June 2006 Archives

Via AP/Yahoo:

The government announced Thursday that a person officials would not identify had turned in the laptop and external drive, which were stolen from a VA data analyst on May 3. The FBI said an initial review determined that the contents had not been accessed or copied.

This turns yesterday's good news in to today's very good news. While issues surrounding privacy and computer security urgently need addressing, the most immediate concern should be the welfare of the veterans affected by the theft. The FBI is conducting additional forensic testing of the computer, but a gut read of this suggests high confidence that the data wasn't used, else the FBI would have deferred making a statement until deeper tests had been performed.

VA Secretary Jim Nicholson isn't off the hook, though. While disaster may have been avoided, the fact remains that improper handling of personal data caused a situation that could have been much worse. The recovery of the laptop should not in any way reduce the sense of urgency to investigate the causes and take corrective action.

Friday. And a big holiday weekend on the horizon, too.

Via CNN:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has recovered the stolen laptop computer containing sensitive data for up to 26.5 million veterans and military personnel, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson announced Thursday.

Nicholson also said there have been no reports of identity theft since the May 3 burglary at the Maryland home of an agency employee.

"There is reason to be optimistic," he told reporters just before the start of another in a series of hearings Congress has had on one of the worst breaches of information security.

"It's a very positive note in this very tragic incident," Nicholson said.

Nicholson offered no immediate details on how the laptop was recovered.

This is indeed very good news. Assuming the database wasn't copied, the chances that veterans will suffer identity theft have diminished greatly.

As I said last night, there are still questions to be answered as to whether this was a single individual disobeying rules or an institutional failure. The hearings should certainly continue in order to discover how best to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

The AP reports it has documents showing the permission level of the VA analyst in the stolen laptop case:

WASHINGTON - The Veterans Affairs worker faulted for losing veterans' personal information had permission to access millions of Social Security numbers on a laptop from home, agency documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

The story summarized the documents:

The documents show that the data analyst, whose name was being withheld, had approval as early as Sept. 5, 2002, to use special software at home that was designed to manipulate large amounts of data.

A separate agreement, dated Feb. 5, 2002, from the office of the assistant secretary for policy and planning, allowed the worker to access Social Security numbers for millions of veterans.

A third document, also issued in 2002, gave the analyst permission to take a laptop computer and accessories for work outside of the VA building.

"These data are protected under the Privacy Act," one document states. The analyst is the "lead programmer within the Policy Analysis Service and as such needs access to real Social Security numbers."

There's also going to be a hearing in the House tomorrow featuring the testimony of VA Secretary Jim Nicholson and others.

The piling on and upchanneling of blame is starting as well:

"The gross negligence in this case are the people above him," said Rep. Bob Filner (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., the acting top Democrat on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. "They gave him express permission to take the information home. When it was stolen, he reported it right away."

"They're trying to pin it on this one guy, but I think it's other people we need to be looking at," he said.

Meanwhile, President Bush requested funds to help the VA deal with the fallout:

Separately, the president asked in a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., for the $160.5 million to help the VA cover the costs of credit monitoring and fraud watch services.

The money would be taken from programs in the departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Labor, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs whose money would otherwise go unused or from programs previously set for elimination, according to Scott Milburn, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.

And the requisite bickering to go along with it:

Some Democrats said money to pay for veterans' protection should not come at the expense of other programs.

"It's outrageous to first expose millions of Americans to credit fraud and identity theft and then to try to cut food stamps, student loans, and youth programs to pay for it," said Sen. Patty Murray (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash. "This is a new problem that needs to be solved with new money."

The budget is fixed each year, and even discretionary funds get spoken for pretty quickly. Be afraid whenever a politician is looking for "new money". At least the rationale for the funds is a good one:

Nicholson told lawmakers this week that the money would cover monitoring for about half of the 17.5 million people whose Social Security numbers were compromised. He said it also would pay for out-of-pocket expenses ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 for those whose identities are stolen.

If there are any identities stolen - and so far, none have - this sounds like it would take care of all but the very worst cases.

Kinda makes you wonder how much the lawyers who brought suit have the troops' interests at heart - remember, they've blocked the VA from publicizing this assistance out of concern that it would diminish their award.

Additionally, from the descriptions of the documents the AP gives, I'm unconvinced that the unnamed worker had permission to take the personal data home with him, as the article suggests. The first document apparently deals with software - not data. The second gives permission to access social security numbers - something that would be necessary for work performed at the office, AP doesn't directly say that the permission extended to home in the document's description. And the third simply gives permission to take the laptop ouside the facility - something that would be required if he was subject to travel on department business. All three seem fairly ordinary.

My problem with AP's description is the lack of anything that looks like a smoking gun. The type of documents described above would be government forms or boilerplate letters, and very specific in scope. If any of the documents gave specific permission to take the live database home, why no quote?

Hopefully some of this will get clarified as the AP updates the story, or during the testimony in the House tomorrow. I'm still fairly angry about the situation, but not ready to assign blame until I learn more.

Via AP/Yahoo:

MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia's special services to hunt down and "destroy" the killers of four Russian diplomats in Iraq, the Kremlin said.

Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Federal Security Service — the main successor to the Soviet KGB — later said that everything would be done to ensure that the killers "do not escape from responsibility," the Interfax news agency reported.

"The president has ordered the special forces to take all necessary measures to find and destroy the criminals who killed Russian diplomats in Iraq," the Kremlin press service said in a brief statement.

This is good news - the terrorists in Iraq have historically received a different reaction from taking and/or killing non-US hostages.

Putin has a somewhat different intelligence footprint in Iraq stemming from a long involvement there, and they're chummy with some of the factions that have regarded us in a chilly fashion. If there's a minimum amout of coordination, it's likely that Russia's more active role in hunting down Al Qaeda in Iraq will benefit our mission as well.

This would be a terrific time for Condi and/or Bush to make a few phone calls.

One of the left talking points of late has been the notion that the NYT disclosure didn't harm national security because it didn't include the most intimate operational details of the program. Besides, they say, the terrorists aren't that dumb - they know we're trying to track the money flow of terrorism.

Damage to the program, however, needs to be assessed not in terms of what the terrorists knew or assumed prior to its disclosure. The real damage will be from decreased cooperation from the participants in the program.

Early this week, the administration was on the phone reassuring allies of the importance of keeping the program running. But now that the program is common knowledge, objectors are coming out in droves. In Belgium, SWIFT is under fire:

June 28 (Bloomberg) -- The Belgian government has ordered an investigation into the decision by Belgium-based cooperative Swift to provide bank-transfer data to the U.S. government as part of President George W. Bush's efforts to fight terrorism.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt's office said today it asked intelligence and security officials to determine ``if the interests of certain Belgian nationals were possibly affected and if Belgian law was respected.'' The office also said in today's e-mailed statement that it is trying to ascertain whether Belgian oversight needs ``adaptations.''

And as many as 32 governments are also being challenged by a UK based civil liberties group:

BRUSSELS, June 27 — A human rights group in London said today that it had lodged formal complaints in 32 countries against the Brussels-based banking consortium known as Swift, contending that it violated European and Asian data protection rules by providing the United States with confidential information about international money transfers.

Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said the organization filed the complaints in the hope of halting what it called "illegal transfers" of private information by Swift, whose full name is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications.

The complaints were filed in all 25 member nations of the European Union, plus Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Iceland. The group said it also filed a complaint in the semiautonomous Chinese territory of Hong Kong.

"Swift appears to have violated data protection rules in Europe by making these transfers without the consent of the individuals involved, and without the approval of European judicial or administrative authorities," Mr. Davies said. "The scale of the operation, involving millions of records, places this disclosure in the realm of a fishing exercise rather than a legally authorized investigation."

There can be no doubt that the result of all this activity will be reduced participation in and cooperation for US-led anti-terrorism intelligence efforts. That's the real nature of the damage.

Update: Captain Ed feels the program may be over. Could be, but I think it's a safe bet that if it continues it will no longer be of much use.

Yeah, and good morning to you, too.

But at least my internet problems are fixed.

For the curious - it's not a photoshop. That's really my coffee cup.

Here in northern Delaware, there's some sort of wide-spread problem with Comcast's cable internet service.

I'm able to get to a few web sites, but not many.

Since most of my posting depends on being able to link sources, this keeps me from posting much until it's fixed.

Thanks for your patience.

This revelation from Bill Keller as to who the White House supposedly asked to intervene on the lastest exposure of secret anti-terror programs.

Are you ready?

Jack Murtha.

Yeah, the one and only.

Keller insists that "not all of them urged us not to publish". Bryan at Hot Air deduces that Murtha was the odd man out.

If this is the case, Murtha has some big-time 'splainin to do. But don't count on the NYT to tell us - Keller doesn't mind publishing national security related secrets, but considers his conversation with Murtha to be confidential.

I've pretty much ignored the ministorm between Glenn Greenwald and a number of prominent bloggers on the right (Tom Maguire, Jeff Goldstein, The Commissar, and Glenn Reynolds. There's plenty of painfully wrong things said by Greenwald and his robotic minions at Unclaimed Territory, and harping on minutia only serves to distract from larger issues, like the star author of left blogosphere's disturbing views on the constitution and crime and punishment.

Well, apparently he was right about this one. I'll skip the obligatory colloquial adage about blind squirrels and suggest that he's entitled to bask a little.

But one really has to wonder if the fame is going to his head. After all, nothing says "I am going to do my best to avoid flamboyant displays of celebratory vindication and instead focus on what I think are the substantive issues illustrated by this episode" like a 2,319 word post including phrases like "they wallowed in an orgy of incestuous links to one another" and streching a disagreement about whether an email was fake into a wider rant about Bush:

It is that corrupt dynamic that explains how things are going really well in Iraq; how Saddam really did have WMDs when we invaded; how the chaos and anarchy in Iraq is the fault (and invention) of the news media; how Saddam personally participated in the 9/11 attacks; how terrorists did not know before the New York Times story in December, 2005 that we were trying to eavesdrop on their telephone calls; how terrorists did not know before this weekend that we were trying to monitor their bank transactions; how Bush is really popular and most of the country agrees with him and that data to the contrary is due to flawed and biased polls, etc.

And he manages to put in plugs for a book appearance and a book review for good measure. Classy.

From Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Cable operator Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq:CMCSA - news) said on Monday it fired an employee who was caught on camera sleeping on a customer's couch after the video clip was shared all over the Web.

The homeowner videotaped the technician, put it to music and shared it with the world on YouTube.

Man, that's cold.

I don't often quote entire articles, but this one is important to a lot of folks I know, and I have some questions that hopefully one of my readers who have legal experience could answer. Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - A federal judge temporarily has barred the government from publicizing its free credit monitoring offer to veterans whose personal data was stolen and wants to see if they might get a better federal offer.

Lawyers who have filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the 26.5 million veterans and active-duty troops affected contend that accepting the government's offer could jeopardize their chance of winning more money in the privacy suit.

U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman in Kentucky scheduled a hearing this Friday to determine whether the Veterans Affairs Department should revise its offer. His order on the credit monitoring was issued late last Friday.

The suit seeks free monitoring and other credit protection for an indefinite period as well as $1,000 in damages for each person — or up to $26.5 billion total — in what has become one of the nation's largest information security breaches.

Last week, the department announced its plan to offer free monitoring for a year to millions of veterans and nearly all active-duty military troops whose names, birthdates and Social Security numbers were stolen May 3 from a VA data analyst's home in suburban Maryland.

The department said it would send out letters to affected veterans and military personnel in early August — after it solicits bids from contractors — on how to sign up for the free service. It also posted information on the government's Web site.

But in court papers, lawyers for veterans said the VA's deal was "incomplete and misleading." The VA must make clear whether veterans who take the government deal will have to give up their rights in court to a potentially larger payout, lawyer Marc Mezibov wrote.

A spokesman for the VA did not have an immediate comment Sunday.

Last week, a Senate committee approved $160 million to pay for the credit monitoring for veterans. It is one of many expected payments as the government struggles with fallout from data breaches crossing at least six agencies.

The VA alone has spent more than $14 million so far to notify veterans by letter and set up a call center, and it is spending an additional $200,000 a day to maintain the call center.

Class-action suits filed by veterans alleging privacy violations are pending in Covington, Ky., and Washington, D.C.

OK, the questions:

The article doesn't say the VA is banned from helping, just publicizing it. Is that a typo? If not, what good does that do for anyone?

The lawyers are suing for cash plus credit monitoring. If the Gov't offers the credit monitoring, how does that hurt the case in any way? Or are the lawyers looking at the value of the monitoring as part of the basis for determining their fee?

By the way, here's the press release from the VA about the credit monitoring service. I see no hint of "veterans who take the government deal will have to give up their rights in court to a potentially larger payout" anywhere in there. From where are they getting this?

