single ID card program across the transportation industry. From trains to planes to ships at sea, this would be the ID for you and me (well, ok, probably just me as you probably don't work in the industry.) The system involves extensive background checks and pretty much regulates what one can and can't do at a port. For example, a clerk or steveadore might have one level of clearance, a trucker another and management a third. The system would have a centrally located database of vetted personnel and would allow for a person to be pulled from all systems at the same time (thus preventing John TruckDriver from being denied entry at terminal A and still having access at Terminal B). All in all it looks like a good program that should enhance port security by a large measure.

It will be interesting to see how the Democrats handle this story since the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has been so staunchly behind them (under the banner of the AFL-CIO) and is rather against the TWIC programs background checks and restrictions.
But since the Democrats have recently declared themselves to be so concerned about port security and have made it one of their talking points, that I think they will find themselves at a loggershead over this one (or will simply do the normal "Democrat Slide" and slip away from the issue and make it a BIRFEB.)

Personally I say bring TWIC on! I've been waiting for the program to start for quite a while now.

CIA Officer fired over possible leak

2006-04-21T19:41:00.000-07:00

According to MSNBC et al, the CIA has fired an Officer for allegedly leaking information to a reporter:

WASHINGTON - In a rare occurrence, the CIA fired an officer who acknowledged
giving classified information to a reporter, NBC News learned Friday.
The officer flunked a polygraph exam before being fired on Thursday and is now under investigation by the Justice Department, NBC has learned.

A number of blogs via Technorati are talking about this story, and some are making the bogus claim that President Bush should be held accountable for "leaking" information about the Wilson trip to Africa. To these folks I would like to point out that the President didn't "leak" anything, what he did was de-classify information from that trip to counter the bogus information that Wilson et al were telling the press. This is not a "leak" like what Ms. McCarthy stands accused of according to the media.

There was a "Mary O. McCarthy" who testified before the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" (a.k.a the "9/11 Commission") back in 2003 who discussed the role the intelligence services in regards to warning capabilities.

Mary O. McCarthy was also a staff adviser to President Clinton (the same type of role that Joseph Wilson had, although in a different area and a year after Wilson) on the National Security Council for Intelligence Programs.

Bush linked to 1906 Earthquake

2006-04-18T06:41:00.000-07:00

File this under "Bush is responsible for everything bad" (BIRFEB)

SFGate / The Chronicle are running a story comparing federal response in 1906 to the federal response in regards to Katrina in 2005. I knew this was coming and am only surprised that it took SFGate / The Chronicle this long to squeeze it out.

The Great Quake: 1906 - 2006. As with Katrina, federal role caused discord

"Though separated by 99 years, controversy over the federal response to the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 and to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans last summer shows that time may pass and technology may advance, but dealing with a disaster remains a challenge.
In 2005, federal officials from President Bush to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to disaster agency director Michael Brown were criticized for inaction that may have cost lives in the federal government's response to Katrina."

"The nation watched in horror as thousands of New Orleans residents weren't evacuated despite warnings of the approaching storm, as many were stranded for days at the Superdome and nearby convention center as hundreds drowned. "

No mention of local or state responsibility for the lack of evacuations. No mention of Mayor Nagin and the hundreds of buses that he should have used to evacuate his citizens or the evacuation order he should have issued earlier (he issued it the night before the hurricane hit).

No mention of the National Guard troops that Governor Blanco should have ordered in earlier or the request for mutual assistance that Governor Blanco should have made, nor her rejection of a Title X federalization of National Guard troops.

Oh no, only a critique and lambasting of the federal response.

Typical Chronicle / SFGate "quality"

Disgusting political antics at the '06 Memorial today

2006-04-18T05:04:00.000-07:00

I am disgusted with Mayor Newsom and Representative Pelosi. They've politicised a memorial to the destruction of San Francisco in the 1906 earthquake and fire.

[slight paraphrase as I don't have a transcript handy and am watching this live]

Newsom: "I am proud to introduce the head of my party, the Democratic party, Nancy Pelosi!"

Pelosi then praised Newsom and his leadership of San Francisco saying how it is / was appropriate that Mayor Newsom be leading the City. Gee whiz, do ya think that maybe Gavin is looking for a bigger job than Mayor of San Francisco?

Quite frankly I found the whole "memorial" to be rather tawdry and cheap, filled with political statements and grandstanding.

Ann Marie Conroy just told everyone to go out and have a drink as "...the bars open at six." Hooray for public drunkeness!

Ok, maybe I have been quick to judge TBAiT before...

2006-04-15T09:56:00.000-07:00

...but come on!

Is the DailyKOS now writing for TBAiT?

"Another War?
Rumors, articles and heated debate is going on about President Bush contemplating war with Tehran. Now, I am careful to not point the finger but Im not putting any more of my tax dollars towards a war of violence, death and destruction, especially because the war in Iraq is spreading anything but peace and democracy...."

"Is this a case of severe paranoia in the White House? Perhaps the Bush Administration wants to secure their unilateral position for the future. But again, speculation of war plans only creates anxiety, anger and resentment from the American public. Democrats, Republicans and everyone in between are paying for the current war and are not too happy about it. Going to war AGAIN will not improve Bush's approval rating and quite frankly the domestic policy is suffering due to the lack of funds and attention from the White House. We have our own war on poverty right here in America. FOCUS PEOPLE."

Now really Brian, tell me that isn't just a teenie-weenie bit biased.

Helen Thomas and The Chronicle show their bias

2006-03-22T19:59:00.000-08:00

So, the Chronicle has a new podcast of "Helen Thomas' Washington" which is a classic presentation of a biased media wherein Mark Sandalow and Helen Thomas present their personal views of the President and politics.

Helen Thomas: "I asked a very simple question: 'Why are we in Iraq, when Iraq did nothing to us?'. Certainly was not tied to 9/11, they were not involved. Ahh, no ties to al-Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction, but so many people dead."

Apparently Helen and Mark haven't been reading the news about the declassified Iraq documents (doesn't surprise me seeing as how the media has been keeping it quiet...)
Now, I don't speak Arabic, but here's some interesting synopsis of some of the documents:

"Iraqi Minister of Defense calls for an investigation into why documents of WMD nature were found by a UN inspection team"

"IIS report on Kurdish activities, mention of Kurdish reporting on Al Qaida, reference to Al Qaida presence in Salman Pak "

"An order from Saddam Hussein to present $25,000 for the suicide bomber families in Palestine "
"Secret meeting with Taliban group member and Iraqi government"

Ya know Helen, Hitler never did anything to us either. I suppose we could have left him alone no? Personally I think it's reprehensible that we left Hitler and Saddam) alone for so long to conduct their evil.

A "reporter" interviewing another "reporter" who apparently waited three years to ask a politically motivated question . Sad.

What passes as fact checking at the BBC nowadays?

2006-03-20T23:01:00.000-08:00

I was reading a rather slanted piece by Mr. John Simpson over at the BBC website today and was surprised to read the followingm "facts" on that current state of Iraq:

Despite the investment that has undoubtedly taken place, virtually all basic services are in a worse state now than they were before the invasion. There is less clean water, less sewage control, less gas, less petrol, less power. Baghdad now has an average of only 5.8 hours of electricity a day. At present Iraq is producing 1.8 million barrels of oil a day; just before the invasion the figure was 2.5 million barrels a day.
...
Things are expensive and inflation is high. So is unemployment: perhaps above 50%. There is malnutrition, and the level of infant mortality is still disturbingly high.

Now me, being me, just had to double check these figures. I mean, surely the "Beeb" wouldn't make a mistake about such things right?

For this analysis, I decided to use the most up to date and complete statistics I could find. The Brookings Institution of Washington D.C., has a document that is updated every Monday and Thursday with the best available statistics on Iraq. Their compendium covers all aspects of Iraq from security, economic indicators, polling and politics. If there is a better source out there, I can't find it.

Let's look at what Mr. Simpson states (with you'll note, not a single source listed for his numbers) individually:

"There is less clean water..."
According to the Brookings Institution statistics, the capability to serve clean potable water is up by 3.1 million people since pre-war.

"...less sewage control..."
There are no pre-war stastics available to compare this claim. However, the implication exists in the statistics that the number hasn't decreased.

"...less gas..."
There are no pre-war stastics available to compare this claim.

"...less petrol..."
There are no pre-war stastics available to compare this claim.
There are also a 2.5 million more registered cars in Iraq now as compared to pre-war.

"...less power. Baghdad now has an average of only 5.8 hours of electricity a day"
Pre-war estimates for the number of Megawatts produced for the entire nation of Iraq were 3,958 and for Baghdad alone 2,500. Current numbers for the entire nation are 4,200 Megawatts (Baghdad specific numbers are not available). Pre-war nationwide estimates were that people had 4 - 8 hours per day of electricity, Baghdad had 16-24 hours per day of electricity (it's good to be in the dictators pocket I guess). Current estimates for March, 2006 show the entire nation now averages 12.1 hours per day and Baghdad averages 8.1 hours per day. So while Baghdad may have suffered a bit of a come-uppance, the rest of the nation is on the rise.

"At present Iraq is producing 1.8 million barrels of oil a day; just before the invasion the figure was 2.5 million barrels a day"

He actually got this one right. As they say "even a broken watch is right two times a day"

"Things are expensive and inflation is high..."
Yes, things are expensive and inflation is high. But so is the countries GDP. High inflation and prices are accounted for by the amount of money people are making now. GDP growth rate in Iraq in 2002 was -7.8%. That's right, NEGATIVE 7.8%. The GDP growth rate in 2004 was 46.5% and for the partial year of 2005 it's been 3.7%. That's why there is inflation and high prices Mr. Simpson. Future projections for Iraq show extreme GDP growth over the next four years with high inflation reducing each year.