For what it's worth, I'm not very impressed by this suit in the first place. If my data (which was on the laptop that was stolen) is actually used for some criminal purpose, of course I want Uncle Sam to fix the damage. But so far there's no indication that the information is being used by anyone. Credit monitoring seems appropriate, and after enough time has passed to be reasonably sure that this was a non-event, will no longer necessary. Credit monitoring for life - essentially what they're asking for - seems expensive and unecessary.

The theft of the laptop alone doesn't seem to me enough to justify an award. Until my data is actually used in some way, I don't have a reason to sue anyone. Of course, once that happens, the damage may add up to much more than a grand. Will this class action prevent me from making a claim if that happens?

Unfortunately, I don't see that this suit benefits veterans in the least. If any vets experience real harm, this isn't going to be much help. For those that weren't harmed, at best it makes them unwitting accomplices to what appears to be yet another money grab from some opportunistic lawyers. What's the fee for this sort of thing - 30%? 40%? More? This looks like a retirement event for a few lawyers who fixed a problem that didn't exist and prevented future real problems from being addressed.

Anyone know the answers?

If you weren't aware, today marks 10 years since a truck filled with explosives was detonated outside the Khobar Towers dormitory in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Air Force Magazine (which I read regularly) has a very well written article marking the anniversary.

One of those killed that day was MSgt Ken Kitson. I worked with Ken (or "KK", as we called him) while I was stationed at Eglin AFB with the 33rd Fighter Wing. We both deployed to King Faisal Air Base near Tabuk, Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

I remember Ken for his good humor, his positive attitude, and the genuine concern he had for the people he worked with. As a natural and intuitive leader, he was respected and well-liked by all who had the good fortune to know him.

When I had a need for advice (or just to vent a little), I frequently sought Ken out. What I learned from Ken during that time has stuck with me over the years, and I consider that much of what I've accomplished since I owe in part to his mentorship.

Although I tried a couple of times, I've never felt that I properly thanked him for being a teacher and a friend.

Rest in peace, and God Bless You, Ken.

Other bloggers are noting this anniversary as well:

Cao's Blog
Capital Region People
Euphoric Reality
Right Voices
Strategic Outlook Institute
Michelle Malkin

Pottstown, PA - Gator lunges at man delivering newspapers

Lindenhurst, NY - Police capture gator on Long Island lawn

Would somebody please call Florida and let them know they left the gate open again?

Ick.

Earlier this month, I posted about how the arguments by the left simply don't hold water when applied to the debate about estate taxes. The repeal effort on the table at the time failed in the Senate, but the issue is back. Thursday the House passed a partial repeal - upping the exemption from its current 2 million to 5 for individuals and 10 million for couples. While this "lite" version is a mistake in that it still embraces inequality in the tax code, it's a step in the right direction and should make later efforts to repeal the death tax easier.

In my previous post, I discussed why the arguments of the left on this issue are based on deception. I saw a couple more examples raised earlier this week that further serve to illustrate my point. First, an unsigned editorial in the Washington Post gives the usual dishonest tripe so popular with many on the left:

LIKE THE GHOUL in the horror movie that refuses to die, estate tax repeal has returned from the grave to stalk the halls of Congress. Just two weeks after abolitionists failed in the Senate, they have regrouped behind a new bill that would achieve most of what they want -- not quite the elimination of the tax but its "reform" into insignificance. Like full repeal, this reform would expand the budget deficit and exacerbate inequality.

The deficit canard is the cornerstone of robotic liberal groupthink whenever government and money are discussed lately. In this case (as in most), it's being used dishonestly. The deficit does not exist because of tax cuts - the simple and irrefutable fact is that revenues have increased dramatically for the government in spite of (or more accurately, because of) the previous cuts. The deficit is a product of one thing and one thing only - irresponsible spending habits in Congress. Until this fact is recognized and addressed universally by both left and right alike, no serious deficit reduction is possible.

"Exacerbate inequality" - this one is rooted entirely in raw emotion and couldn't be more dishonest since it really doesn't have anything to do with fairness unless you're viewing it through the eyes of a six year old. "Timmy has a newer bicycle than me. It's not fair!" should not be the type of argument that mature people employ. Only a mortally flawed sense of fairness rooted in envy and greed view a progressive tax code as fair.

But what is fair? I have a friend that believes that if government costs 3 trillion to run, each of the 300 million people in the US should chip in ten grand, since all citizens benefit equally from the government's core responsibilities (common defense, domestic tranquility, etc). While it's hard not to appreciate the brutal simplicity of his argument, it's a model that doesn't take into account that a large portion of our population doesn't generate income, i.e., the very young and the very old being the largest groups to use as examples. So in recognition of this, we tax based on income. In such a system, fairness is also a simple concept if you can set aside greed and envy:

If I make 10 times more than you, I should pay 10 times the taxes.
If I make 100 times more than you, I should pay 100 times the taxes.

Seem fair? Not to the left, where childishness reigns. Add a "liberal" dose of covetousness, and "fair" suddenly becomes a grotesque caricature where an impaired syllogism views the following as just:

- You make 10 times more than I do, so you should pay 20 times more taxes.
- You make 100 times more than I do, so you should pay 400 times more taxes.

And it's just comical when applied to estate taxes:

- Your estate is worth 100 times more than mine, so I should pay no taxes, and you should pay 46%.

The truth is that fairness has nothing to do with the liberal views on taxation. Period. The Post article gives us a hint of why(emphasis mine):

The nation faces the expensive retirement of the baby boomers. It is grappling with rising inequality. Its prized social mobility may ultimately be threatened if the richest members of society are allowed to pass unlimited riches to their children.

I don't recall which part of the tax code addressed "social mobility". Can anyone help with a reference? This green-eyed phenomenon is even more plainly illustrated in a post I came across in FireDogLake yesterday. The author, Ian Welsh, should be lauded for his honesty in showing the true basis of the liberal view of taxes (I've included the bulk of the post so that context won't be an issue, only leaving out the graphs about income inequality and estate tax distribution. Please follow the link to see the graphs. Emphasis added.):

To summarize:

The top 1% pays 94.8% of all estate taxes.
The top 1/2 a percent pays 86.5% of all estate taxes
The top .1% pays 51.3% of all estate taxes

Most people will never be effected by the Estate Tax. Ever. But you will be effected if it’s repealed.

Here he shows clearly that the estate tax is unfair. Either 1% is being unfairly targeted, or 99% is skating out of their responsibilities. It's a point he misses altogether, though.

The general estimate of the cost of repeal is a trillion dollars a decade. A hundred billion a year. The government is already bleeding money, in both deficit and substantial debt. Any tax repeal - whether estate, or capital gains, or corporate taxes, wille eventually have to be made up (yes, the creditors will eventually want their money back.) Estate tax repeal will be paid for at some point, by the middle class. And by your children.

TANSTAAFL - There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. If you want a tax cut now, you pay for it later - with interest. If the rich want a tax cut now, the middle class will pay for it later, with interest.

This, as I pointed out before, is demonstrably false. Revenues have increased dramatically due to prior tax cuts, the problem is runaway spending. Fix that problem, and the middle class and children will be fine. By the way, 100 billion dollars a year, if correct (Not saying it isn't, but there are competing estimates of the effect of estate tax repeal) taken away from government control (where it would be badly mismanaged) and left in the private sector could create/sustain 3.2 million $15/hour jobs. Think the government would use the money even a fraction as well?

But I want to say something more about the estate tax.

There is no fairer tax. If it were up to me, it wouldn’t just be reinstated to it’s full 1999 level, it’d be increased to tax even more from the richest DEAD PEOPLE.

That’s right - dead people. By all means, let’s call it the death tax.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t expect to take it with me. I don’t think my money goes with me wherever it is I go when my heart stops beating. I don’t think I need money after I’m dead.

This has a morbid "They're dead! Quick, take the watches and wallets! No, leave the Timex - but get the Rolex from that guy over there!" quality to it that should offend anyone's sense of morals. If you think this isn't a popular view among the left, read the comments - Mr. Welsh gets lots of praise for his canonization of this grave-robbing mindset.

And I don’t think my heirs need more than a few million dollar head start over everyone else. Sure, if I ever have kids, I’d want to give them a head start, but I don’t deceive myself that they did anything to, like, deserve it, other than with the "lucky sperm contest".

Now we get to the heart of his argument. Jealousy. Greed. Envy. We should tax estates because the heirs don't deserve their inheritance. What I can't figure out: Why they don't display this level of contempt for the Kennedys?

Taxation is a zero sum game. You can take the money from dead people - who don’t need it or you can take it from living people who do need it.

Except heirs are living people, aren't they?

You can tax it from the kids of the rich, who did nothing to deserve it and who can probably make it on a few million from Daddy and Mummy; or you can tax it from people who actually earned it by the sweat of their own brow.

Moving from envy to hatred... They don't deserve it because Ian wasn't born lucky. Does arrogance trump aristocracy?

Oh, and those stories about people losing their family farms to the estate tax? Myth - no one has ever been able to find even one.

I'll agree with that one. Farms are indeed protected as far as I know. Now, about the medium-sized privately owned businesses...

The estate tax, the death tax, is about letting people have more money when they’re alive, and only taxing it when they’re dead.

And that, to me, makes it better than every other tax in existence.

Except you'd have more money if the government didn't tax the dead. Like it or don't, even Paris Hilton will use her money for your benefit. How? She'll spend it. She'll invest it. Every dollar that stays in the private sector helps improve the economy for all of us, increasing the chances that you or I will be able to induct our children into the "lucky sperm club". And the purpose of any tax should be to fund the government - not perform social engineering.

So forget estate tax repeal - let’s turn it around and increase the estate tax. Because dead people don’t need money, and living people do, and no matter how much rich people love their kids they didn’t do anything for the money, and a head start of a few million is enough for anyone.

But we're talking about fairness. And a twisted sense of fairness borne of contempt and envy isn't fair by any rational standards. A tax policy based on some masterbatory Robin Hood-ish fantasy is neither fair nor workable.

But government needs to be funded, right? So let's talk fair. Right and wrong do not change because of scale. If Paris Hilton doesn't deserve her inheritance because she didn't earn it, then equally do my children not deserve their comparatively meager one. An inheritance, if you believe it's unearned therefore undeserved, remains so whether it's 20 grand or 20 million.

So the fair answer is once again very simple. If you want to tax estates, then tax them all equally. No exceptions and the same rate for all, or my preference - tax none. Anything in between is counter to the principles upon which our republic was founded.

I say repeal the death tax. Then get to work bringing fairness and transparency to the rest of the tax code. That means eliminating regressive taxes that unfairly target the poor (like corporate taxes), and making every earned dollar look the same to each and every American.

In Vancouver, Washington, it's no longer a good idea to cruise for WiFi hotspots:

Wireless Freeloader Charged Because He Never Bought Coffee

A Vancouver, Wash. coffee shop tired of seeing a 20-year-old man mooch off their free wireless Internet access called the police, who charged him with "theft of services."

Brewed Awakenings employees dialed 911 after Alexander Eric Smith of Battle Ground, Wash. piggybacked off the shop's wireless Internet service for more than three months.

"He doesn't buy anything," Emily Pranger, the shop's manager, told KATU, a Portland, Ore. television station. "It's not right for him to come and use it."

Smith allegedly parked his truck in the parking lot to use Brewed Awakenings' wireless access.

County deputies charged Smith with theft of services after returning to the parking lot after they told him to stop. The crime, which covers such crimes as bypassing a utility meter, stealing cable, and leaving a restaurant without paying, has been used in the past to prosecute hackers who have accessed a computer or network without paying for it. "It's something that is borderline creepy," Pranger said to KATU.

The Clark County sheriff's office and its prosecutors are reviewing the case, the television station's Web site noted.

This was bound to happen sooner or later. Businesses offer wireless internet to attrack customers - it's not a gift.

However, it will be interesting to see if the creative charges hold. After all, the fellow was not taking up table space. In the end, it may have more to do with who owns the parking lot, and was it considered public.

Of course, ethically, the guy was dead wrong. He surely knows (or at least correctly assumed) that the coffee shop didn't welcome non-paying customers hooking up to their wireless, else he would have gone inside and sat at a table...

The NYT is exposing yet another classified program (H/T Polipundit):

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday.

The program is grounded in part on the president's emergency economic powers, Mr. Levey said, and multiple safeguards have been imposed to protect against any unwarranted searches of Americans' records.

Similar to other programs, expect the Democrats to start yelling loudly about this just before we find out that a number of them had been briefed and raised no objection.

Will Feingold dust off his resolution calling for Congress to ignore Article III of the Constitution?