"...So is unemployment: perhaps above 50%."
Perhaps it's above 50% but since you provide no source information that's like me saying perhaps it's 1%. The Brookings Institution puts the number at 25% to 40%. Check out the statistics on France and Germany. France, a first world global powerhouse has a 9.3% unemployment rate officially. Unofficially it's estimated to be much higher. Same for Germany at 9.7% officially, perhaps even as high as 22% unofficially. Of course, those European numbers are from 2003 which is the last year that the Europeans produced a report so what the "real" numbers are in Europe is anyones guess.

"There is malnutrition, and the level of infant mortality is still disturbingly high. "
True, there is malnutrition, but that exists in the first world as well. Unfortunately there are no statistics to compare Iraq to neighboring countries, but I am willing to bet that the numbers aren't too far off. Compare the infant and child mortality rates. They are comparable to other countries in the region with the same conditions. I am not saying that it's right or trying to sugar coat it, but the statistics aren't that far off.

It seems to me that Mr. Simpson was at best cherry-picking data thats out there and chose to concentrate on the negative (surprise!) and at worst just out and out made up numbers. Until the BBC cites a source on those numbers the truth is anyone's guess

Viva Enrique! Viva Puerto Rico! Abajo Fidel!

2006-03-10T20:37:00.000-08:00

Howdy all, I know it's been a while, but I've been really busy with both personal life (death in family) and work (damn lot of it). But when I saw this story today I just had to talk about it:

Anti-Castro sign at WBC sparks furor in Cuba

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- While Cuba played the Netherlands in the World Baseball Classic, a spectator in the stands raised a sign saying: "Down with Fidel," sparking an international incident that escalated Friday with the velocity of a major league fastball.
The image of the man holding the sign behind home plate was beamed live Thursday night to millions of TV viewers -- including those in Cuba. The top Cuban official at the game at Hiram Bithorn Stadium in San Juan rushed to confront the man.

Wuh oh! A Cuban official is upset! Surely the police will arrest the protestor right? Wrong!

Puerto Rican police quickly intervened and took the Cuban official -- Angel Iglesias, vice president of Cuba's National Institute of Sports -- to a nearby police station where they lectured him about free speech. "We explained to him that here the constitutional right to free expression exists and that it is not a crime," police Col. Adalberto Mercado was quoted as saying in El Nuevo Dia, a San Juan daily.
Local organizers of the tournament responded by banning posters of a political nature, but a top police official said his officers would not enforce the ban."The police of Puerto Rico will not interfere at any time with any type of expression," Puerto Rico Police Chief Pedro Toledo said.

Viva Puerto Rican Policia! Viva Col. Adalberto Mercado! Viva Chief Pedro Toledo!
Now that is how you do it!

Abajo Fidel!

It's not just me! Media bias really does exist

2005-12-19T06:03:00.000-08:00

According to a recent study at UCLA, media bias really does exist. The study is based on analyzing ten years worth of media reports and comparing them to a liberal vs. conservative scores derived from the Americans for Democratic Action voting records score. The ADA score is based on how often a Congress member voted with or against ADA chosen votes. Representative Nancy Pelosi , as an example, received 100 points from the ADA for 2004, where as Representative Tom Delay received 0 points in 2004. The researchers, after adjusting to "...compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia..." [ed. I quoted this because I just know that someone will make an issue of it, however I believe the study to be correct in making the adjustment] assumes that the average score of 50.1 represents the political position of the average American voter.

Then they researched the media reporting, checking to see what kind of references were made to think-tanks and policy groups and whether those groups were liberal or conservative (e.g. NAACP or Heritage Foundation) then they did the same thing for Congressional speeches and compared citation patterns.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

What did this show? Well, of the twenty organizations researched, only two came out as right of center, three came out as roughly centrist (event though the most "center" source was still five points to the left of center), the rest all came out as left of center. The leftist of the media was the Wall Street Journal (news section, not opinion), the New York Times, CBS Evening News, LA Times and the Washington Post. Strange no?

Interestingly, the report shows the Drudge Report as being left of center, but explains this as being that since the study looks at the news on the site it is a reflection of the media as a whole. Meaning that, since the Drudge Report generally links to other news sites, it is because of the bias on those other sites that the Drudge Report drifts to left of center.

Right Thinking People was the original pointer for this article

Link to study: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf

Is it just me?

2005-12-18T08:01:00.000-08:00

Or is this just a weird paragraph to end a report on Vice-President Cheney visiting Iraq today?

From MSNBC:

"He saw rows of housing for soldiers at Camp Victory fortified by concrete walls. Smoke for the trash fires burning throughout the occupied city drifted up toward his chopper."

You don't think the reporter was being a little bit biased in his coloring of the story do you?

I demand an investigation into the NSA domestic spying incident

2005-12-17T11:01:00.000-08:00

I demand an investigation into the NSA domestic spying incident that has been revealed. No, I don't care that the NSA was authorized to intercept international phone calls, emails and faxes from U.S. citizens to international destinations. I want to know who leaked that information to the press. This is such a gross violation of national security that heads should roll.

This is not a situation like Valerie Plame, a not so covert, covert agent. This is an active, ongoing intelligence mission which has now been compromised for petty political points.

Where's Representative Nancy Pelosi? Where's the letter demanding a GAO investigation like she wrote for the Plame incident? Where's the media coverage screaming about how this was a leak to damage the President? No, instead the media is decrying a "violation of civil rights". Please. Give it an f'ing rest. Let's be honest here. I've made hundreds of international calls and sent hundreds of international emails over the last few years. I don't care that the NSA might have listened in. If anyhing I would apologize to them for being so boring, but I appreciate the work they've done, are doing right now and will continue to do in the future. To those who cry that they might have been spied on, I say this: Do you really think that you are so important or interesting that "they" are watching your every move? Really?

Intelligence (or "spying" as the media likes to put it) is a critical component of our fight against al-Qaeda and those that would seek to harm this nation. People (and by "people" I mean politicizing Democrats like Pelosi, Liberaliti, et al.) complained that the United States (sorry, I mean President Bush*) didn't do enough intelligence gathering and was lax in protecting that United States (remember the brouhaha about the "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" briefing and how the President should have done "something" about it. Never an explanation as to what "something" meant though. What does Mr. Ben-Veniste think now I wonder?) , these same people are now going to complain that we did too much?

*Specifically it was President Bush. Since he'd only been in office for eight months he pretty much inherited President Clinton's intelligence systems and organization. As we all know President Clinton was actually omniscient and just let incidents like the embassy attacks, WTC 1 (1993) , U.S.S. Cole attack, Khobar Towers attack, Philippine Airlines Flight 434, Murrah Federal Building, Olympic Park bombing, occur because he didn't want to give away the secret of his omniscience.

"God bless Iraq and its allies and friends" - Hammorabi

2005-12-15T06:28:00.000-08:00

A quick roundup of some voices that I like to listen to in Iraq and the greater Middle East on this historic day. For those who don't know (which doesn't surprise me seeing as how the coverage of the voting has been looking more like an "also ran" type of story unless something bad happens), Iraqi's today are voting for their first ever freely elected democratic government.

First up is Hammorabi in Iraq:

"In few hours time Iraq will be the Model in Democracy and freedom for the Middle East and the Arab region.Iraq will lead the changes"

Big Pharaoh from Egypt talks about Sen. Biden visiting a polling station in Hillah

Iraq the Model (a 2005 Weblog award nominee) has a great pictorial about going to vote in Baghdad.

Pajamas Media (a conglomerate of webloggers) is aggregating reports from eight different provinces in Iraq.

Newsom keeps on spinning

2005-12-14T21:37:00.000-08:00

Mayor Newsom, attempting to bolster his earlier overreaction to the "egregious" SFPD "scandal", held a press conference tonight at which he defended his decision to overreact by intimating that it was really not his fault but the people of San Francisco. We apparently should be more offended!

"If this occurred in any business in the private sector, none of us, I think, would criticize the company for taking aggressive and swift action...But for some reason, some people have lowered the bar here in San Francisco.
The bar is so low in San Francisco that people think it's fun and games to run over an alleged homeless person, to make fun of different races and communities, to make fun of the police chief ... to enact skits of people not doing their job...''

Wow. Let's tear that apart shall we?

"If this occurred in any business in the private sector, none of us, I think, would criticize the company for taking aggressive and swift action..."

Yes, I would criticize them if they acted as you did and punished the employee without an investigation. You took a punitive action without all the facts. If a private business did that to a union employee you'd have a fit wouldn't you? Didn't you go walk a picket line with Local 2 in support of their rights as workers? Ok,we all know you were really doing it to cheese off the hotels and pimp out some more votes and "street cred" but you see what I mean.

"The bar is so low in San Francisco that people think it's fun and games to run
over an alleged homeless person"

Newsflash Mr. Mayor: No one actually got run over! See, apparently, there are these people who make these things called "movies" and they are often times fictitious. During these fictions, people sometimes are hurt or die, but, due to a quirk in the human humor system, if done well we find it funny. Even the SF Film Commission understands this and they list a film shot here in San Francisco that features people dying in odd or funny ways called "The Darwin Awards". I guess it's only funny to the City if they can charge money for it huh?

"...make fun of different races and communities"

First off, what racial jokes were there? Point to one. Do it. Wait, you can't? Um, doesn't that make your race card gambit kind of moot? I also challenge you to point to a single racial epithet that was used in the videos. All of the videos aired on the news seemed exceedingly benign and if anything made fun of caucasians. As for "communities": What? You're going to say that the footage of a guy in drag is "offensive?" Quick! Let's go arrest the cast of Beach Blanket Babylon, Monty Python and any number of drag shows in the City. If someone being in drag is offensive to you then maybe you are mayor of the wrong town.