I'll have more on this later. But in the meantime, I've started the countdown for the reflexive and robotic automatic declaration that it's illegal from the left blogosphere.

10... 9... 8...

Update (8:50am EST): First entry is this breathless headline at the Huffington Post: "Bank Data Secretly Reviewed By Bush Admin. Without Warrants Or Subpoenas..." - here's a screenshot:

Yet the NYT article that Arianna links to says subpoenas were indeed issued:

Indeed, the cooperative's executives voiced early concerns about legal and corporate liability, officials said, and the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control began issuing broad subpoenas for the cooperative's records related to terrorism. One official said the subpoenas were intended to give Swift some legal protection.

I suppose reading the article was too much to ask.

I was too tired to blog about this last night. Maybe a good thing, as the original story, which was kinda thin, has been updated several times:

MIAMI - Inside a city warehouse, authorities believe, a group was hatching the early stages of a widespread terror plot — one that targeted Chicago's Sears Tower, an FBI office in Miami and other U.S. buildings.

On Thursday, authorities swarmed the warehouse in Miami's Liberty City area, removed a metal door with a blowtorch and arrested seven people, a federal law enforcement official said. Authorities in Washington and Miami were expected to release more details in separate news conferences Friday morning.

I hope the news conferences fill some of the holes, because there seems to be conflicting stories about their makeup and motivation. First, there's this:

The law enforcement official told The Associated Press the seven were mainly Americans with no apparent ties to al-Qaida or other foreign terrorist organizations. He spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the news conferences.

But CNN quotes a different law enforcement official:

Law enforcement sources told CNN that some of the suspects are members of a radical Muslim group and that at least one had taken "an al Qaeda oath." They had carried out surveillance on the Sears Tower and FBI building in Miami, the sources said.

Then there's this from the AP story linked above:

Residents living near the warehouse said the men taken into custody described themselves as Muslims and had tried to recruit young people to join their group.

She said she talked to one of the men about a month ago. "They seemed brainwashed," she said. "They said they had given their lives to Allah."

But later in the story a supposed member of the group is quoted:

A man who called himself Brother Corey and claimed to be a member of the group told CNN late Thursday that the individuals worship at the building and call themselves the "Seas of David."

He dismissed any suggestion that the men were contemplating violence. "We are peaceful," he said. He added that the group studies the Bible and has "soldiers" in Chicago but is not a terrorist organization.

So until more light is shed on the situation we apparently have a group of Bible-studying Muslims who have no ties to a terrorist group they've pledged allegiance to.

This doesn't compute at all. Maybe I need more coffee...

I've seen lots of the reaction to the announcement from Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra about the chemical munitions shells.

The press is now starting to get the leaks from "anonymous sources" saying that the shells were of little use:

But intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.

They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.

While David Kay may be right about the sarin, he's completely incorrect about the mustard gas.

Mustard gas doesn't have to be lethal to be effective, as it's not used to kill. During World War I, the death rate among those exposed was only 5% - hardly a weapon you would depend on for its lethality. No, the doctrine for its use is based on causing widespread injury, which bogs down a military far more than deaths - a dead soldier takes out one combatant, a wounded soldier takes out two.

Mustard gas has a uniquely long persistance compared to other chemical agents. During the annual training I received while active duty, it was common to hear the story about a chemical warfare instructor during the 70's who dismantled a vintage gas mask to show some students how it was used. The mask had traces of mustard gas in it - the instructor wound up in the hospital by the end of the day with blisters on his hands and arms.

While the story may have attained the status of urban legend, there's no reason to doubt its basis in truth. In Europe, there's still occasional cases of mustard agent exposure reported in the media, usually from unexploded shells left over from World War I.

The point is that even in a degraded condition, it's possible that stockpiles of mustard gas shells could have been used to great effect.

That doesn't necessarily mean the 500 shells combine to make a smoking gun. As details come out in the coming weeks and months from official sources (rather than those that hide in the shadows), we may very well learn that the shells were degraded beyond being a viable threat. What will be more telling to me is any documentation that shows what the Iraqis believed. If they thought the shells were valuable assets and maintained them as such, it would be revealing as to why no new production was found. After all, why make more if you don't have to?

But this does add to the documentation and eyewitness reports already available showing that there was an ongoing desire by the Hussein regime to maintain and use WMDs.

That said, I'm afraid that even should enough evidence pile up to take away all doubts for those of us on the right, there will always be the robotic chanting of the dishonest "Bush lied" mantra from the left. After the years of repetition, their investment in this particular lie may be far too great for any amount of truth to overcome.

Anchoress finds an offbeat Folger's commercial, says it's growing on her. Ann Althouse gives it a thumbs up.

I don't know - maybe a little too cheerful for me. I do agree it's clever, though. I just wish they had hired Tim Burton to do it...

Apparently Andrew Bridges at AP wants military families to have more to worry about:

WASHINGTON - Families of veterans who die during a bird flu outbreak shouldn't count on burying their loved ones in any of the 120 national cemeteries. The Department of Veterans Affairs foresees closing the military graveyards in a pandemic because of staffing problems.

Later in the article, he alludes to the fact that if the scenario he's writing about occurs, there's going to be lots of very understandable shortages:

As much as 40 percent of the national work force could be off the job in a pandemic, according to federal estimates.

I would think it's a given that the VA would experience personnel shortages as well. The article could have been written to simply be informative, but Mr. Bridges apparently felt compelled to add some gratuitous gruesomeness:

During the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, the dead were sometimes buried in trenches, Fells said. Should another pandemic strike, it could take days to bury the dead, and perhaps only then in mass or temporary graves, he added.

**snip**

"If there's truly a catastrophic kind of thing — whether it be a bird flu pandemic or a massive, terrorist-instigated attack that would claim tens or hundreds of thousands of lives — a lot of that frankly involves bulldozers," said Mike Duggan, the American Legion's deputy director for national security and a Vietnam veteran.

**snip**

As for the dead, the VA said it may have to store bodies in refrigerated warehouses or trucks outfitted as temporary morgues.

**snip**

Those burials could stop or be put on hold during a pandemic, presumably even as the tally of dead surges, according to a VA plan that lays out how it will cope with an influenza outbreak.

I'm sure thousands of military families will feel comforted by this article, thanks to the "sensitivity" of Mr. Bridges and Associated Press.

Today promises to be another big day for Republicans as the Democrats attempt a repeat of last week's Iraq debate:

WASHINGTON - Fierce election-year debate on Iraq spilled over into a second week on Capitol Hill with Senate Democrats lining up behind a proposal to start U.S. troop withdrawals this year and Republicans chastising them for espousing a "cut-and-run" strategy.

The Republicans are standing firm, as they should:

"Let me be clear: Retreat is not a solution," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans."

Democrats seem to think that keeping our word to the Iraqi government is a bad idea for a very anti-liberal reason:

"The administration's policy to date, that we'll be there for as long as Iraq needs us, will result in Iraq's depending on us longer," said Levin, top-ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. "Three-and-a-half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent."

Would that they applied the same logic to their beloved entitlement programs here at home.

In a weird deja vu kind of way, Senator Kerry wants to ressurect his proposal from last week for yet another overwhelming defeat:

It would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving in place only U.S. troops essential to training Iraqi security forces, conducting counterterrorism operations and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities.

Also joining Kerry is Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold (who doesn't support the war but supports nearly 86% of the constitution). I guess they felt left out last week.

Ultimately, today's debate in the Senate should prove to be a positive for Republicans as Democrats line up once again to show their lack of resolve on security issues.

While as of yet unconfirmed, it appears that the missing soldiers may be dead:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The bodies of two U.S. soldiers have been found near where the men went missing, a senior Iraqi military official said Tuesday, but the U.S. military said it could not confirm the report.

Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed said the bodies of Army Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Army Pfc. Thomas Lowell Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore., were found on a street near a power plant in the town of Youssifiyah, just south of Baghdad.

U.S. Maj. Doug Powell said he could not confirm the report.

The soldiers came under attack Friday at a traffic checkpoint near Youssifiyah. A third soldier, Spc. David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass., was killed in the attack. All three were from the 101st Airborne Division based at Fort Campbell, Ky.

I'll update when confirmed. Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families.

Update (9:30am EST): Bodies show signs of torture:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An Iraqi military official said Tuesday that the bodies of two missing U.S. soldiers showed signs of torture, and that men appeared to have been killed "in a barbaric way." Also, the umbrella group for Iraqi insurgents claimed responsibility for the soldiers' deaths.

"We give the good news ... to the Islamic nation that we have carried God's verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders," said a statement in the name of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, which groups five insurgent organizations including al-Qaida in Iraq.

At a news briefing, U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell declined to identify the two men until their families could be notified.

That's what John Murtha said when he claimed that there was a coverup of the Haditha incident. The LA Times reports the Murtha was wrong:

Nothing in the report points to a "knowing cover-up" of the facts by the officers supervising the Marines involved in the November incident, the official said. Rather, he said, officers from the company level through the staff of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Baghdad failed to demand "a thorough explanation" of what happened in Haditha.

I will add the cautionary disclaimer that this is based on a leak from "an official close to the investigation". Accordingly, I'll hold my thoughts until it's official release.

In other news, Reuters reports another incident where three troops are being charged with murder. The details being released reflect badly on those charged:

The three soldiers are accused of deliberately allowing three men detained during a raid on a former chemical factory to flee so they would have an excuse to shoot them, said a defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Regardless, these men are entitled to a fair trial without the disgusting and celebratory prejudgement afforded the Marines in the Haditha incident. The military justice system works far better than Murtha or the press will lead you to believe.

I saw the headline yesterday about the violence in New Orleans, but it didn't seem worth commenting on. Apparently, Nagin has realized that his police force isn't enough and has asked for reinforcements:

NEW ORLEANS - Gov. Kathleen Blanco ordered National Guardsmen to help police patrol the city for the first time since Hurricane Katrina, following a bloody weekend that brought fears of crime disrupting the city's delicate reconstruction.

At Mayor Ray Nagin's request, Blanco ordered 100 troops — and committed to send 200 more soon — and 60 state police troopers to head to the city Tuesday to support the Police Department. Six people were killed over the weekend, including five teenagers in one incident.

"The situation is urgent," Blanco said. "Things like this should never happen, and I am going to do all I can to stop it."

Blanco said reinforcements would cycle in-and-out of the city. No deadline has been set for their mission, which did not require a special order because Louisiana is still under a state of emergency 10 months after Katrina hit on Aug. 29.

The violence itself is not unusual - New Orleans has a long history of such problems. But calling in the guard to assist is an unusual move for a city administration that also has a history - one of being slow to act.

You think Cindy Sheehan will decry Blanco's "occupation" of New Orleans?

Greenwald posts today about Glenn Reynolds and others who he perceives as "extremists" on the right. I don't want to comment on the back and forth between Reynolds and Greenwald, but instead want to focus on ideology. This caught my attention from the post (emphasis mine):

More importantly, it is incomparably beneficial to expose the extremist, dishonest underbelly of the pro-Bush movement. They have made great political strides by focusing as much as possible on easily disliked political figures on the Left who are susceptible to being depicted (rightly or wrongly) as extremists (Ward Churchill, Harry Belafonte, Michael Moore, etc.) and then turning them into illustrative symbols of Democrats generally.

Consider the apolitical blanket that Greenwald wraps himself in (at least according to his book reviews). Also, consider that Greenwald considers Howard Dean and Markos Moulitsas to be "perfectly mainstream".

I think it would be interesting to know: Which of the three mentioned in the quote above (Churchill, Belafonte, Moore) does he consider to be wrongly depicted as an extremist?

Just asking...

I'm sure over the course of this week there will be lots of pixels devoted to the shameful defeatist posturing of Rep. John Murtha yesterday on Meet the Press. Indeed, there already has. Today's Wall Street Journal has a terrific twofer on the politics of cut 'n run^TM and the war in general.

The first, Iraq and Congress, says of Murtha:

As for Mr. Murtha's proposal that U.S. forces should redeploy to some nearby part of the Middle East, this is merely a disguise for what everyone would understand was a defeat in Iraq. Anyone who doubts it should merely listen to Mr. Murtha, who said again yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press that "We can't win a war like this." It's more accurate to say that our troops have a harder time winning a war with political leaders as inconstant as Mr. Murtha, who voted to commit U.S. troops but now lacks the will to finish the job.

Certainly Rep. Murtha deserves the credit for being the loudest of those who would abandon Iraq and prove to the world that the United States can't be counted on to keep its word. And who could blame him? After all, what use is our integrity as a nation when the Majority Leader post is on the line? And the thrust of his message should not be mistaken by anyone, considering the ill-chosen comparison to Beirut or Somalia, both of which cost the US dearly by emboldening the ideology and strategy of Al-Qaeda.