"...make fun of the police chief..."

Awww, didums Chief Fong feel bad that she might have been lampooned? Get over it. You're the Chief of Police of a major American city. If people don't make a joke or two about you, then maybe you aren't doing your job. Political satire is a cherished right and practice of Americans, trying to take it away is offensive.

"... to enact skits of people not doing their job"

What the heck is that about? One of the oldest jokes about cops is them sitting around eating doughnuts. Would you have prefered they enacted a skit of police officers doing their jobs? What would be funny about doing one of the toughest, most dangerous and most under appreciated jobs in San Francisco? Oh wait! I have a perfect idea:

[fade up]
[police car exterior, viewed from head on. The cars police lights are on, but there is no one in it. Camera begins slow rotation from the front of the car to the side]
[radio static]
Dispatchers Voice: "Calling all cars, calling all cars. Be on the lookout for a runaway ego. Ego is described as being full of itself, quick to judgement and defensive if disagreed with. If located, return it to the the Mayor of San Francisco. Suspect may be in the company of the thief that stole the Mayor's sense of humor.
[Police lights go out]
Dispatchers Voice: Jokes don't kill people. But the Mayor's decision to suspend twenty-four police officers from an understaffed police department just might have. Did taking twenty-four offices off the job result in crimes that might have been prevented?
[Fade to black]
[Title overlay]
Paid for by the committee to elect the candidate that isn't Mayor Newsom.
[Fade out]

Pretty funny huh?

Newsom driven more by polling than personal conviction

2005-12-14T07:04:00.000-08:00

Well, I hate to say I told ya so, but Mayor Newsom is backpedling on his claims about the "Cops Gone Wild" videos.

According to Matier and Ross in the San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate, Mayor Newsom has realized that his claims were over the top and is now backpedaling. His "blue-ribbon panel" has been formed and there are suspension hearings underway. Some local television stations were reporting last night that as many as eight of the suspended officers were already back on patrol.

What does this show us? It shows us that Mayor Newsom is driven more by polling than personal convictions. The entire response to the issue was one of ratings, not reality. His claims of racism, sexism and homophobia were designed to anger San Franciscans in general, empower the Liberaliti, and garner him political capital that he could spend later (as he does with ALL of his "major issues"). However when this one didn't work like the others, he backed off immediately, thereby showing that the issue wasn't as big or as bad (or as dramatic) as he and Chief Fong made it out to be.

This sort of pandering politics is offensive. Rather than waste our time and tax dollars on "blue-ribbon panels" and idiotic handgun bans (amazing that the City Attorney and the City can spend so much to defend an idiotic handgun ban, but the City can't afford to prosecute nuisance crimes) I have some recommendations:

Clean the streets. They're filthy.
Fix the potholes. Seriously, how many times does a pothole have to be reported before it gets fixed?
Close the illegal pot clubs. You are tasked by the City Charter with enforcing the laws of the City and County, so do it. If you don't want to close them, then make them compliant with the law.
Get your budget under control. Why are you increasing spending this year when you are running a deficit? Why are you increasing departmental discretionary budgets? Hint: You can simply HOLD spending at last years levels and you would have been even or probably ahead.

Mayor Newsom gets "out in front" to spin the negative flak from his actions

2005-12-11T19:15:00.000-08:00

According to the San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate, Mayor Newsom was being proactive and showing leadership when he trumpted his condemnation of the "egregious" video's made by some members of the SFPD. According to the article, this situation and his response was "...almost forced upon him by circumstances" and that they had to go "...into crisis communications mode" according to mayoral aides [unnamed of course].

While I am supportive of the need to appear pro-active and appear to be leading (especially with the relative lack of those qualities on other, more important issues) I find myself, shockingly, agreeing with former Mayor Willie Brown in that the "...chief and the mayor may be too far out front on their alleged outrage".

As is evidenced by Captain Bruce's response to the situation, the Mayor and Chief acted as judge, jury and executioner by summarily deciding the facts of the case and handing out punishments. Perhaps, just perhaps, the response could have been: "We are investigating an alleged incident of possible racial and gender insensitivity that might be a violation of workplace rules" rather than saying that it "is shameful. It is offensive, it is sexist. It is homophobic, it is racist, and we're going to make sure it ends.'' SFPD officers receive training on not making assumptions based on race, gender and sexuality, perhaps that Mayor should too? His blanket condemnation (which he is now spinning) was "racist" in assigning blame (there were officers of all races represented in the tapes), "sexist" as it implies that only male officers were involved (yet there were just as many women involved, in fact they seemed to be presented in a position of power (being cops and all)), and "homophobic" in assuming that none of the officers involved were homosexual. This sort of supposition on the part of the Mayor is exactly the kind of thing that one is taught *not* to do in sensitivity training.

The Mayor's promise to form a "blue-ribbon panel" to investigate the SFPD and "recommend reforms" screams of a deeper, darker plan that many should be concerned about. What sort of "reforms" could such a panel recommend?

This is something that we, as citizens, need to keep an eye on.

Video 'Scandal': "This is a dark day -- an extremely dark day..."

2005-12-08T07:26:00.000-08:00

"This is a dark day -- an extremely dark day -- in the history of the San
Francisco Police Department for me as a chief to have to stand here and share with you such egregious, shameful and despicable acts by members of the San Francisco Police Department"
-Chief Fong

Yes, this is a dark day Chief, the City of San Francisco has officially gone off the freaking deep end and lost its sense of humor. You call this a "scandal?" Please, get a grip.

Watch the videos. Yes, they're silly and to some overeanalyzing Liberaliti freaks it's "racist" and "sexist", but "egregious?" Not even f'ing close.

"Enough is enough"
-Mayor Gavin Newsom

Yes Mr. Mayor, enough is enough. Enough of your and this City's stupidity. Just because you don't know what you are doing, just because you have a runaway budget, just because you are letting the Board of Supervisors run this town into the ground, just because you think you can buy some Liberaliti votes by appearing to be hard on the police, you are going to ride this as far as you can aren't you?

The City has far more important things to make priorities out of than this sideshow distraction.

Quick, we just passed laws infringing on peoples constitutional rights, we've got illegal pot clubs that we aren't enforcing the law with, we've got a police force bound with red-tape from enforcing the law, we've got a runaway budget process, we're the laughing stock of the country...let's make some scapegoats out of a bunch of silly cop videos!

Rest in Peace Pat Morita

2005-11-25T08:03:00.000-08:00

My apologies to Brian

2005-11-11T22:01:00.000-08:00

I agree, posting the word unbiased in quotes was a goad, and I do apologize for the outright pushing of your buttons. I was annoyed at SFMike and not you. I read his posting (and his prior rants) and when I viewed the other blogs you highlighted I viewed them through a different lens than perhaps you do. Either way I shouldn't have pushed and I apologize and will do my best to avoid it in the future.

It's probably not even you, or your choices. It's probably me and my perception of your choices, or maybe it's just the general attitude of the San Francisco Bay Area and I just don't get it.

Am I really that out of step with the rest of the Bay? Don't others not see the hypocrisy and idiocy that runs wild in the Bay Area:

The people driving $100,000 automobiles decrying the "war for oil" with their smarmy little bumper stickers (but if you even so much as scratch that car of theirs...); Protestors in the streets waving their huge signs decrying the supposed limitation of their civil liberties (while they calmly call for the "ousting" of a legally elected government...); People complaining about the "bad" Bush economy as they sell their $900,000+ homes. People screaming about how President Bush is a "murderer" and equating him with Hitler. Hitler...my god, have these people no freaking clue as to how absolutely idiotic and disgusting they are being? Or is it just me?

Am I so wrong to think that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in charge of anything (except maybe whether or not Tiger Claw beats paper)? Yes, it's bad that people died. But what if we hadn't done anything? As the phrase goes "Hindisight is twenty / twenty", but don't be fooled. Iraq wasn't the paradise that Micheal Moore and his ilk would have you believe. Oh sure, if you were one of Saddam's cronies you might have it better than everyone else, but heaven help you if you crossed him or his evil sons. He and his bloody regime killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, but I guess the people of Iraq were happy under that kind of totalitarian regime right? I mean, they didn't rise up or anything. And if they did...well, they didn't win so that must mean something right? "But what about the WMD's! Bush lied! People died!" Clue: More politicians than President Bush said that Saddam had WMD's and that he was a threat. You can't revise history or un-ring a bell.

Am I so wrong to think that Osama bin Laden, his ilk and their insane idiology shouldn't be "understood" or "related-to" except in so much as it takes to find them, task a missile or drop a stick and file a BDA?

Am I so wrong to think that Yassar Arafat was just a thug in a suit who somehow was able to morph from a sleazy terrorist into a Noble prize winning "head of state" who double dealt at every opportunity, stole billions from the Palestinians while they live in "slums", and is far more responsible for the suffering of the Palestinian people than Israel is or ever was?

Am I so wrong for not believing BIRFEB?

Am I so wrong for having honest, scientific questions about Global Warming?

Am I so wrong for believing that all of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights should apply and not just the one's that the hippies like (for now...just wait till they get a Cuban style government in control).

Am I so wrong to believe that guns don't kill people, but that people kill people (an object at rest tends to remain at rest...)

I am tired of arguing against idiocy. I am tired of being equated with Nazi's. I am tired of being told that my viewpoint doesn't matter. I am tired of being called / considered a "right-winger", a "Zionist", a "Christian fundamentalist" (ticket for the clue bus for you folks: I don't even go to church, and haven't been to one in decades). In any other part of the country I would be considerate extermely moderate to liberal even, but here I am the fucking devil and that warrants people feeling free to belittle me, my viewpoints and hurl derogatory insults at me.