It simply cannot be other than raw stupidity to repeatedly claim a need to "change directions" and offer only examples that abandoned friends and contributed greatly to 9/11. Murtha would have us take that route again, once and for all eliminating any measure of trust that might be placed in us by a nation in need.

But Murtha isn't alone - he has the backing of an opportunistic party so hell-bent on regaining power that they eagerly anticipate our nation's failure so that they can cynically sweep in and pick up the pieces. Nancy Pelosi referred to the war as a "grotesque mistake" recently. I wonder how the groups in Iraq most subject to the murderous whims of Saddam Hussein feel about the suggestion that their plight under Saddam was just fine by Nancy, and any attempt to liberate them was a "mistake"? Her political posturing fails to consider that the real mistakes have already been judged by history:

Most terrorism experts are agreed that the precipitous withdrawal from both places emboldened our enemies by convincing them the U.S. could always be made to back down in any conflict. Not repeating those mistakes may be reason enough to stay the course in Iraq.

It would be foolhardy to believe otherwise. Surrender in Iraq would be Al-Qaeda's greatest victory - not only would it embolden Bin Laden to plan more attacks, it would make his recruiting far easier.

Now Dianne Feinstein wants to followup the spectacular failure of the Kerry plan last week with a repeat of the surrender-based politics that have worked so well for the Democrats Republicans of late. Good. Let them bring it up every week if they want - right up to the mid-term elections. Let them ask the American people if our national integrity has any value at all.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An umbrella group that includes al-Qaida in Iraq claimed in a Web statement Monday that it had kidnapped two U.S. soldiers reported missing south of Baghdad. There was no immediate confirmation that the statement was credible, although it appeared on a Web site often used by al-Qaida-linked groups.

U.S. officials have said they were trying to confirm whether the missing soldiers were kidnapped.

If true, at least the missing soldiers are alive, and there's a chance of rescuing them. We're keeping our fingers crossed and praying for the best.

And I may or may not post much today depending on what TB and the kids have planned for me. All I know so far is that they created homemade Father's day cards, thanks to the fact that 4 year-olds have no sense of how far voices carry.

I hope all the Dad's out there have a terrific day!

Captain Ed reviews the latest version of the Democratic Party agenda. He notes what's dropped off the radar:

Does anyone notice what the Democrats did not have on their agenda yesterday? Not a mention was made about investigations into the Bush administration, which was central to the agenda they announced five weeks ago.

I'd add that there's not one word about raising taxes, a fundamental theme for the Dems.

They're also continuing to spin like tops on the economy, the war, and ethics - the truth on all of these topics expose them as horribly wrong. The economy is sound, and we're winning the war. Even though Nancy Pelosi would love to have you believe that they're the exclusive to the right, ethics problems are demonstrably non-partisan.

There's a lot of fear under the surface of the Dem's plan. Fear that if they run on what they really believe, they'll lose. And they've got more reason to fear in the upcoming mid-terms than ever.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - A grand jury declined Friday to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney in connection with a confrontation in which she admitted hitting a police officer who tried to stop her from entering a House office building.

The grand jury had been considering the case since shortly after the March 29 incident, which has led to much discussion on Capitol Hill about race and the conduct of lawmakers and the officers who protect them.

"We respect the decision of the grand jury in this difficult matter," said U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein.

I respect their decision too. That's the way our justice system works. Granted, McKinney is one of the nuttiest politicians around, and a major racist. But that doesn't mean she's guilty of a crime in this instance, regardless of how reprehensable her behaviour was in the aftermath. And apparently the grand jury thought that there wasn't enough evidence to charge her.

I'm sure there will be a lot of complaints that had she been a normal citizen she'd be in jail now. I can't say that 'cause I wasn't there. And there's been damned little in the way of disinterested eyewitness account to shed light on this. Sigh. If only there had been a video...

I expect there will be some interesting blogging about this. If I see some really good ones, I'll gather them here.

Update: Here they come...

Daily Kos: "It seems to me, this is only fair. Rove gets off. McKinney gets off." Huh? I'll go out on a limb and suggest that I may not find a dumber reaction.

Below the Beltway: "Hardly a shocker. This is the same jury pool that acquitted Marion Berry on two sets of felony charges and then reelected him twice." Good Point.

And the liberals are seething, claiming this to be a political stunt.

They don't look very happy, do they?

WASHINGTON - The House on Friday handily rejected a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, culminating a fiercely partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats feeling the public's apprehension about war and the onrushing midterm campaign season.

In a 256-153 vote that mirrored the position taken by the Senate earlier, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest.

**snip**

Democrats denounced the debate and vote as a politically motivated charade, and most, including Pelosi, voted against the measure.

It appears to me that Murtha and his pals are now mired in an intractable war. He was there for the wrong reasons and has mismanaged it terribly. Indeed, this is a war that he cannot win, and made worse by the fact that many in his own party don't support the cut 'n run^TM strategy and are apparently now engaged in a civil war within the Democratic Party. Maybe it's time for Murtha to re-deploy back to Pennsylvania.

Political stunt? You bet it was. Democrats have had free reign to run from channel to channel crying "Time frame! We need a time frame! Bring 'em home now!" while ducking the harder question of what it means to advocate abandoning those we've sworn to help. A long-running dishonest stunt by the Democrats for cheap political points.

They'll find it harder to earn those points now.

Or at least that's the plan (H/T Protein Wisdom):

Marine may call Murtha as witness

A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.

Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.

Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.

"Congressman Murtha will be one of the first witnesses I call to the witness stand," Mr. Puckett said yesterday.

Mr. Puckett represents Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, an eight-year Marine who was a key participant in the Haditha operations that resulted in the 24 civilian deaths.

I don't know if the claim of unlawful command influence will have any traction - but somebody in the command structure thought these Marines were guilty. And the choice of Murtha as a recipient of the leak shows malice as it should have been predictable what would be done with it.

But the fact is that we don't yet know what the truth is regarding Haditha. I'm hoping they're innocent, but recognize that it could go the way of those who hope that they're guilty. If you're reading this and saying "but I don't hope they're guilty - I just know they are" then you're being dishonest. You can't know any more than I can since the facts haven't all been revealed. Only a fool driven by more emotion than brains could reach a conclusion of innocence or guilt on the public facts as they currently stand.

So if you believe they're guilty, it's not fact, but hope alone that drives you, and I don't have it in me to even pity you.

Murtha has hope, too. Political gain seems like such a petty motive, doesn't it? But his reprehensable act cuts both ways - if there is something that the Marines should be brought to justice for, Murtha and his informant may have given them the tools to avoid it. If they're innocent, they'll never be able to remove the stain that's been smeared on them.

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how courageous and patriotic Murtha is - OK?

Update (5:00pm EST): Okay, okay - I had a change of heart on the drive home from work. "Patriotism" is overused nowadays anyway - just like "integrity". Both are terrific concepts, but the application of each changes dramatically depending on perspective.

So in all fairness, it's entirely possible that Murtha believes that selling out a few Marines to achieve his party's and his own objectives is beneficial to the country, therefore, patriotic. You know, kinda like that woman down in Texas who claimed that the only way to save her kids was to drown them. So, in that spirit, the last paragraph of this post is corrected to read:

That's not something to be proud of, folks. Why don't some of you "hopefuls" tell me again how Murtha did the right thing - OK?

There. I feel so much better now.

Via Washington Post

More ink equals more blood, claim two economists who say that newspaper coverage of terrorist incidents leads directly to more attacks.

It's a macabre example of win-win in what economists call a "common-interest game," say Bruno S. Frey of the University of Zurich and Dominic Rohner of Cambridge University.

"Both the media and terrorists benefit from terrorist incidents," their study contends. Terrorists get free publicity for themselves and their cause. The media, meanwhile, make money "as reports of terror attacks increase newspaper sales and the number of television viewers."

The researchers counted direct references to terrorism between 1998 and 2005 in the New York Times and Neue Zuercher Zeitung, a respected Swiss newspaper. They also collected data on terrorist attacks around the world during that period. Using a statistical procedure called the Granger Causality Test, they attempted to determine whether more coverage directly led to more attacks.

The results, they said, were unequivocal: Coverage caused more attacks, and attacks caused more coverage -- a mutually beneficial spiral of death that they say has increased because of a heightened interest in terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.

I'd like to see a similar study factoring in the anti-war statements by certain politicians and former presidents. The suggested fix:

One partial solution: Deny groups publicity by not publicly naming the attackers, Frey said. But won't they become known anyway through informal channels such as the Internet?

Not necessarily, Frey said. "Many experiences show us that in virtually all cases several groups claimed responsibility for a particular terrorist act. I would like the same rule that obtains within a country: Nobody can be called a criminal -- in our case a terrorist -- if this has not been established by a court of law."

I think being even more stupidly PC is not a good answer - the media already glorifies terrorists by refusing to call them what they are. Not naming the terrorist groups responsible might be a good start, though. I think short and unembelished coverage would help as well. "Terrorists killed XX people in an attack in the country of XXXXXX" without the usual 15 paragraphs of historical data (which often looks like a "greatest hits" collection), political analysis and quotes from anti-war politicians might help. Much of that stuff would be fine in a separate story.

Nothing, however, will ever completely sever the link between the media and terrorism. But more responsible coverage might serve to embolden the terrorists a little less.

Added thoughts: It occurred that someone might miscontrue my post as advocating censorship. Far from it - the extra analysis tacked on to every terrorist attack story is amply covered elsewhere and I'm not suggesting that coverage cease. I'd just like to see the acts of terrorism get a more matter-of-fact treatment. Publish all the other stuff separately, though.

Today's first sighting - AP:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon Thursday confirmed that 2,500 U.S. troops have died in the Iraq war since it began more than three years ago. The grim milestone was announced just hours before the House was to begin a symbolic election-year debate over the war, with Republicans rallying against calls by some Democrats to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

I take back the nice remarks.

Via AP/Yahoo, more indication of success in Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - American and Iraqi forces have carried out 452 raids since last week's killing of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 104 insurgents were killed during those actions, the U.S. military said Thursday.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said the raids were carried out nationwide and led to the discovery of 28 significant arms caches.

He said 255 of the raids were joint operations, while 143 were carried out by Iraqi forces alone. The raids also resulted in the captures of 759 "anti-Iraqi elements."

In other words, we're doing very well. I expect Murtha to make a statement soon congratulating our military's success. Don't you?

Update (10:00am EST): Meanwhile, AL-Reuters does it's best to put on a sunny spin on it for the left:

Military deaths in Iraq hit 2,500

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq has reached 2,500, the Pentagon said on Thursday, more than three years into a conflict that finds U.S.-led forces locked in a struggle with a resilient Sunni Arab insurgency.

If they hadn't included the above number, one could read the rest of the article and easily assume it was much higher.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's national security adviser said Thursday a "huge treasure" of documents and computer records was seized after the raid on terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout, giving the Iraqi government the upper hand in its fight against al-Qaida in Iraq.

National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie also said he believed the security situation in the country would improve enough to allow a large number of U.S.-led forces to leave Iraq by the end of this year, and a majority to depart by the end of next year. "And maybe the last soldier will leave Iraq by mid-2008," he said.

Al-Rubaie said a laptop, flashdrive and other documents were found in the debris after the airstrike that killed the al-Qaida in Iraq leader last week outside Baqouba, and more information has been uncovered in raids of other insurgent hideouts since then.

He called it a "huge treasure ... a huge amount of information."

When asked how he could be sure the information was authentic, al-Rubaie said "there is nothing more authentic than finding a thumbdrive in his pocket."

"We believe that this is the beginning of the end of al-Qaida in Iraq," al-Rubaie said, adding that the documents showed al-Qaida is in "pretty bad shape," politically and in terms of training, weapons and media.

"Now we have the upper hand," he said at a news conference in Baghdad. "We feel that we know their locations, the names of their leaders, their whereabouts, their movements, through the documents we found during the last few days."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, meanwhile, pressed forward with his initiative to crack down on violence in Baghdad. Government forces fanned out across Baghdad for a second day, setting up checkpoints and frisking motorists.

I discussed the potential cascade effect stemming from Zarqawi's death here, and it appears to be coming true. AP's reporting is a welcome change from their usual fare. While I hope they keep it up, the reality is that bad habits are difficult to break.

I wonder how the rest of the media will treat this?

This wound up flying under the radar due to other news:

DETROIT -- The Bush administration argued in U.S. District Court in Detroit on Monday that it cannot defend itself against accusations that a domestic spying program is illegal and unconstitutional because details of the program would be revealed, rendering it ineffective and jeopardizing national security.

"The president has decided that the program is necessary to protect and defend the United States of America against a terrorist attack by the al-Qaida network, which has already killed thousands of Americans," Anthony Coppolino, a lawyer for the Department of Justice said in the nation's first court hearing on the spying program.

"Without evidence that goes to the heart of the matter, the president's claims cannot be addressed."

The domestic surveillance program -- in which the National Security Agency taps telephone calls between United States and other countries -- is being challenged by a host of lawyers, academicians, journalists, advocates for civil liberties and Nazih Hassan, a Lebanese immigrant who lives in Ypsilanti. They all asked U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to order a halt to the spying.

One of the major issues is the "standing" required to bring suit. The ACLU lawyer, Ann Beeson:

Beeson said her clients have had to discontinue making or receiving overseas calls out of fear the government is intercepting private conversations protected by the First and Fourth amendments and other federal laws.

The problem the left has in this case is that they lack a victim - so they have to cynically argue that their clients "fear" the government. None of them can claim any direct harm. I see their argument as backwards. Sue the government with zero evidence, and demand a fishing expedition to force the government to prove they didn't do it.

Under that kind of reasoning, I should be able to sign on to any class action suit against a drug company over side effects. When asked for proof that I used the medication in question, I should be able to respond, "Make the drug company prove I didn't use it." It would also work for discrimination suits as well.

The next hearing is on July 10.

Further reflection (9:20am EST): It also seems that if these people "fear" their calls being intercepted, perhaps the NYT, DNC, and the ACLU itself deserve the blame. After all, the non-stop dishonest branding of the program as something that it's not (illegal widespead domestic spying with Americans as primary targets) by the ACLU, the media, and the left has been intended to instill fear for political gain.

I received an email from a famous PR guy at Edelman yesterday pointing me to this article in RealClearPolitics about how folks see the liberal war against Wal-Mart. An RT Strategies poll is cited:

By a 3-to-1 margin, 62% disapprove and only 21% approve of "Democratic candidates making Wal-Mart an issue in November's elections," in the RT Strategies poll conducted June 1-5 with a representative sample of 1,209 adults nationwide. The margin of error is + 2.7.

The data also appears to show that union members are generally unappreciative of leadership's expensive empire-building schemes. I agree with the conclusion:

A Democratic candidate echoing this line of attack would associate his or her campaign with something that people think makes no sense for labor union leaders to undertake, much less for politicians to endorse. Only 13% of all registered voters think this is the right priority for labor union leaders; only 17% of labor union households think their leaders have their priorities straight on this.

I suspect the folks at WakeUpWalMart.com won't be bookmarking this article.

Ann Coulter's new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Because I want to see what the fuss is all about.

On TB's nightstand: The Husband by Dean Koontz. Because... well, because she likes Dean Koontz.

Maybe we'll swap books next week.

The headline of this story drips of it:

Rove avoids being charged in CIA leak case

The text of the article says that the "ruthless" Rove "escaped" being charged. In her disappointment over the cancellation of Fitzmas, Jennifer Loven (the author of the piece) also makes this odd claim:

Still, the White House has not emerged entirely from the cloud of the CIA leak investigation. Cheney and Rove, along with other past and present administration aides, have been identified as possible witnesses when Libby goes on trial, probably in January.

If you're Rove, just being a witness at a trial is apparently a negative.

I recommend counselling.

Heard on the radio on the way to work, here's the confirmation...

Breaking - via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won't be charged with any crimes in the investigation into leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said Tuesday.

Attorney Robert Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed him of the decision on Monday, ending months of speculation about the fate of one of President Bush's closest advisers. Rove testified five times before a grand jury.

Fitzgerald has already secured a criminal indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove," Luskin said in a statement.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said. "We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Fitzgerald called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove. Rove had just gotten on a plane, so his lawyer and spokesman did not reach him until he had landed in Manchester, N.H., where he was to give a speech to state GOP officials.

Looks like lumps of coal in the fitzmas stockings. After all the praise the left heaped on Fitzgerald after the Scooter Libby indictment, it will be fun to see how they twist and turn to create conspiracy theories over this latest news.

This also blows yet another big hole in the left's "culture of corruption" meme - which has already been a disaster for them as their own laundry is none too clean. I expect the "culture of continuous accusation" to continue to no avail. Fact is, they have nothing else to offer.

Added: It'll take a lot of scrubbing to get all the egg off of Jason Leopold's face (H/T Jeff Goldstein)

Update (9:34am EST): Howard Dean is in serious denial:

"He doesn't belong in the White House. If the president valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago," said Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, speaking Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show. "So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but it's not very good news for America."

Update (9:50am EST): From the comment swamps at Huffington Post, where the crazed ones are in shock and disbelief, and are starting to pose conspiracy theories:

Fitzgerald may not have enough to prosecute him on perjury but the man still outed a CIA agent during a time of war and should be fired.

"All the time , money and fake investigation and "The Fitz" caves in to the White House pressure.

Just because they couldn't catch him this time does not mean he is not a dangerous man to the entire United States.

There is no God

He wasn't "cleared". He just wasn't indicted.

This is great news for the white trash assholes who still think this government is doing a helluva job. Dance your victory dance today. Keep up your white trash adulation of Rush and Ann Coulter. Enjoy the party.

At some point down the road there will be a nasty revolution when the masses begn to realize that us faggots and our marriage rights don't really mean much when the GOP has turned us into a total fascist state.

Enjoy the celebration today, Koolaid drinkers. But the party won't last forever. And this very evil man, Mr Rove, will one day get his reward.

These were off the first couple of pages, nearly 200 comments have been posted.

This is a very unhappy day for the left.

Update (5:00pm EST): Even Kos is displeased with Leopold:

...I hope this serves a lesson to all of you who link to crap internet sources like Jason Leopold merely because they write what you want to hear.

Sweet.

...get the message to a French publisher that stealing photos is unacceptable. It had appeared that they were going to do the right thing by Michael, but apparently they've crawfished on him.

Read this. Then follow the link at the bottom of the post to a page that lets you know how you can help.

I'll be there as well.

H/T InstaPundit.

Via AP/Yahoo:

CORVALLIS, Ore. - A main ingredient in beer may help prevent prostate cancer and enlargement, according to a new study. But researchers say don't rush out to stock the refrigerator because the ingredient is present in such small amounts that a person would have to drink more than 17 beers to benefit.

I know a few people for whom 17 beers in one day is no real hurdle. Of course, you'd need that much beer to wash down 47 grilled cheese sandwiches in one meal. Me, I don't drink very often and have a very low tolerance, but if it's for my health, I'm willing to learn.

So if I have a prescription, does that keep the bartender from cutting me off? And when is my insurance company going to add beer to the formulary (since it's now a preventative medicine)? I should be able to purchase 510 beers (1 month's supply) for my usual co-pay of $5.00 (or $15.00 for better brands).

Update (12 June 06, 9pm EST) Of course, some may risk cancer due to fears of cirrhosis of the liver - may I suggest Irish coffee?

Well, the autopsy report has been released - and there are no surprises:

Col. Steve Jones, command surgeon for Multinational Forces, said an autopsy concluded that al-Zarqawi died from serious injuries to his lungs. An FBI test positively identified al-Zarqawi's remains.

Of course, that won't stop the conspiracy nuts from making all sorts of wild claims. If I see an especially imaginative one I'll link to it later.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda has chosen a successor to Zarqawi:

"The shura council of al Qaeda in Iraq unanimously agreed on Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, to be a successor to Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," said a statement signed by al Qaeda and posted on a Web site frequently used by Islamist militants.

I assume they didn't release an org chart to go along with the announcement.

Today's Washington Post has the first instance of the accused in the Haditha incident speaking out. It's not a direct interview - the Marine's version of events is related through his attorney:

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

"It will forever be his position that everything they did that day was following their rules of engagement and to protect the lives of Marines," said Neal A. Puckett, who represents Wuterich in the ongoing investigations into the incident. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."

It's a long article with lots of detail, too much to quote here. But the alleged coverup is addressed as well:

After clearing the second house, Puckett said, Wuterich immediately got on the radio and reported the "collateral damage." When the company radio operator asked him to estimate how many civilians had been killed, he said he thought it was about 12 to 15.

McConnell, the company commander, "knew the number was high" and reported it to the battalion executive officer, a major, according to McDermott, his lawyer. McConnell also said that a Marine intelligence team investigated the civilian deaths and reported their findings to senior Marine commanders, the lawyer said.

Wuterich told his attorney that he never reported that the civilians in the houses were killed by the bomb blast and maintains that he never tried to obscure the fact that civilians had been killed in the raids. Whether Wuterich gave false information to his superiors is the focus of one of the military investigations. He said the platoon leader, who was on the scene, never expressed concern about the unit's actions and never tried to hide them.

I've been relatively silent about the investigation thus far. It's been obvious since the story broke that there were details not coming out in the press or in the irresponsible and opportunistic statements from politicians and pundits.

But the Post article should serve to remind us that there numerous voices to be heard. The insistance by some that this event equates to My Lai on the sparsest of data from a bias source serves no one, especially the individuals being accused. Our system of justice requires the presumption of innocence - it's truly unfortunate that as we've seen before, so many lack respect for that simple concept.

The Post should be commended for bringing the other side of the story to us. I hope that the rest of the media picks up the Marines' account defending their experiences in Haditha and gives them the same prominence given to less credible accounts of our troops' behaviour in Iraq.

There's a certain segment of the left where hypocrisy reigns unchecked. There's really no reconciliation of "support the troops by bringing them home" and complaints of our "worn-out, stressed-out, missionless troops in Iraq" who commit "everyday, unheralded horrors perpetrated on innocent Iraqi civilians". Any attempt to concatenate these conflicting views results in a logic-defying mess. More balanced coverage in the media at-large of Haditha won't change the minds of these people, nor will it affect Murtha and other politicians who have abused their public voice and the troops for political gain.

Nonetheless, the Marines and the American people are entitled to a fair accounting. And that's certainly not too much to ask of the news industry, is it?

We here at DGiTL have received tons of email lamenting that some our loyal readership were unable to participate in sea turtle season because it was on the west coast. Well, pout no more, because now there's an important special sporting event on the east coast! Starting in just a few weeks, may I present:

Manatee Season!

What's that? They're endangered? Not any more, according to AP/Yahoo:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - The state wildlife commission has voted to take the manatee off Florida's endangered species list, saying the animal's population is on the rebound.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to designate the manatee as a threatened species rather than endangered. It also voted to remove the bald eagle from its list of threatened species.

Yes, that's right - authorities have determined that the manatee's population has more than doubled in recent years. Avid deer hunters know what this means - if the herds don't get thinned out, we're headed for an environmental disaster of biblical proportions! So to prevent disease and starvation, it's up to us, the sportsman community, to help out.

Know Thine Enemy

One of the earth's oldest species, the manatee didn't represent a threat to man until Florida and the Carribean saw European settlers. Widespread shipping (and the occasional sunbather) rapidly became the targets of this vicious beast. As represented in the following eighteenth-century drawings, the manatee exacted a terrible toll from mariners:

A manatee bears down on a distressed ship

Manatees pick off the survivors of a sinking ship

A pair of manatees preparing to capsize a lifeboat

Manatees ceased being a significant threat to shipping upon the advent of steam ships, which were able to outrun the deadly creatures. Nowadays, manatees are just seen as an expensive nuisance - many a boat owner has cursed a ruined prop caused by the malicious and crafty creatures.

So Lets Go Fishing!

Well, not exactly. When Congress outlawed the use of beagles as bait in 1873, deep sea fishing techniques became ineffective for hunting manatees - they just won't strike at anything else. Fortunately, there are a variety of fun methods to bag the big one this summer, and I'll show you a couple of my favorites:

Spearfishing

Spearfishing is a fun way to combine scuba diving and snorkling with fishing. And todays' spearguns are every bit as powerful and accurate as they were when Lloyd Bridges popularized their use in the TV series "Sea Hunt" as shown in the left photo below. Later during the show's three year run (1958-1961), Lloyd changed to a machine gun (below right). However, we at DGiTL consider this to be unsporting and recommend the tried and true speargun instead.

Using the speargun is as easy as it is fun. In the following picture, Tim distracts the manatee while Larry (out of camera view) closes in for the kill:

Wrestling

Manatee wrestling is the most challenging method, but by far the most rewarding. Due to the size and strength of these dangerous animals, this is primarily a group sport. In the following photo, we see Jake applying a half-nelson as his buddies help out. A sizable crowd of hungry onlookers is on hand - they know there's going to be a beach party tonight!

Note the empty scabbard in the foreground. Once Jake is finished testing his mettle against this powerful beast, one of his pals is sure to apply a shiv between the ribs! Remember, hunters - a clean kill is a humane one. Always respect nature!

Don't Go Yet - There's A Surprise!