I support a womans right to an abortion (I just think that women should be better educated to the risks and that abortion shouldn't be used as birth control (and don't freaking tell me that they aren't)) .

I support gay rights (I don't give a shit what two consenting adults do in the bedroom.). But I do believe that with rights comes responsiblity (unlike the domestic partners law in California) and I would also request that the gay community respect the religious peoples viewpoint while they are demanding that the religious people respect gay culture. It's a two-way fucking street.

I believe in peace, goodwill towards men and everything else that the "peaceniks" in the Bay Area say they believe in (except for the communism crap, Castro is just another thug and Che Guevera was his bully boy). I just don't want to get stabbed in the fucking back while singing Kumbyah. No matter how many times some peacenik says "I love you, I understand you and I respect you" to a terrorist, it's not going to stop that terrorist from killing him. The same thing goes for dictators. Fuck 'em. Kill 'em all. Yep, I believe in freedom...for EVERYONE. Totalitarian dictatorships are an affront to all that the peaceniks say they believe in, but the hippies just don't get it. They can't believe that they really honestly and truely do live in the most free country on the planet and that those people in third-world dictatorships don't like being oppressed and shit on. Castro's Cuba is NOT the heaven on earth that they would have you believe. If it were, then why do people build boats out of trucks to try and leave?

De Oppresso Liber, "To Free the Oppressed" is a motto that I like and strongly support and believe in*

Maybe that's why I have been so strongly considering leaving the City I grew up in and heading for greener pastures, to liberate myself from the idiocy and hypocrisy, to free myself from the need to tilt at windmills.

I don't like being Don Quixote.

*Note: I am not claiming to be nor have I ever been in or associated with the U.S. Army Special Forces. I just really like the phrase, the ideology it represents and support and respect the "quiet professionals" who have it as their motto.

Local blogger doesn't like the Blue Angels...other local blogger mocks him

2005-11-10T19:46:00.000-08:00

As presented by another "unbiased" linking by The Bay Area is Talking:

Local blogger "SFMike" claims to want to "politely disinvite" the Blue Angels from performing in the annual Fleet Week airshow. SFMike claims to want to be polite, but a careful (or hell, not so careful) read of his words and prior posts shows his true feelings.

It's sad that a city with such a HUGE Navy history is just pissing it away with attitudes like the above blogger. Ya know what sunshine? The frigging HIGHLIGHT of the year in San Francisco is now limited to the Blue Angels.

SFMike's other posts read like a litany of moonbat talking points, just one example should be enough for you:

"They have been carrying out this vigil since October 2001 when the insane people in the federal government and in the mainstream press decided it was a good idea to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 disaster." [emphasis added]

Can't even call it a terrorist attack can you Mike? Let me guess, those people in New York probably deserved it in your mind didn't they?

Happy 230th Birthday Marine Corps!

2005-11-10T19:26:00.000-08:00

HEADQUARTERS MARINE CORPS, Washington - On Nov. 10, Marines will celebrate the 230th birthday of the Marine Corps. It is a time of reflection to honor the Marines that have served, fought in every clime and place and the Marines today that carry on the tradition of the Corps.Photo by: Sgt. Leo A. Salinas

Semper Fi

GoDaddy.com 2005 Birthday Message

Stupid San Franciscans Romp

2005-11-08T23:40:00.000-08:00

Well done San Francisco! You've passed Proposition H. Never mind that there are no statistics to back up the claims that it will lower crime (in fact, Washington D.C. and Chicago, the only other cities with handgun bans have some of the highest murder rates in the country!), nor will it stop criminals from getting guns (how many of you honestly think criminals go buy legal guns, wait for a background check and waiting period and only then go out and commit crimes?) but as the piece de resistance, you don't even know what the penalty will be in April when handguns become illegal!

That's right folks, currently the law says that the Board of Supervisors will come up with a penalty at some point. So it could be a slap on the wrist (no, wait, this isn't prostitution, drug crime or you know a real crime) but will more than likely be massive fines and possible jail time.
Hell, they charge you $250 to smoke a cigarette in the park for goodness sake. Using your Second Amendment rights has gotta be worth at least a couple of grand and six months in the pokey right?

I like the selective enforcement and belief in the Constitution as well. Decry your civil liberties being impugned (although there is no evidence of it) but take away another Constitutional right and claim it's for "safety."

I am going to have to move out of the City. I fear that its stupidity is contagious.

Democrats "Romp?"

2005-11-08T22:41:00.000-08:00

Think someone should tell MSNBC that holding onto two states that were already run by Democrats hardly counts as a "romp?"

I just call's 'em like I see's 'em

2005-11-06T13:26:00.000-08:00

From today's SFGate.com

Is Warren Beatty practicing for his possible future career?

The Vatican and Evolution

2005-11-06T10:14:00.000-08:00

"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."
-Cardinal Paul Poupard
Pontifical Council for Culture

A truly fascinating (albeit short) report from the Science, Theology and Ontological Quest 2005 Conference on Yahoo news delivered that little gem above along with:

"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."
-Monsignor Gianfranco Basti
Director, STOQ

I think I might register to receive the conference proceedings as the speakers and lecture subjects look very interesting:

Infinity in Science and Faith.
Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, Israel Institute for Talmudic Pubblications Israel.

Infinity as Simplification
Juan Maldacena , IAS- Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, USA.

The Measurements of the Universe Age and their Significance
George V. Coyne, Director of the Vatican Observatory, Vatican.

Infinity, Contingency, and God: Between Cosmology and Theology.
Bishop Józef M. Zycinski, Arcibishop of Lublin, Poland.

Pirates attack cruise ship

2005-11-05T18:15:00.000-08:00

There's been a rising tide of piracy off Somalia recently, but this has got to be a new one:

Pirates attack cruise ship

Blogs, the speed of dis-information, and possible repercussions

2005-11-05T09:54:00.000-08:00

Over at Joi Ito's blog, Thomas Crampton (a supposed news professional with the International Herald Tribune) has posted a link to an Afrik.com story. The posting reads:

"Here's a home video clip a friend sent that claims to show Paris police shooting in the suburbs. Fairly strong stuff.
Disclaimer: I do not know anything further about the site or the clip."

Well, maybe you should have actually done some research on the site / clip before just blindly passing it on eh?

If one actually takes the time to read the article and translates it to English (or reads it in French, your choice) one finds that the video showing "...Paris police shooting in the suburbs" is video of the police shooting rubber bullets at protestors in the suburbs: [poorly translated text via Altavista, but the words "flash ball" are in English in the original article]

"One sees a stopped police car there open door. One believes to guess qu’un police receives a projectile. The response is immediate. One clearly sees there policemen in plain clothes drawing on several occasions, of which twice almost with bearing end, with their flash ball. One sees them running after the young people while shouting 'Return band of bastard ! '"

"Some of the rubber balls are even signed, explains Kader. There is a guy who in recovered one which carried l’inscription : ’Boum, boom in your buttocks, with soon, Luc’."

A small, but critical piece of information. Why is it critical? Because unless you tell the truth and point out that they are rubber bullets people will assume that they are shooting live ammunition at protestors. Specifically the article says "flash ball" which is the weapon that French police use most often seeing as how actual gun usage is severly restricted in France. Here's information about the "Flash-Ball".

"Oh, you're being facetious! No one would think that!" Really? Look at a site that links to Joi Ito's site and their commentary:

"Just above that post, Thomas Crampton, joi’s guest blogger, links a website where there s show a video of Paris Police shooting on protesters"
Lulop.org

Notice how the story, like in a game of Telephone, has morphed from "claims to show Paris police shooting in the suburbs" to "a video of Paris police shooting on protestors" a small change typographically, but a massive change in meaning. This posting implies that the Paris police were shooting live ammunition at protestors. Considering the current situation in Paris, this kind of disinformation, if picked up, amplified and rebroadcast, could have the same effect as throwing gasoline on a fire.

These sorts of dis-information "mistakes" occur daily. How many people out there for example have heard the oft repeated tale of President Bush and the "plastic turkey?" Odd thing is that it was an erroneous report from the New York Times that was retracted the next day. However, like all dis-information, it gets stuck in certain areas and repeated over and over again until it is considered "fact." Then, since momentum has been built on this "fact", no matter how hard one argues against it, the story is glued to the societal concious. Since your average person is no longer taught to view items critically (nor really taught the scientific method, thanks liberal education!) they are easily persuaded that white is black because enough websites and blogs say so. They aren't trained to seek the source of information and verify it.

While this case is probably just one of journalistic oversight (notice, I am being very forgiving), one would hope that people would do more research on such items in the future.

How did I miss this? BIRFEB!

2005-11-03T21:39:00.000-08:00

Trodwell, that outstandingly intelligent and funny fellow North of the Border has posted details about BIRFEB

Bush
Is
Responsible
For
Everything
Bad

Gotta love it.

More violent "peace" protests

2005-11-02T21:25:00.000-08:00

"Peace" activists protested today in the latest communist backed "protest" against President Bush. The "peace" protestors then turned violent (sur-freaking-prise) and threw Molotov cocktails in San Francisco.

Ya know, the supposed "peace" movement is one of the more violent groups I have seen in this country. Personally I think the hypocrisy that these groups show is so astoundingly obvious that I seriously wonder about the intelligence level of their average member.

So Supervisors Ammiano, Daly, Speaker Yee, Assemblyman Leno you're all "Endorsers" of this march, right? So, you endorse firebombs, violence and assaults on police officers?

It's good to see our elected officials backing the call from the Revolutionary Communist Party isn't it? The RCP is such an open, peace loving, accepting, wholesome group who would never commit a crime or advocate violence right? The fact that their leaders are hiding out in France, fleeing a federal warrant I'm sure is just oppression from the "capitalist pigs" right?