I know that by now you're iching to aim the Winnebago at Florida and fire up that grill, but wait - hunting is a family sport. And although the young 'uns can't wrestle a manatee, DGiTL has generously provided a way the kids can participate.

All kids love to draw and color, so here's a picture for them (click for larger printable version) to use their artistic skills with:

My own kids have already joined in on the excitment. My youngest lives for food and can't wait to take that first satisfying bite of manatee, so her drawing shows how she wants hers prepared (click for larger image):

My oldest is somewhat more civic-minded. Rather than show her own culinary fantasy, she chose to draw something that no sportsman should be without - a meat-cutting chart!

But wait, there's more! Scan your kids drawings and email them to DGiTL and we'll post them online. Imagine the pride in having your child's drawing about family food, fun and good times on the web for the whole world to see!

So keep them emails coming, and hunt safely!

Happy Hunting!

Linked with Wizbang!

I deleted a trackback today. No, not a trackback from Viagra or Free Porn, but one from a real blog.

I found it in the junk trackback tab a few days ago - but it was still fairly new. So I rescued it, and and checked the site it came from. Oddly, there was no corresponding link there. So I zipped off a polite email to the proprietor asking if the trackback was in error. No answer. I sent again. Still no answer.

So today I deleted it. Shame, too, as it looked like a good blog.

By the way, is it just me or are more folks just not using trackbacks anymore? I find more links to me from my stats page than from trackbacks lately. Are trackbacks becoming a dying fad?

Also, any other Movable Type 3.2 users out there think that trackbacks in MT don't work very well? Auto discover misses most links, way too many get rejected for timeout, method not allowed, throttled, etc.? And I almost always have success using the Wizbang standalone trackback pinger, even after multiple tries with MT failing...

Just askin'.

Doin' what they do best!

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Flush with intelligence, the U.S. military moved quickly Friday to take advantage of the power vacuum left by the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, carrying out nearly 40 raids in an effort to stop his terror network from regrouping.

I see this as have a cascade effect, at least in the short term. As these raids yield even more actionable intel, I see us causing major damage to the terrorist networks in Iraq. It will take time for what's left to regroup - months, perhaps.

That's valuable time for the Iraqi military to spend training and standing up instead of dodging bombs and bullets at recruiting stations.

That's valuable time to repair infrastructure - and for a change, faster than it's being sabataged.

That's valuable time for the new government to make progress instead of stamping out fires.

Yes, I'm pinning a lot of hopes on this in a week when nearly everyone is expressing caution. And the current effort by the troops could cease bearing fruit rapidly. But somehow I sense that there is a turning point being approached.

And I'm normally a pessimist.

today for my 2nd grader. She was almost in tears this morning over the prospect - she really loves her teacher and will miss seeing her friends on a daily basis.

I saw her to the bus a little while ago - she decided to give up her usual jeans and t-shirt for a dress to look her best for her classmates.

They're letting school out early today - 11:30 instead of the usual 3:30. I took today off from work so TB, our 4 yr old, and I can meet her at the bus stop and take her out to lunch at her favorite restaurant (Olive Garden).

So I hope you'll understand if I post a little less today.

Update (7:23 PM EST): She cried for 20 minutes after she got off the bus - worried that her teacher will forget her. She cheered up after learning where we were going for lunch, and I put her on the phone with Grandma for good measure. TB just took the kids up the street to play with neighboring kids, and all is normal again.

And the best part of all, it's BBQ night!

Captain Ed reports good news on the First Mate. In case you weren't aware, she's back in the hospital.

TB and I are keeping them in our thoughts and prayers.

If you stop by, please leave a comment wishing them well.

Ian at Expose the Left posted audio of a John Gibson interview with Michael Berg.

He clearly says of Zarqawi: "He's almost as bad as George Bush". Go listen. "Over the rainbow" falls way short when describing this guy. Plainly one of the worst cases of BDS you're liable to see.

This is a picture of Berg from his campaign website wearing his trademark Yasser Arafat signature model terrorist scarf:

Added: Here's a blast from the past about Mr. Berg: INDC Journal Interviews Michael Berg
Aren't archives wonderful? Here's a teaser:

After that answer, Mr. Berg stopped taking questions, but another man insistently asked him, “Is it possible to get your contact information, to follow up?”

Michael Berg: "Who are you?"

Socialist Workers Party Reporter: "I’m with the Socialist Workers newspaper."

Michael Berg: "Socialist Workers newspaper? (Enthusiastically) Oh, yeah , oh yeah, oh yeah … (gives info) my e-mail is the best way to contact, because my wife probably will slam down the phone on just about anyone who calls; she’s still in a very emotional state. My son was a member of the Socialist Workers Party, yes he was, my son David, not my son Nick, my older son David. I supported his efforts working with the Socialist Workers Party, and I went with him to the headquarters in NY and I attended the rallies and I supported his trips to Cuba and … I don’t really want to say (gestures to me) because he’s (got a tape recorder)."

What was he afraid to say? Was it incriminating, or is Mr. Berg merely aware that his utility and mainstream image as an antiwar advocate would be tarnished by close association with a Communist political group?

I hope some of this comes up during the campaign (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

Somehow his trackback hit the bit bucket, so I didn't know DragonFlyEye had responded to my last post on VNRs until yesterday. Which is a shame, because although this isn't really a burning-bush issue requiring great speed, I really don't want multiple days passing between posts as it makes the debate more difficult both to write and to follow. Oh, well. You blog with the internet you have, as it were...

Please do visit DragonFlyEye's response to my last post here. I'll quote a few things, but I encourage my readers to follow the links to insure nothing is out of context. It also gets me a few emails taking me to the woodshed if I misquote, thus keeping me straight.

One of the subjects I touched on was my bewilderment about the Bush administration's poor handling of the media. DragonFly made an astute observation:

Now, here’s the thing: I’ve heard nothing from Conservatives for years except how the media is the quote “Liberal Media,” and since Bush has come to the presidency, I’ve heard nothing from Liberals but that the media is quote the “Conservative Media,” and I think they’re both basically nuts. I am guessing LB would be inclined to agree with me on this point.

Good guess - to a point. We on the right spend an enormous amount of time whining about the media, and it surprises and amuses many of us when we see the left doing the reverse. I think the media is a lot more complicated than any of us give it credit for, it isn't like a school of fish that changes directions simultaneously without rhyme or reason. While I feel there's evidence that the media leans left overall, some of the negative reporting I see is less about ideology and more about business. If it bleeds, it leads is a very real maxim invented long before Bush took the oath of office, and while it's easy (and perhaps a bit lazy) to automatically assign the dearth of good news coming out of Iraq to ideology, the difficult truth is that opening schools and setting up governments are nowhere near as gripping as blown up bodies, mayhem, and controversy.

Ideology does rear its ugly head too frequently and there are lots of good examples. For instance, who on either side could argue that Mary Mapes or Helen Thomas are objective? And many have noticed the rush to judgement on the Haditha incident. I'll leave it to DragonFly to provide examples from the leftward point of view, I can think of a couple but they may not be as meaningful.

I've also noticed a tendency for us as bloggers to selectively switch hit out of convenience. The New York Times gets skinned alive on a weekly basis by the right, we rip apart every story we don't like - then turn around and use them as a trusted source when something they publish shores up a point we're making (you'll see me do it later in this post!). I see the same trend on the left as well - again I'll leave it to DragonFly to show the best examples, as he's far better equipped than I.

On the meat of the issue - the VNRs themselves, we have a little less agreement. But there is still some common ground here:

I agree with the first portion of this paragraph, along with the tacit acknowlegment in the next para, that this is certainly grey area where legality comes to mind and definitely sneaky. It might be hard to pin the Administration down on this one for illegalty, but of course this has been the Administration’s modus operandi throughout its history.

Sneaky I said, and sneaky I meant. The Clinton administration (calm down, it's not what you think) spent as much as $125 million on VNRs. I don't watch much television nowadays, but I did during the 1990s. I can't recall ever seeing something during a newscast that I labeled as government made. Even if a notice had been given in the segue or in the lower right corner of the screen identified it (and they all could have) I don't remember it. Chances are, most of you don't either. When an effort is made to have a government message seamlessly blend in with the trappings of a professional newscast, it's not unreasonable to assume that the video didn't self identify in an obvious fashion for a reason.

Motive, however, is the proverbial fried rat in the bucket of chicken. I speculated in my previous post that the administration was determined to get their message out in spite of a hostile media. DragonFly agrees in part, but wonders why the stations are so willing to air VNRs without disclosure (emphasis mine):

Follow me through this, if you could. . . The State Department releases a tape that says “Produced by the US Department of State,” right on the box, which has a title in the movie that says “Iraqi’s Really Dig Us. Produced by the US Department of State” and then Joe Smith, Program Director for the Podunk Awake and Semi-Alert at Five televison news broadcast just. . . strips all that information? For what? Esthetic quality?

That’s the dot no one is connecting right now. The Bush Administration department or corporation that put out these VNRs properly identified them, but for some reason, theres a rash of journalists going out of thier way not to let anyone know? And of thier own accord? That doesn’t come close to passing the smell test; indeed, I would go one step further and say that the rot has a specific stench of government/corporatists collusion.

It's good that he mentions the corporations here, as they put out the vast majority of VNRs. Unlike the government, their motivations are simple - they just want to get free/cheap advertising, sell more product, and improve their bottom line. For a business, these are actually virtuous desires, and we're only questioning the methodology. The normal method of achieving this goal involves marketing through paid advertising. Open-air networks - those that don't depend on subscription revenue - make their entire living from it. So why, then do the stations air VNRs - in effect, free advertising? And can we extend that reasoning to government VNRs, which are somewhat more diverse in purpose?

I'm not willing to throw away all of DragonFly's reasoning quoted above. There may very well be some pressure involved - but I'm Missouran about such things - I'd need more than speculation. At least a partial answer that can be sourced comes from this NYT article by David Barstow and Robin Stein - probably the most complete on the subject (side note - the anti-drug example came from here as well):

WCIA is a small station with a big job in central Illinois.

Each weekday, WCIA's news department produces a three-hour morning program, a noon broadcast and three evening programs. There are plans to add a 9 p.m. broadcast. The staff, though, has been cut to 37 from 39. "We are doing more with the same," said Jim P. Gee, the news director.

Farming is crucial in Mr. Gee's market, yet with so many demands, he said, "it is hard for us to justify having a reporter just focusing on agriculture."

To fill the gap, WCIA turned to the Agriculture Department, which has assembled one of the most effective public relations operations inside the federal government. The department has a Broadcast Media and Technology Center with an annual budget of $3.2 million that each year produces some 90 "mission messages" for local stations - mostly feature segments about the good works of the Agriculture Department.

"I don't want to use the word 'filler,' per se, but they meet a need we have," Mr. Gee said.

In this example, the station used the VNRs as a "cheat" to get free programming and avoid full staffing. I suspect that's the case at many other stations as well.

Incidently, I thought the article was a little unfair to the USDA - they make it seem as if the segments exist just to blow Secretary Mike Johanns' horn. However, the USDA is probably the most helpful government agency, with many important and beneficial programs under its control. When Congress passes a relief bill, for example, this is one of the ways the USDA gets word of its availabilty out. That's why it's difficult to take an absolutist view of the subject. Fact is, most of the government VNRs are beneficial. The exclusion of criticism is not necessarily the devil you may think - once a citrus canker compensation program has been passed and funded by Congress, the arguments used against it in debate are moot, and the priority rightly becomes public awareness to notify affected growers. It's not a matter of pushing an agenda, but enacting public policy.

Even with that recognition in mind, I still remain an absolutist as to the ethics of VNRs. Even the beneficial topics can be disseminated adequately via other means. And some agencies have shifted away from the practice since the original flap occurred, which is good news:

At the State Department, Mr. Tappan said the broadcasting office is moving away from producing narrated feature segments. Instead, the department is increasingly supplying only the ingredients for reports - sound bites and raw video. Since the shift, he said, even more State Department material is making its way into news broadcasts.

Providing sound bites and raw video completely avoids the ethical problems of VNRs, and the stations are free to balance them as they choose. All in all, a much healthier approach that I'd like to see the other agencies adopt.

On the topic of propaganda, I'll stick by my guns - the formal definition is entirely inadequate and would include the examples I gave. The inclusion of Harry Reid wasn't intended as a "inflexive jab". Regular readers know that when I'm of a mood to take a cheap shot at Harry Reid, I tend to be far less nuanced.

The word "propaganda", as I hinted in my previous post, has evolved so that it almost always means something negative. Under the classic definition, the Easter Egg Roll (be sure to view the webcast by White House Curator Bill Allman) fits quite well.