From World Can't Wait's "FAQ"

"...there are people in "World Can't Wait" who are working for everything from
impeachment to communist revolution"

Q: But aren't there communists in World Can't Wait?
A: Yeah, there are. Supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party helped initiate it.

Yeah, don't worry about those communists kid, they're really just cool slackers like you. Ok Joe? What? Communism and communist "revolutions" account for millions of deaths, the oppression of liberty and the subjegation of millions? Naw bro, that's just lies "the man" told you

And the quote of the day:

Q: But it's not fascism yet, is it?
A: No it's not. But what's your point?

We'll tell you what to believe and when to believe it kid. Get used to it, it's the communist way.

War Debate "Resurrected"?

2005-10-29T09:01:00.000-07:00

From SFGate's Front Page this morning:

War Debate Resurrected

The allegations lodged against Lewis "Scooter" Libby by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (pictured) will likely renew questions about the Bush administration's justification for the Iraq war.

I'm sorry, but just when did the Liberaleliti ever stop "questioning" the war in Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter?) I think the only lack of questioning that I have heard is a lack of questioning stories that allege mistreatment of prisoners (what? you mean some of those turned out to be totally bogus?), a lack of questioning the true motives of groups like al Qaeda (yeah, sure, it's all about religion), a lack of questioning their own leaders (do you really think that International A.N.S.W.E.R. is just a "peace" group and not a front group for communists? Really?) and a lack of questioning the reporting standards of the "mainstream" media (wait a second, the media gets it wrong a lot of times and is biased? No way man!).

Speaking of media lies and bias, Michelle Malkin reports on biased editing and spinning at the New York Times.

No bias here

2005-10-27T07:49:00.000-07:00

Dredges?

George Lied! People...

2005-10-25T21:48:00.000-07:00

...well, people didn't die or anything, but Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) says that George Galloway "...gave false and misleading testimony on his involvement with the U.N. Oil-for-Food program at the Subcommittee’s May 17, 2005 hearing entitled, “Oil-for-Influence: How Saddam Used Oil to Influence Politicians Under the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program.”

Mr. Galloway claims that if charged with perjury he will "...head for the airport right now and face them down in court as I faced them down in the Senate room"
I'd be careful making those claims Mr. Galloway, I mean, it's federal perjury after all if true. I find Mr. Galloways statements interesting seeing as how Senator Coleman claims he "...personally sent Galloway a letter requesting an interview, and offered to fly staff to London in order to conduct the interview. Mr. Galloway declined both offers, and instead, offered to respond to written questions. Galloway denied any involvement whatsoever in any Oil-for-Food transaction in his written responses. "

Hmmm. Curious...George?

A review of Brian Shields' first VJ gig

2005-10-25T21:23:00.000-07:00

Brian Shields of The Bay Area is Talking has produced his very first VJ assignment. I was going to post this review as a comment on TBAiT, but I've realized that I haven't posted anything in a while and others seem to have noticed (ya know, I do actually read the comments at TBAiT ya bunch of degenerate hippies (Of course I am just joking... about reading the comments, you're all degenerate hippies (since I am apparently a representative of the "right-wing" and all I figure I should starting fitting the part ;) )

On with the review:

Not a bad piece. The framing on the EFF attorney (Bankston) was a little tight in my opinion and he kept leaving the top of the frame. Also, the screen shots of the childs toy microscope were kind of pointless, they didn't bring anything to the scene after the first shot and with no explanation of the content it was just random noise.

As for the choice of story; I agree with Xerox. It's much ado about nothing. Who really cares that there might be a [turn on 1940's serial reverb effect] "SECRET CODE" in someones poorly cribbed copy of the communist manifesto? Wouldn't that fit more with the whole "The GOVERNMENT is trying to suppress you and steal your soul (er, privacy)" mentality of groups like EFF et al?

I believe the EFF would complain about people having eyes if they thought it could garner more attention for them. (of course now I am probably going to get sued by the EFF for commenting or something. Viva la Constitution! Viva la First Amendment!)

Update: Hippies can't write code:
Pinging http://www.kronnews.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/901
Problem: Server said 'This TrackBack item is disabled.'

Democracy In Action: Iraqi's Probe "unusually high 'yes' count"

2005-10-17T19:36:00.000-07:00

As pointed out in the (biased as hell) SFGate, the Iraqi election commission is investigating what some are calling an "...'unusually high' numbers of 'yes' votes in about a dozen provinces..."

Strange how the MSM make a big point of possible voting irregularities in a free country, but they didn't say much when Saddam would get 99.96% or 100% of the vote.

I applaud the Iraqi people for investigating their voting practices.

Also, while researching this I found this amazing quote on the BBC from 1999 with the lead in of the article being "US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein"[emphasis added]:

"There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbours"

-Al Gore, 2000

"We would not have inva ded a country that didn't attack us..."
Al Gore, 2005

Which one is it Mr. Gore?

I guess had you won the election in 2000 we wouldn't have "attacked a dictator who brutalises his people and threatens his neighbors while preventing peace in the Middle East?"

Or would we have just assassinated Saddam? Or just let some sort of proxy fight in our place? Kill Saddam but try to keep our hands clean eh?

Tilting at Windmills

2005-10-16T10:15:00.000-07:00

"In some area of San Francisco, whose name I do not care to recall, there dwelt not so long ago a gentleman of the type wont to keep an unused lance, an old shield, a greyhound for racing, and a skinny old horse"

I think my Sancho Panza analog and I need to go to Altamont Pass. There is just so much pessimism, idiocy and downright lying that goes on amongst the Liberaleliti here in San Francisco that I have to wonder if it isn't something in the water to which I, and a very few others, are immune.

One simply has to read the pages at The Bay Area Is Talking or the SFGate (a startling representative of the "free media") to realize that one is truely fighting a horde of Liberaleliti who chant their mantras loud enough and long enough to get the rest of the masses sympathetically tapping their feet and mumbling their agreement because they can't hear anything else.

Orator: The Iraqi Government is invalid and has no support!
Crowd: Truely it is so
[Never mind the 8,000,000 people who voted for it in January]

Orator: The Bushies are always lying to you and everything they do is scripted
Crowd: Truely it is so
[Never mind that one of the soldiers actually involved discounts this completely]

Orator: The Turkey in Baghdad was plastic
Crowd: Truely it is so
[Never mind that just about every newspaper printed a retraction to that story]

Orator: Iraq never did anything to harm us and therefore our attacking Iraq was evil and wrong!
Crowd: Truely it is so
[Never mind that technically Germany and Hitler never attacked us either]

Orator: Iraq was a peaceful country that never attacked anyone!
Crowd: Truely it is so
[Never mind that the attack on Iraq in 2003 was really just an extension of the original "Gulf War" in 1991 when Iraq "annexed" the nation of Kuwait and as per the terms of the cease-fire agreed to complete and absolute inspections by the United Nations, complete disarmament and cessation of hostilites. Terms of the cease fire that Iraq immediately broke and violated in both act and spirit]

Orator: The United States is responsible for more terrorism than anyone else!
Crowd: Truely it is so
[Do I even need to rebut this craziness?]

The list goes on and on, each day a new "orator of the masses" chants the mantra of the day.

I think I'll go saddle up the horses

Yes, I know, but things change

2005-10-02T11:03:00.000-07:00

I know that I said that I would post more about the AWOL officers in New Orleans, but things change and it's now been too long since I originally posted the article to make much difference.

Suffiice it to say that about the only reason I could think to go AWOL would be that your family was in mortal danger, even then, the officers should have had the forsight to have evacuated their families before the storm.

Nearly 15% of NOPD was AWOL during / after Katrina

2005-09-27T07:40:00.000-07:00

This according to a New Orleans Times-Picayune article: NOPD says 249 officers were AWOL after Katrina.

Apparently Chief Compass is going to establish tribunals to "...distinguish out-and-out deserters from those who had compelling reasons to be AWOL"

I will post more on this later, but let's just say that I can only think of one or two "compelling reasons" to be AWOL.

But that would mean the media was lying about post-Katrina New Orleans!

2005-09-26T05:47:00.000-07:00

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports that the supposedly rampant killing, raping, maiming and violence in post-Katrina New Orleans was, summed up eloquently by a National Guard soldier, "99% bull****".

Apparently there were a total of six (6) dead in the Superdome. Four of natural causes, one overdose and one suicide. Not the mass killings and rapings and such that Mayor Nagin and Chief Compass reported.

"After five days managing near-riots, medical horrors and unspeakable living conditions inside the Superdome, Louisiana National Guard Col. Thomas Beron prepared to hand over the dead to representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.Following days of internationally reported killings, rapes and gang violence inside the Dome, the doctor from FEMA - Beron doesn't remember his name - came prepared for a grisly scene: He brought a refrigerated 18-wheeler and three doctors to process bodies."I've got a report of 200 bodies in the Dome," Beron recalls the doctor saying.The real total was six, Beron said."

And the "bodies piled high" at the convention center? A total of four.

"At the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, just four bodies were recovered, despites reports of corpses piled inside the building. Only one of the dead appeared to have been slain, said health and law enforcement officials."

This is not to say that some bad crap may have happened, but that the media, in it's normal "if it bleeds it leads" style did *NO* investigation and just reported rumours and stories. Apparently stories that were widely reported as fact were in point of fact, stories.

Let's see if the media corrects itself shall we?

[Edited @19:40 hrs to correct typo. "bodes" changed to "bodies"]

How to write a biased media article 101 (You listening Brian?)

2005-09-25T18:20:00.000-07:00

SFGate.com (a.k.a. The San Francisco Chronicle) is running a piece titled (by SFGate) "Pro-War And Anti-Sheehan" about the recent "Families United For Our Troops And Their Mission" rally in Washington D.C. The piece is not so subtly biased (I mean, the SFGate title alone shows the slant), but let's break it down:

1) In the first paragraph, talk about how few people were there, make a reference to the large number of people at the "anti-war" rally the day before:

"Support for U.S. troops fighting abroad mixed with anger toward anti-war demonstrators at home as hundreds of people, far fewer than organizers had expected, rallied Sunday on the National Mall just a day after tens of thousands protested against the war in Iraq."

2) At every opportunity, mention Cindy Sheehan and her message (disguise it as backgrounder information) also mention the other protest...bump up the attendance numbers this time though:

"Many demonstrators focused their ire at Cindy Sheehan, the California woman whose protest near President Bush's Texas home last summer galvanized the anti-war movement. Sheehan was among the speakers at Saturday's rally near the Washington Monument on the western part of the mall, an event that attracted an estimated 100,000 people."

3) Quote someone who was at the rally, but only one sentence of what they said...but mention Cindy Sheehan again first:

"Melody Vigna, 44, of Linden, Calif., said she wants nothing to do with Sheehan and others at nearby Camp Casey, an anti-war site set up to honor her son, Casey, who was killed in Iraq.
'Our troops are over there fighting for our rights, and if she was in one of those ountries she would not be able to do that,' Vigna said."

3) Now mention one of the speakers and refer to her as "one of the many military wives who spoke during the rally", don't mention the parents, siblings and spouses of fallen troops who also spoke at the rally and who were countering Sheehans statements and claims:

"The husband of Sherri Francescon, 24, of Camp Lejeune, N.C., serves in the Marine Corps in Iraq. One of the many military wives who spoke during the rally, Francescon said that the anti-war demonstration had left her frustrated.
'I know how much my husband does and how hard he works, and I feel like they don't even recognize that and give him the respect he deserves,' Francescon said. 'I want him to know and I want his unit to know that America is behind them, Cindy doesn't speak for us, and that we believe in what they are doing.'"

4) Mention again how small the rally was:

"Organizers of Sunday's demonstration acknowledged that their rally would be much smaller than the anti-war protest but had hoped that as many as 20,000 people would turn out."

5) Mention the "anti-war" protest from the day before...again...and use some glowing praise this time:

"On Saturday, demonstrators opposed to the war in Iraq surged past the White House in the largest anti-war protest in the nation's capital since the U.S. invasion. The rally stretched through the night, a marathon of music, speechmaking and dissent on the mall."

6) Just to make sure everyone believes that only a small percentage of people could possibly be in support of the troops and their mission, mention some "national polls"...but only provide data about one...and don't actually link to it or anything (not that I can either, AP/Ipsos charges for their polls, unfortunately yours truly is not considered a member of the media so I can't get them for free either), don't talk about the margin of error or the sample size (not that most Americans are taught basic statistics anymore (thanks liberal education system!):

"National polls have found steadily declining support for the war in Iraq, with a majority of Americans now believing the war was a mistake.In an AP-Ipsos
poll this month, only 37 percent approved or leaned toward approval of how Bush has handled the situation in Iraq; strong disapproval outweighed strong approval
by 2-1, 46 percent to 22 percent."

7) Just to make sure your message gets out there, provide links to websites for more information...you know, sites about the groups that were in the rally. What? International ANSWER wasn't in the rally nor mentioned in the article? Pishaw! Provide a link anyway! Don't forget to link to Cindy Sheehan as well! Just to present "objectivity" give the actual organizers of the rally a link as well...just put it last after the other two who have nothing to do with the rally.

"On the Net:
ANSWER Coalition:
Gold Star Families for Peace:
Families
United for our Troops:
http://www.answercoalition.org/
http://www.gsfp.org/
http://www.unitedforourtroops.com/"

See Brian, that's a classic example of not so subtle media bias. Let's debate that a bit shall we? Not that I expect you'll mention this posting on TBAIT

Oops, Brian, a wee bit of bias showing?

2005-09-15T20:05:00.000-07:00

Brian Shields over at The Bay Area is Talking might have let slip a tad bit of bias with this one:

"...within the context of trying to define good and bad news coming from the US Occupation..."

oc·cu·pa·tion
Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

Sorry Brian, but unless I am completely mistaken the "occupation" ended when the Iraqi people elected their government and became sovereign on January 30th of this year. Technically we're visiting forces at this point. And before we argue semantics, let me point out that capitalizing the word "occupation" in the middle of a sentence gives it an air of a proper title rather than an action therefore further biasing the sentence.

Bad reporting or biased? SFGate report doesn't understand how the government works

2005-09-15T08:03:00.000-07:00

They are just coming out of the woodwork today. Biased or uninformed? Cecilia M. Vega (apparently very important to get the "M" in the byline) reports in the San Francisoo Chronicle; "The Parish That Feds Overlooked" today about St. Bernard Parish and completely bungles it. Her slanted piece lays plenty of blame at the foot of the federal government (and one must assume President Bush), but illogically it contains plenty of information on who really had responsiblity.

"At first, the only rescuers on hand were the residents and officials of St. Bernard Parish. Two days after Katrina hit, a team of Canadian Mounties from Vancouver showed up to help, and a sprinkling of officials from neighboring parishes paid visits, but it would be days before there was any sign of assistance from the U.S. government.
'I'm saying, where's the Department of Defense?' said parish Sheriff Jack Stephens. 'The Canadians can show up, but the Department of Defense can't get to St. Bernard Parish?'"

The DOD does not have responsibility in this case. It was a matter of the Lousiana National Guard who were and still are (even right now) under the command of Governor Blanco.

"'It was the worst response to the worst catastrophe ever,' said Stephens, sitting in his department's new command post, a floating barge on the Mississippi that deputies commandeered because they had nowhere else to go. 'While all of this s -- is going on here, the Louisiana National Guard is right on the other side of the parish border, and they weren't here because they were evacuated.' "

See, Ms. Vega apparently knows that the Louisana National Guard has authority in this instance, but blames the federal goverment.

Bad reporting or biased reporting? I am going to vote both in this case.

Katrina Response: Brown blames state, but media turns it into condemnation of President

2005-09-15T08:00:00.000-07:00

Ok, maybe I am being a little sensitive to media reports on Katrina because I think they have been biased, but someone tell me I'm wrong here.

In an AP report on MSNBC.com titled "Brown blames state for flawed Katrina response" it is reported that:

"The former FEMA director who became a lightning rod for the sluggish federal response to Hurricane Katrina put the blame on state officials in an interview with the New York Times newspaper

Within hours of Katrina’s attack [hurricanes actually plot and 'attack' us? Ed.] on New Orleans Michael Brown said he told the White House that state officials couldn’t get their act together. 'I can't get a unified command established,' he said he told Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and a White House official."

Pretty clear right? Micheal Brown said that the State of Louisiana was dropping the ball and couldn't get it together. Ahh, but wait a second...

"His account suggested the White House knew right away that the storm was leaving the coast in shambles."

WTF? Well, it's a synopsis right? I mean, they might have jumbled it a bit, right? I mean, that's not really editorializing his words right?

Read the NY Times version of the story. [Regisitration possibly required]

"He focused much of his criticism on Governor Blanco, contrasting what he described as her confused response with far more agile mobilizations in Mississippi and Alabama, as well as in Florida during last year's hurricanes."

...

"Mr. Brown's version of events raises questions about whether the White House and Mr. Chertoff acted aggressively enough in the response. New Orleans convulsed in looting and violence after the hurricane, and troops did not arrive in force to restore order until five days later."

Either the New York Times hasn't done it's homework about the National Guard and the fact that we are a federal republic (under which the National Guard is controlled by the state government (in this case, Governor Blanco)) or they are just out and out writing biased, editorialized "news".

The rest of the article continues on in a similar vein, they accurately report (well, I assume accurately, I mean, I wasn't there) what Mr. Brown says but then throw in a little jibe about the federal government response.

Fascinating New Orleans Slide Show

2005-09-11T17:43:00.000-07:00

This fascinating slide show of New Orleans before and after Katrina presents an amazing record of the disaster.

What I find really stunning is the pictures of the city before and after the levee broke. Just how calm and collected everyone seemed and then...wildness.

Source: LGF

Where were you Senator?

2005-09-08T23:20:00.000-07:00

Senator Harry Reid (D - Nevada) has requested to waste the time of Congress investigating "How much time did the president spend dealing with this emerging crisis while he was on vacation?"

Let me ask a counter question Senator: Where were you on August 30th / 31st? According to the Senate schedule, you (and all the other Senators) have been off work since August 1st. In fact, the House was off doing "Summer District Work" from August 1st through September 2nd. Did your lengthy four week vacation have any effect on the federal response? What were you working on during your time off Senator? While I understand you had a medical issue and I do hope you are recovering well it doesn't excuse your complaining about the President taking time off when you (and the rest of Congress) were doing the exact same thing.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Senator.

Are those really buses flooded out in New Orleans?

2005-09-08T07:31:00.000-07:00

Well, decide for yourself. A commentor stated that they looked like "16 wheeler trucks". As I replied to them, "16 wheeler trucks" wouldn't be parked like that as you wouldn't be able to manuever them. If that were an aerial shot of a container yard, then I would be more cautious in my claim that they are buses. However, the location is 2817 Canal Street... a.k.a. the RTA A. Phillip Randolph Facility [Note: Link is to the "Wayback Machine" on archive.org as the RTA site is still offline.] which makes it exceedingly likely they are buses.