With the exception of a cleanup post or two, I suspect that DragonFly and I have debated this issue as far as possible. I'm surprised and pleased that we were able to find more to agree on that I would have predicted - enough so that should this issue become active again (on the government front, that is) we could comfortably collaborate on it. It's interesting to note that some some of that agreement is borne of differing rationales - an indication to me that this type of exercise probably wouldn't succeed for some topics.

It was fun - I hope we get a chance to do it again.

Here's a thread over at Huffington Post about the timing of Zarqawi's death being politically timed. Can't swing a dead cat without hitting a moonbat in there. Enjoy!

The age of lowered standards:

Australians try to find ugliest sheep

I didn't know it had to be one or the other:

Survey: iPods more popular than beer

I'd find a new dry cleaner:

Gonzalez backers press suit after 6 years

Channeling the nuttist far-left nutbags like Sheehan, Nick Berg's father is making the rounds for his obligatory 15 minutes today.

Yes, I know he's a grieving parent, but if he really believes what he's saying, he needs thorazine instead of a microphone:

"First of all, I'm not even certain that al-Zarqawi even killed my son," said Michael Berg, who doesn't believe the videotape of his son's execution or what he's been told by the FBI any more than he believes conspiracy theories suggesting his son was killed by the U.S. government.

Berg said that while al-Zarqawi may have killed a couple of hundred people, Bush is responsible for 150,000 deaths.

"He (Zarqawi) has a family who reacts just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel badly for that," Berg said. "I feel doubly badly because Zarqawi was a political figure, and his death will re-ignite another wave of revenge."

Political figure? What happened to terrorist????

I'm sure there will be plenty BS political statements to go along with the music. The BS foundation will pass the proceeds to BS favored causes. If you're a BS fan, dates and cities will be announced later.

Via AP/Yahoo.

The senate chose lower job growth, decreased investment, and off-shoring of wealth today.

Constituents of Sen. George Voinovich and Sen. Lincoln Chafee especially should take note. The bill wouldn't have advanced anyway had they sided with the Republicans (cloture failed 57-41, 3 votes short), but folks should be aware that they sided with the politics of envy and class warfare.

I'm very disappointed.

I've been advised by my friends at Centcom that they now have video of the airstrike available.

Note: slow loading - I'm sure they're getting flooded with visitors today.

I've been editing the blogroll, adding and correcting a few - some deletions from sites that haven't posted recently or in my opinion are no longer worthy to recommend to my readers. And that's what it's about, really. I have a bookmark list for me, the blogroll is for you.

I've also added a category on the blogroll for liberal blogs. I quote frequently from the left, you may as well know where I browse most frequently.

Regardless of which list a blog is on, inclusion isn't an endorsement of that blog's view. It's there because I feel it's worth reading.

Added: This will be ongoing for a few days. Don't read too much into the changes, please.

That's the assessment from Jo's Cafe after Nick Berg’s father was interviewed on Fox News this morning about al-Zarqawi's death. TB also saw it, unfortunately I did not.

Apparently he claims that al-Zarqawi didn't kill his son, in spite of the video tape of the gruesome act.

Naturally, Mr. Berg blames Bush.

I hope someone recorded this. And I'm considering starting an office pool guessing the first time a major name Democrat calls al-Zarqawi's (and the 7 or so people who were with him) death a "massacre".

Scientists have discovered that California is more infested with creepy bugs than previously believed.

Lawsuits soon to follow preventing road construction, home-building, and flood/fire control.

In a stunning display of firm resolve, the major nations blink:

VIENNA, Austria - In a major concession, world powers are no longer demanding that Iran commit to a prolonged moratorium on uranium enrichment and are now asking only for a suspension during talks on its nuclear program, diplomats and officials said Wednesday.

This is starting to look like a Monty Python movie. How much longer before we threaten to "taunt" them?

This is exactly the kind of weakness that will ensure that any talks will be non-productive. The world has told Iran to expect more concessions.

Update (6:20 AM EST): As predicted.

That seems to be the response to 'Not ready to make nice' as the Dixie Chicks are cancelling some tour dates due to poor ticket sales.

Unsurprisingly, the shows cancelled so far include Oklahoma City, Memphis, and Houston.

However, they sold out in Toronto where a second date is being added. Go figure.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's leader in Iraq who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and kidnappings, has been killed in an air raid north of Baghdad — a major victory in the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the broader war on terror. Iraq's prime minister and U.S. officials said his identity was confirmed by fingerprints and a first-hand look at his face.

The announcement came six days after the Jordanian-born terror leader appeared in a videotape, railing against Shiites in Iraq and saying militias are raping women and killing Sunnis and the community must fight back.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said al-Zarqawi was killed along with seven aides Wednesday evening in a house 30 miles northeast of Baghdad in the volatile province of Diyala, just east of the provincial capital of Baqouba, al-Maliki said.

"Today, al-Zarqawi was eliminated," al-Maliki told a news conference, drawing loud applause from reporters as he was flanked by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and U.S. Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Al-Maliki said the air strike was the result of intelligence reports provided to Iraqi security forces by residents in the area, and U.S. forces acted on the information.

"Those who disrupt the course of life, like al-Zarqawi, will have a tragic end," he said.

He also warned those who follow the militant's lead that "whenever there is a new al-Zarqawi, we will kill him."

"This is a message for all those who embrace violence, killing and destruction to stop and to (retreat) before it's too late," he said. "It is an open battle with all those who incite sectarianism."

Khalilzad added "the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a huge success for Iraq and the international war on terror." He also gave a thumbs up and said it was a good day for the United States.

Casey said the hunt for al-Zarqawi began in the area two weeks ago, and al-Zarqawi's body was identified by fingerprints and facial recognition.

I promise not to get too excited about this just yet. If the story holds up as the day progresses, this is indeed great news - although I'm sure a large number of folks on a certain side of the blogosphere will spend their day telling us how it doesn't matter...

Update (5:50 AM EST): Oil falls below $70 on death of al Qaeda's Zarqawi

I expect a cascade of good news related to this - provided Ben Bernanke can keep his mouth shut.

Added: I wonder how long before someone tries to spin this as a war crime?

Now that the gay marriage ban amendment has been relegated to the dust-bin of past pandering, the Senate has scheduled a vote tomorrow on a far more important issue - estate taxes.

This one has been labeled as pandering by some on the left as well, but has ramifications that belie such a guileful dismissal. Indeed, the results of this debate say much about who we are and what kind of nation we wish to be.

I do really dislike having to levy generalities on an entire group of people (in this case, the left), but in this instance I find it difficult to believe that they really buy their own line on this issue. For example, the left says that repealing estate taxes will have disatrous effects on the budget. From a United for a Fair Economy press release today:

"At a time of rising deficits and big due bills like the war in Iraq, we cannot afford either the cost of repeal-a trillion dollars over the first ten years-or the aristocracy of wealth that repeal would leave us," said Chuck Collins, senior fellow at United for a Fair Economy.

From another United for a Fair Economy press release:

Estate tax repeal would mean adding another $1 trillion to the national debt over the next 20 years.

This is from an op-ed by Peter Rothberg in The Nation:

This change in the tax code would benefit less than half of one percent of American citizens but would harm many more by creating a one trillion dollar hole in future federal reserves.

The elephant in the room that each and every person on the left knows (but will not publicly ackowledge) is that revenues have soared in the wake of the Bush tax cuts. The singular reason for continuing deficits is the lack of fiscal discipline in Congress. Sadly, this is currently across the board, and the subject is only raised as a political weapon, long on hot air and short on action. Regardless, the notion of higher deficits as a result of estate tax repeal is a provably fraudulent one. If you're one of the few who really do buy into it, please drop me a line via email with your contact information as I'd like to discuss selling you a bridge (I have a picture post card if you wish to see it).

The other reasons the left gives for "preserving" (like it's a good thing - we also preserve old buildings and pickles) the estate tax center around "fairness". And everyone values fairness, right? That's why I picked United for a Fair Economy for quotes above - the word "fair" is in their name. So lets talk about fairness.

Nearly every argument made in favor of the estate tax mentions that >99% don't pay it. But fairness is treating all Amercans equally. In other words, under current tax code, we're being unfair to either 1% or 99% of the population. To remedy this inequality, we should either expand the estate tax to the 99% who have been getting away with not paying it, or repeal the estate tax all together. No other solution save those two would be fair.

I also love the this claim, also nearly universal:

Over the last decade, 18 of the wealthiest families in the country have spent more than $200 million lobbying to repeal the estate tax, according to lobby disclosure reports analyzed by two groups that favor retaining the estate tax, United for a Fair Economy and Ralph Nader's organization, Public Citizen. The wealthy families include the Mars candy family; the Gallo wine family; the Wegman supermarket family; the Dorrance family, which controls Campbell soup; and the Waltons, who control Wal-Mart.

Here's a variation from Barack Obama:

"Let's call this trillion-dollar giveaway what it is. This is the Paris Hilton tax break," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Lobbying is nothing new. But when farmers lobby for more subsidies, no one villifies the farmers. Here's some reality for you - the folks most likely to benefit from a particular cause are likely to be the ones who lobby for it. Just because some rich folks are lobbying for estate tax reform doesn't automatically make tax reform a bad thing. Unless, of course, you're one of those folks who think anything having to do with Wal-Mart is automatically evil. But for everyone else, doing the right thing is still right even if people you don't like support it as well.

I'd really like to know what the "punish the rich" crowd thinks the rich does with all that money.

Just in case some of you are curious what I think they do with it, I'll tell you:

1. They spend it, creating/sustaining employment and growing wealth for others (like you and me).
2. They invest it, fueling the economy that creates jobs and grows wealth for others (like you and me).
3. They hide some of it from the tax man.

This is not overly simplistic, either. Short of stuffing their mattresses, the weathy's cash is always being put to some use.

Changing the estate tax affects all three behaviours. High taxes mean less money for 1 and 2 (very bad for you and me), and more money for number 3 (also bad for you and me, because they aren't spending or investing much of what they hide). Low (or no) taxes mean more money for nos. 1 and 2 (very good for you and me), and less reason to hide money from the tax man (which means even more money for 1 and 2, which is very, very good for you and me).

So once the usual arguments against fixing the inequalities of estate taxes don't work, what's left?

Foul ball.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - Determined to win the Cold War, the CIA kept quiet about the whereabouts of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in the 1950s for fear he might expose undercover anticommunist efforts in West Germany, according to documents released Tuesday.

The 27,000 pages released by the National Archives are among the largest post-World War II declassifications by the CIA. They offer a window into the shadowy world of U.S. intelligence — and the efforts to use former Nazi war criminals as spies, sometimes to detrimental effect.

If you're a history buff, or an intelligence buff, check out the National Archives website for more information about these declassified historical documents.

Via AP/Yahoo

WASHINGTON - Personal data on more than 2.2 million active-duty military personnel — not just 50,000 as initially believed — were among those stolen from a Veterans Affairs employee last month, the government said Tuesday.

VA Secretary Jim Nicholson said the agency was mistaken when it said over the weekend that up to 50,000 Navy and National Guard personnel — and no other active-duty personnel — were affected by the May 3 burglary.

In fact, names, birth dates and Social Security numbers of as many as 1.1 million active-duty personnel from all the armed forces, along with 430,000 members of the National Guard, and 645,000 members of the Reserves, may have been included.

The rest of the estimated 26.5 million records are from retired and separated military. The story also mentions lawsuits have already been filed:

It also came as a coalition of veterans' groups charged in a lawsuit against the federal government Tuesday that their privacy rights were violated by the theft. The class-action lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, is the second suit since the VA disclosed the burglary two weeks ago.

Personally, I think the lawsuits are premature. It's still too early to determine how much damage this will cause (so far there's been no indication that the data has been used), and there's still a slim possibility that the computer will be recovered in the coming weeks.

When this first broke, there was mention of letters being sent out to those affected. Have any of my veteran readers received one? I have not, and now wonder if perhaps I'm not affected, or I am and it got lost in the mail, or what...

Via AP/Yahoo:

NEW YORK - Stocks dropped for the second straight session Tuesday, with the Dow Jones industrial average falling to its worst close since March 9. Global markets also sold off as inflation fears worsened.

The Dow lost more than 110 points in midday trading before narrowing its loss later in the session. The index dropped nearly 200 points Monday after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke spooked Wall Street by saying that the central bank will remain vigilant in fighting inflation.

Investors have been hoping the Fed would stop increasing short-term interest rates after 16 hikes; the nation's benchmark rate now stands at 5 percent. However, Bernanke's comments in recent weeks have repeatedly shaken investors and sent stocks tumbling.

"Bernanke came in with this reputation as a great communicator," said John Caldwell, chief investment strategist for McDonald Financial Group, part of Cleveland-based KeyCorp. "Most of us would choose to go back to the general confusion (former Fed Chairman Alan) Greenspan created."