[ed note: I modified the last sentence to make it a little more clear]

"There is no such thing as an objective point of view"

2005-09-06T11:12:00.000-07:00

This is a statement relayed via The Bay Area Is Talking in regards to media bias and I couldn't agree more.
What there certainly is though is an objective way of reporting the news and that is to be free of a "point of view" or to at least represent a "neutral point of view." Unfortunately what most of the media have fallen victim to is the need to spice up the news by presenting it from a particular viewpoint in order to add "depth" or "human interest" to the story. The "mainstream media" has fallen victim to the concept of news as entertainment, rather than news as information.

Let's look at the "headline" on MSNBC.com for today, Sept. 6th, 2005: [The image might change throughout the day but I hope it won't]

Notice the headline "It's Going To Be Awful", superimposed over flooding and fire. Granted, Mayor Nagin's statements are important, however, taking some of the darkest statements and using those as your "lead in" implies a leaning towards the famous "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality of the media. There are very few stories presenting the "good" that local, state and federal agencies are doing, but plenty of stories on the "bad."

Why is the media biased, or at least, why is there a perception of media bias? Could it be that the "point of view" of the media is slanted towards a particular viewpoint? Studies have pointed to various political affiliations / beliefs that seem prevelant in the media, but does this affect their reporting? It depends on your point of view.

I will be posting more about this later today.

An Odd Little Test for The Bay Area Is Talking

2005-09-05T23:36:00.000-07:00

Hi Brian

Are these more buses that could have been used to evacuate New Orleans?

2005-09-05T13:26:00.000-07:00

Are these more buses that Mayor Nagin could have used to evacuate New Orleans?

Oh yeah, here's a pulled back shot. Notice the Superdome down at the bottom of the frame.

Chip Johnson makes claims of racism in Katrina response...but points the finger at the wrong people

2005-09-05T12:16:00.000-07:00

Chip Johnson makes some very confusing claims in the San Francisco Chronicle today. He makes claims against the federal government and echoes statements and sentiments by Barabara Lee, stating that she was "...right on in her description of the New Orleans situation."

"If anyone ever doubted that there were two Americas, this disaster has made this division clear,'' she said in a statement. "Is this an example of the administration's idea of homeland security? If so, we are in trouble.''
-Representative Barbara Lee, D-California

But presents information that is to the contrary to that opinion as it lays the blame (rightly in large part) on the local and state government. For example:

"The Category 4 hurricane ripped through the Gulf Coast on Monday, leveled buildings, ripped oil rigs from their moorings and collapsed some of the levees that had protected the below-sea-level Dixieland city from flooding.
When the levees broke, about 80 percent of the city was submerged and the scene on the streets quickly descended into chaos. Local officials directed stranded residents to the Louisiana Superdome, only to discover there were no emergency supplies to handle the crush of humanity. By Thursday, an estimated 25,000 people had gathered in the stadium -- many languishing, some dying. "

Notice that Mr. Johnson is apparently very aware that local officials directed people to the Superdome (of course he has the timeline more than just a little off, Mayor Nagin directed people to the Superdome before Katrina struck and told people to bring food, water and blankets.) but he implies that it's a federal problem.

Mr. Johnson continues:
"Federal officials have said that the vast flooding in the city has slowed the pace of the rescue efforts, and apparently the city's own hurricane preparedness was just woeful."
At least Mr.Johnson admits that the "city's own hurricane preparedness was just woeful", however the overall slant of his piece is that the federal government is to blame somehow.
As I've discussed before, the local and state governments are the "first responders." It is up to them to bridge the gap until the feds can step in.

Mr. Johnson appears to be aware that the local and state governments are hugely to blame but seems to gloss over it in his willingness to lay blame on the President and to cry racism.
Why is it that the media is so willing to place blame on the federal response (and by extension or directly President Bush) but not examine the many failures of the local and state government. Is it because Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco are Democrats?

Why did Mayor Nagin take so long to order an evacuation when the New Orleans emergency plan calls for an evacuation 72 hours in advance? Why didn't Mayor Nagin use the various school and municipal busses that were available to him (and are now lying flooded in New Orleans?)? Why didn't Governor Blanco activate the multi-state mutual aid program before Wednesday? Why didn't Governor Blanco send in more National Guard troops before Friday?

Why isn't the MEDIA asking these questions?

Wait a second

2005-09-04T18:48:00.000-07:00

Ok, so the Washington Post states that Governor Blanco had not declared a state of emergency as of Saturday. However, what is this?

"http://gov.louisiana.gov/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=973"

Is there a difference in states of emergency? Meaning, is there a different state of emergency requirement for the state and federal level? Or are wae looking at a difference in timelines? Meaning, was the Washington Post article referring to Saturday September 3rd? Or Saturday August 27th? I mean, I know the 27th date makes no sense, seeing as how the "state of emergency" was declared on the 26th, but I am trying to be fair.

More failure on the part of the Louisiana state government?

2005-09-04T18:24:00.000-07:00

CNN.com has an article about a "state-of-the-art mobile hospital" that has been kept out of action in New Orleans due to red-tape.

"The North Carolina mobile hospital stranded in Mississippi was developed through the Office of Homeland Security after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. With capacity for 113 beds, it is designed to handle disasters and mass casualties.
Equipment includes ultrasound, digital radiology, satellite Internet, and a full pharmacy, enabling doctors to do most types of surgery in the field, including open-chest and abdominal operations.
It travels in a convoy that includes two 53-foot trailers, which as of Sunday afternoon was parked on a gravel lot 70 miles north of New Orleans because Louisiana officials for several days would not let them deploy to the flooded city..."

Someone needs to seriously investigate what the state of Louisiana (and Governor Blanco) was doing / thinking during this whole process.

Well thank goodness someone else noticed

2005-09-04T00:10:00.000-07:00

via LGF:

Buried in the Washington Post

"Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.

The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request. "Quite frankly, if they'd been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals," said the source, who does not have the authority to speak publicly.
A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.
Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said.
"The federal government stands ready to work with state and local officials to secure New Orleans and the state of Louisiana," White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said. "The president will not let any form of bureaucracy get in the way of protecting the citizens of Louisiana."
Blanco made two moves Saturday that protected her independence from the federal government: She created a philanthropic fund for the state's victims and hired James Lee Witt, Federal Emergency Management Agency director in the Clinton administration, to advise her on the relief effort."

Newsweek needs a civics lesson

2005-09-03T23:16:00.000-07:00

Newsweek has published "WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY" by Eleanor Clift titled "A Colossal Failure of Leadership" in which she proceeds to make a mangled mish mash of history and responsiblity coming to the decision that the problems in New Orleans are all President Bush's fault (sound familiar?) . It's a colossal failure in reporting and fact checking, but an amazing success in partisan politics. Bravo.

Let's start:

"But this was a moment for national leadership, and nobody rose to take charge
the way Giuliani did in New York."

You're right. Mayor Nagin, the Rudy Guilliani equivalent in New Orleans didn't step up to the plate the way Giuliani did. Notice how you blame President Bush ("national leadership") but give credit to Giuliani, a local mayor. Why don't you blame Nagin? Oh, right. He's a democrat.

"Things were so bad “you almost wonder if Donald Rumsfeld is in charge,” said
Marshall Wittmann, an analyst with the Democratic Leadership Council. "

Ah, yes, include pointless politcal rhetoric soundbite from the Democrats. Always critical when discussing an important issue.

"One third of the National Guard from the affected states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama are in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they’re the ones trained to perform the police functions that restore civil order. Instead of declaring a national emergency and deploying the military from all those nearby Texas bases, Bush deployed his father and President Clinton for a photo op at the White House as a prelude to a fund-raising tour. "

Whoops. Someone didn't do there research before flying off the handle.
1) President Bush *did* declare the states of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana disaster zones...before Katrina hit. This enabled FEMA to act faster and begin to get funding. In fact, President Bush was pushing Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco to evacuate the city of New Orleans well before Nagin issued his evacuation order (48 hours after the New Orleans emergency plan said he should have)
2) The President does not control the National Guard troops unless he mobilizes them (here Ms. Clift, watch the slideshow). When he does that, they can no longer do the job that you wanted them to do (you're ambiguous "police functions") due to restrictions in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The only way that the National Guard can enforce civil law is if they remain under the command of their Governor (you know, Governor Blanco, the Democrat you described as "fighting to hold back tears. ") therefore it's Governor Blanco's fault that the troops weren't deployed.

You really ought to do your research a bit better before you launch your political hit pieces Ms. Clift, although I sincerely doubt you will.

The Guardian actually did some research?

2005-09-03T14:51:00.000-07:00

Wow. I mean, it's still slanted as hell, but they tried. It seems to imply that one should blame President Bush (big surprise) but (as you will see later) people should really be asking Governor Blanco what she was doing / thinking.

From the Guardian:

"Maj. Gen. Thomas Cutler, who leads the Michigan National Guard, said he anticipated a call for police units and started preparing them, but couldn't go until states in the hurricane zone asked them to come. 'We could have had people on the road Tuesday,' Cutler said. 'We have to wait and respond to their need.'"

"Bush had the legal authority to order the National Guard to the disaster area himself, as he did after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks . But the troops four years ago were deployed for national security protection, and presidents of both parties traditionally defer to governors to deploy their own National Guardsmen and request help from other states when it comes to natural disasters. "

That last quote is a little misleading. The President can't just "order the National Guard to the disaster area", and he didn't in the case of New York.

In order for the Guard to deploy under the Presidents orders, they have to be mobilized under USC Title 10 or Title 32 as this nifty little graphic from the National Guard Bureau slide show "The National Guard 101" clearly shows:

What this shows us is that Governor Blanco of Lousiana was the one who had the actual authority here.

This is so much the same arguement that I have made before about many people not understanding that the United States is a REPUBLIC and that the states are independent entities.

See, New Orleans didn't even provide food or blankets for people that...

2005-09-03T14:28:00.000-07:00

...their Mayor told to go to the shelters:

"He [Nagin] told those who had to move to the Superdome to come with enough food for several days and with blankets. He said it will be a very uncomfortable place and encouraged everybody who could to get out."

-Associated Press

(Hat tip: BlogCritics)

Democrats recommend using Katrina pain for political gain

2005-09-03T14:11:00.000-07:00

Some excerpts from democrats.org

"Use FEMA's disastrous behavior in N.O. TO ESTABLISH A PLATFORM RE: What DEMS do better...."

"Be sure to emphasize that Bush cut funding for items that would have increased their flooding prevention.
ALSO please please do not let our Governer Dean dare say as did Bill Clinton just now..."there is no way they could have known." Don't say it, it is a lie. We all knew it was crisis time. So please don't pander to Bush and say there is no way he could have known. Bush did not prepare and he cut FEMA. When Bill Clinton said that today, I wanted to scream. He should not have said that...it was a lie."

[emphasis added]

"Keep up the Discussions, peeps. Use this, use Gas prices, Use Cindy Sheehan, "What noble cause"."

Ok, maybe I'm harping...

2005-09-03T08:07:00.000-07:00

...but Mayor Nagin's comments really ticked me off. Why? Because of things like this:

"Katrina's threat was so acute that President Bush joined the chorus of officials who urged New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco to order a mandatory evacuation, issued Sunday morning after lower-lying areas outside the city were cleared Saturday."
...
"Leon Moore, 55, the left side of his body paralyzed for the past 12 years because of a stroke, pulled his weathered red truck up to the Superdome and angrily decried Mayor Nagin. "The mayor of the city didn't make preparations for the handicapped," he said.

The criticisms of Nagin came from above as well. Numerous officials urged him to evacuate the city, but he worried about the legality of ordering people out when New Orleans has few safe hurricane shelters for them to evacuate to.
Also, National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield in Miami called Nagin at home Saturday night and told him: Get people out of New Orleans.

-Contra Costa Times, August 29th, 2005

Update: Almost forgot about this:

Those are probably Mayor Nagin's "500 buses" that he demanded that federal government send him. Odd how they are already in New Orleans and hadn't been pre-positioned in an area that they wouldn't get flooded out.

New Orleans municipal government continues to get a free pass

2005-09-02T21:22:00.000-07:00

The Chronicle's "Culture Blog" has posted the radio interview that Mayor Nagin of New Orleans gave to WWL radio. From the rest of the linkages posted in and around it, I have to assume that they (SFGate / The Chronicle) support the story that the slow response was due to race and not simpler things like engineering difficulties, the unexpected breakage of the levees and New Orleans own piss-poor disaster planning.

In the posting they link to a Neva Chronin article where she continues to echo the misstatements and half truths that have so far characterized this disaster. Amongst them:

"Which brings us around to the real criminals in this scenario. Forget the looters. New Orleans' levees have been at the breaking point for a long time now. The federal government knew this, but deflected money meant for repairs to fund the war in Iraq. This is its interpretation of "homeland security." Behold the consequences. "

Except Neva that the Army Corps of Engineers says that they (the levees) were never designed to withstand a category 4 hurricane and would have failed no matter what. Or that President Clinton also cut levee funding for New Orleans, stating that it was a "local" not a federal problem.

She also quotes a "Lousiana resident from BoingBoing.net" as saying "The planners knew full well that the poor, who in New Orleans are overwhelmingly black, wouldn't be able to get out. The resources -- meaning the political will -- weren't there to get them out." "

The "planners" in this case would be...Mayor Ray Nagin and his administration.

Update: Odd how SFGate posts the interview with Mayor Nagin from last night...but ignores these comments Mayor Nagin made today:

"Nagin said Bush was "very serious" and "very engaging" during his time in
New Orleans. "He was brutally honest. He wanted to know the truth," Nagin
said. "... And we talked turkey. I think we're in a good spot now.""

And the race card continues to be played

2005-09-02T21:00:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it, Kanye West, appearing on NBC's "Concert for Hurricane Relief" made a number of political statements, most notably: "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

Nicely done Kanye. You've taken a neutral, apolitical fund raiser and turned it into a political soap box to raise unsupported racial bias claims. Well done.

Update: Satellite Candy has a video

How insane is Huffington...

2005-09-02T19:42:00.000-07:00

...or at least her posters?
According to Randall Robinson on "The Huffington Post":
"It is reported that black hurricane victims in New Orleans have begun eating corpses to survive. "

No citation of course, nothing to back up this audacious claim.

No news agency (even the crackpots via news.google.com) is reporting that.

But Huffington allows it on her "blog".

I call BS on the whole thing and shame on Huffington and Robinson.

New Orleans and FEMA

2005-09-02T07:22:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to jot down a quick thought / rant. Why are people so quick to bash the federal government for the failings of the municipal government of New Orleans? The New Orleans city government is the one primarily responsible for the city of New Orleans no? Why is Mayor Nagin so quick to condemn the feds when his OWN forces are so obviously failing?

I am sure that some people are going to say "Oh but it's FEMA's responsiblity!" How so? The NOPD can't respond to criminal acts? Well, based on crime statistics for New Orleans they can't even without a hurricane. It has one of the highest crime rates in the country normally, the murder rate is ten times the national average. New Orleans has chronic budget problems, an apathetic populace and lies in a tenuous position (it's below sea level after all).

FEMA is responding to at least three states. In some of these states entires towns have completely disappeared. There is massive damage across the Gulf states and tens of thousands of refugees. But FEMA is supposed to concentrate all of its resources on New Orleans?

"Oh but Bush cut funding to the levee programs that would have prevented this disaster!" How exactly? The funding would have what? Magically strengthened levees designed to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane to protect against a Cat 4 / 5? The funding that was cut to the SELA projects would have gone to areas that WERE NOT AFFECTED BY THE HURRICANE and the flooding was unavoidable. Therefore logic dictates that the funding cuts had nothing to do with this situation.

Try telling that to Mayor Nagin of New Orleans though. His city screwed up, pure and simple. He issued an evacuation warning (good), the city set up "shelters of last resort" (good), the city didn't plan on the possiblity of the levee's breaking (even though they weren't designed to withstand a Cat 4 hurricane), Bad. The city didn't lay in emergency supplies for the people at the "shelters of last resort", Bad. The Superdome (a "shelter of last resort") filled up and the city of New Orleans told people to go to the convention center...and didn't provide them with food or water or tell FEMA that they were there (very very very bad).

Now Mayor Nagin is blaming the feds. Obviously when the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller it's the feds fault that the city can't manage themselves.

Update: Wellsie wellsie, looks like someone found the dirty laundry about flood control monies for New Orleans. Eu Rota points out that federal funds for New Orleans Corps projects were cut numerous times by the Clinton administration

Lack of background information or trying to downplay U.S. involvement?

2005-08-15T10:27:00.000-07:00

In an article about an attack by terrorists on Canadian members of the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO), (who were described as "very lightly injured" before you accuse me of not caring) the Chronicle (via the AP) had the following line:

Canada has about 30 soldiers in the force, which also has members from the United States and nine ohter[sic] nations.

"also has members" is a bit of an understatement seeing as how the United States supplies about 700 personnel to the mission and is the largest contingent in the MFO. The Colombians supply over 350 and the Royal Fijian Military provides another 350 or so. The smallest would probably be the Norwegians (3) or the French (one airplane + crew).

The stuff that crime reports are made of...

2005-08-14T22:51:00.000-07:00

Monday, August 1, 3:13 AM, Possession of Methamphetamine for Sale, Auto Burglary Arrest:

"What’s in the bag?" Paulsen asked.
"Marijuana," said the suspect.
"Fine. If it’s marijuana, it’s no big deal. Hand it over."
"No," the suspect rejoined, and tried to find a spot for the bag under the passenger seat. The man’s behavior bordered on the absurd. He wasn’t going anywhere. The officers had probable cause for arrest, and the jackanapes was telling him, "no." Moreover the passenger compartment was lit up like a surgical table, Kennedy was poised to grab the contraband, and the guy was playing "hide the button."

"Ok," Paulsen says wearily, "get out of the car."

While I find the whole "...marijuana, it's no big deal..." to be very telling about the SFPD and San Francisco in general, I still love the Northern Station Weekly Newsletter. Northern Station, rather than be boring (or non-existent, yes, I am looking at you Central) with their newsletter, spiced it up a bit. Rumor has it that they've got a pro doing their writing, although I suspect we've just got a Dashiell Hammett fan (something I can admire). Either way, Bravo!

Omar Bakri arrested in Lebanon

2005-08-11T07:03:00.000-07:00

[Details are sketchy at this time and subject to change]
Congratulations and a hearty "well done!" to the free people of Lebanon for arresting Omar Bakri. Omar Bakri, as you will recall, is the imam who incited violence and hatred in London and then fled to Lebanon after the U.K. started talking about deporting / arresting such inciters. He is known for stating things like he wouldn't report to the police anyone that he knew was going to commit a bombing attack and calling the four terrorists who killed fifty-two people on July 21st the "fantastic four."

Apparently he slipped into Lebanon on a Lebanese passport...there's only one problem: He's not Lebanese. He's Syrian and was apparently issued his passport by the old Syrian controlled government of Lebanon.

SBC Sucks

2005-08-06T16:02:00.000-07:00

One week so far without DSL.

Testing ComCast cable modem right now...seems pretty good.

Hear that SBC? That's the sound of you losing a long term customer.

Michael Yon has a new dispatch up

2005-07-30T09:29:00.000-07:00

Michael Yon introduces us to some new Americans

Mourning and Solidarity

2005-07-29T19:50:00.000-07:00