Listen, Ben. I and lots of other folks I know would eventually like to retire. Is it possible for for you to be vigilant and at the same time keep your ^@#&%*! mouth shut? Hmmm?

Assuming the charges stand up in court, this was certainly an ambitious lot:

BRAMPTON, Ontario - At least one member of a group of terror suspects plotted to storm Canada's parliament and behead officials, including the prime minister, if Muslim prisoners in Canada and Afghanistan were not released, according to charges made public Tuesday.

Authorities also alleged that Steven Vikash Chand plotted to take over media outlets such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

That's in addition to whatever they would have done with the three tons of ammonium nitrate. What the Canadian authorities still aren't saying, however, is the nature of the international ties that have been alleged:

"We've by no means finished this investigation," Mike McDonell, deputy commissioner for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, told the AP. "In fact, you might look at it that, really, we're just starting with the arrests. We have a responsibility to follow every lead."

McDonell said Monday that there are "foreign connections," but he would not elaborate.

Again, assuming the charges hold, the Canadian people are fortunate indeed that the Mounties were on the ball.

Maybe I'm just tired, but it really seems that Michael Georgy of Reuters is hoping for the worst:

Iraq's Diyala region could be spark for civil war

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - If there is one place that suggests Iraq's sects and ethnic groups can't live together, it is blood-stained Diyala Province.

Well?

Via AP/Yahoo:

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - Truth proved to be stranger than fiction for a high school criminology class investigating a fake crime scene when the students discovered a real body during a field trip.

Teacher Sue Messenger had been creating mock crime scenes with fake skeletons and other evidence for more than 20 years to give students in her forensics courses a firsthand look at what crime scene investigators do.

On Monday, however, 29 students from St. Thomas Aquinas High School got more of a jolt they expected when they discovered the real body in Fort Lauderdale's Holiday Park.

"The first thing we thought was, 'That's a real good dummy she set up,'" said student Juan Cantor, 15.

"I think they kind of went into shock and disbelief," Messenger said. "What are the odds that we would be out here?"

Police on Tuesday identified the body as David Wayne Bodie, 45, a homeless man who apparently died of natural causes.

I don't think I would have been composed enough to talk to the media when I was that age. Hell, I would have been pretty traumatized.

I'll bet Ms. Messenger checks out her mock crime scenes more carefully in the future.

About three months is all Michael Cristofaro and Susette Kelo have left:

NEW LONDON, Conn. - City officials voted to evict two residents whose refusal to give up their riverfront houses helped lead to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling that governments may seize property for private development projects.

The City Council voted 5-2 in favor of eviction Monday. An attorney for the residents said they are considering continuing to fight.

The city attorney plans go to court to seek removal of the remaining two families and obtain the properties in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, a process that could take three months. Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the residents, said they will consider asking the state to pull funding for the development.

It's a shame that so few on the city council have a conscience. I'll let one of the two city council members that do have the last word:

But Charles Frink, one of the two council members who voted against the plan, said supporters should admit their mistake.

"I can't accept a possible reduction in taxes by having neighbors thrown out of their property," he said. "This is morally abhorrent to me. I refuse to profit from my neighbor's pain."

Arianna hits bottom and digs yesterday as she shows her utter contempt for the troops and advises Democrats to sell out our military for political gain as "drugged up, hallucinating, and stressed out" killers for whom Haditha is an everyday occurance.

She starts by extending allegations about Haditha to all the troops.

It means the killings in Haditha -- like Abu Ghraib, like Bagram, like Guantanamo, like all the everyday, unheralded horrors perpetrated on innocent Iraqi civilians -- have made America less safe.

After all, says Arianna, smearing our troops is the moral thing to do. She continues by expressing her approval of Murtha's use of the tactic:

This is the issue that nationalizes the 2006 races. It's the right stance strategically (as Jack Murtha has been saying for months). It's the right stance morally. And it's also the right stance politically.

This is disgustingly cold and calculating by anyone's standards. But hey, it's about regaining power, right? After all, painting them as "baby killers" worked before...

And to Arianna, this represents an opportunity to be exploited - nothing more.

If Democrats can make this their defining issue, they can stop worrying about the laundry list of "what ifs" they are now obsessing over: What if people forget about Katrina and Abramoff and DeLay? What if gas prices come down? What if GOP gerrymandering trumps voter unrest? What if the gay marriage ruse works again? What if, what if, what if...

They need to calm their nerves and keep it simple. It's about making us safe, stupid. And keeping our worn-out, stressed-out, missionless troops in Iraq is making us less -- much less -- safe.

This is not just sick - it exposes an icy vacuum where heart and soul should be. In Arianna's case, I think the last thin veil of "I support the troops" - if indeed it was ever visible - has forever fallen away.

Update: Welcome Blackfive readers!

Because there's a tragic shortage of this kind of thing in the blogosphere.

Continuing from yesterday - here's a reprisal of the comment from DragonFlyEye that spurred this post:

LB,

Due respect, but what about what's actually going on? You make a lot of critcisms about the left, myself included, for not being entirely accurate but you gloss over the entire issue of the legitimacy of the VNR's. Truth be told, this is actually a trend started by the Clinton and not the Bush Administration. I say that to forstall the inevitable "Clinton started it" rant. The fact is that they're out there and becoming more commonly used by the Administrative Branch; irrespective of what issue or policy they are being used to support, don't you think that the trend alone is worth fighting against?

Much of the media handling style of the Bush Adminstration is, in at least it's nuts-and-bolts and it's basic theory, a derivation on Clinton-era politics. Presidential politics are generally cumulative in this way. We can, therefore, make a strong case that the next presidential administration ~ be it Liberal, Conservative or whatever ~ will undoubtably employ these types of tactics if they are not squashed. President Bush has seen fit to use signing statements to go around the Constitution and around the Congress, what makes you think he won't go around an organ *of the adminsitrative branch* which he controls?

We almost certainly disagree on a wide swath of our politics, but surely you cannot be so cavalier about institutionalizing propaganda?

First, I appreciate the caveat about the practice's history. I wouldn't have used it in that context, but it is useful to note that this is not new. Nor do I see as substantial a rise in usage as raw numbers would make it seem. Producing VNRs surely has increased in cost, the figure of twice as much compared to a similar period in Clinton's administration may not be entirely fair. This article (probably the most complete I've seen on the subject) doesn't give a comparison of the number of VNRs released, which in my mind would be definitive if one wants to discover the amount of increase during the Bush administration. Note that I'm not saying that there hasn't been an increase. I'm sure there has. But I've yet to find the right numbers to measure it. Maybe a reader could help.

Fortunately, that shortcoming in data is irrelevant to the larger issues. The arguments on the right are entirely sympathetic to the reality that this administration has a difficult time getting it's message out. DragonFlyEye is largely correct with "Much of the media handling style of the Bush Adminstration is, in at least it's nuts-and-bolts and it's basic theory, a derivation on Clinton-era politics." I would add that the page taken from the Clinton handbook wasn't the large type edition, and nobody in the White House has their reading glasses handy when referring to it.

The Bush administration has had a poor relationship with the press since the beginning of his first term. Why, I can't say. Perhaps the intensity and tone of the media coverage during the Florida recount made the administration gun shy. Regardless, this administration has kept itself at arms length from the media since its early days. As a result, the media has been more combative than it would have been otherwise - though I daresay that this is comparing two levels of relative unfriendliness.

And unfriendly the media has been, and still is. That we're discussing VNRs is in itself an indication - if the media were willing to shill for the administration, as I've seen some on the left claim, would VNRs even be necessary?

The argument on the left covers more ground - after all, they've covered the subject more than the right. The GAO report that suggested the government VNRs may not be legal gets mentioned frequently, and most of the arguments claim the VNRs constitute "propaganda".

Legality is actually the easiest to tackle. I don't buy into the notion that a VNR properly labeled as government sourced is covert. The news articles I've read all indicate that the government has been pretty good about identifying itself as the source. It seems to me that the burden falls on the stations that broadcast the VNRs without passing on that disclosure. Same goes for corporate VNRs. There are other legal issues I've seen brought up, but I'm no lawyer and have no desire to embarass myself.

Ethics comes up as the second most used argument on the left. And ethics generally involves much higher standards than law provides. While the right argues the usefulness of VNRs (after all, who could argue that warning kids to stay off drugs is an inherently bad thing?) the left argues that it's sneaky. And the left trusts nothing that this administration says or does, and tends to overwork issues like this as bigger than they really are as a result. But the argument isn't without merit just because its delivered with excessive handwringing - dressing up what amounts to a video version of a press release as if it were actually produced by a legitimate news organization is sneaky. That alone could blunt the effectiveness of the message - since the messenger in all of these VNRs employ a deceptive delivery method, why believe the message?

On the question of whether this is propaganda - my answer isn't going to satisfy. From Merriam-Webster on-line:

Propaganda - 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

The definition is so broad that any government communication, regardless of content, would fit. Yeah, VNRs are propaganda. So was Harry Reid's last press conference, and the Easter egg roll on the White House lawn. But since the word is almost always intended to have a negative effect, I find it repugnant that folks would label an anti-drug message or a farm report that way simply to cast the administration in a negative light. So I roundly reject its use in this case as inflammatory and irrelevant.

My thoughts are that the ethical view should prevail even though legally the administration may be okay. Our government has plenty of alternative methods to get it's message out. Using disguises shouldn't be among them. While I do feel for the administration's PR problems, from an ethical standpoint they'd be well advised to cease the practice. And from my point of view that applies regardless of which party is in power.

I guess that there's some common ground here after all, DragonFlyEye. And I'll post any response you may wish to offer.

I'd love to see some comments on this - I'm sure I've left plenty of room to debate. Any takers?

Haven't done one of these in a while - Cindy's moonbatty antics bore me. Yesterday, though, she closed (if that's possible) ranks with Murtha and much of the media in convicting the Marines who fought in Haditha and have yet to benefit from a finished investigation, much less a fair trial.

Written on the same day that terrorists slaughtered 20 civillians on buses, and knowing full well that it was a fairly normal day for the terrorists, Cindy wants us to know that regardless of the outcome of any investigation and/or legal proceedings, she knows who the real monsters are - and it ain't just a few bad apples, either. From My Lai to Haditha By Cindy Sheehan:

War turns our mostly normal American youth into wanton murderers who have lost their own humanity and love of others. Haditha in this war and My Lai in another disgusting war were unfortunately not aberrations.

Oh, and this caught my attention as well:

Our soldiers need to start disobeying the unlawful order to even be deployed to Iraq and not raise their weapons in appeasement to the Bush Regime and say: "This war is the criminal, I am not. Threaten me if you will, but I am not going to be an accomplice in your crimes against humanity."

That, my friends, sounds like sedition to me.

H/T AllahPundit as Hot Air.

Yesterday I took the kids to a place called Boomers in Avalon, PA (miniature golf, arcade, pizza, etc). The weather was great, the kids had a wonderful time, and I noticed this garrison flag flying over the Perkin's restaurant next door:

I hope you all had a great weekend.

DragonFlyEye visited this morning to comment on yesterday's fake news story. Since he raises some legitimate questions, I've decided to elevate his comment to this post and address it here. First, his entire comment:

LB,

Due respect, but what about what's actually going on? You make a lot of critcisms about the left, myself included, for not being entirely accurate but you gloss over the entire issue of the legitimacy of the VNR's. Truth be told, this is actually a trend started by the Clinton and not the Bush Administration. I say that to forstall the inevitable "Clinton started it" rant. The fact is that they're out there and becoming more commonly used by the Administrative Branch; irrespective of what issue or policy they are being used to support, don't you think that the trend alone is worth fighting against?

Much of the media handling style of the Bush Adminstration is, in at least it's nuts-and-bolts and it's basic theory, a derivation on Clinton-era politics. Presidential politics are generally cumulative in this way. We can, therefore, make a strong case that the next presidential administration ~ be it Liberal, Conservative or whatever ~ will undoubtably employ these types of tactics if they are not squashed. President Bush has seen fit to use signing statements to go around the Constitution and around the Congress, what makes you think he won't go around an organ *of the adminsitrative branch* which he controls?

We almost certainly disagree on a wide swath of our politics, but surely you cannot be so cavalier about institutionalizing propaganda?

DragonFlyEye raises some issues that should be discussed, but first, to clarify, my original post on the VNR story in the Independent was not intended to raise those issues. The post was simply to cover a case of dishonest journalism and it's effect. I'll agree that I wasn't particularly nice to left blogs in general. DragonFlyEye was quoted simply for his contention that Fox was the leading abuser of VNRs when the report that prompted the investigation showed that ABC clearly deserved that title - if indeed, a title should be awarded, since even the Center for Media and Democracy were reluctant to opine on that issue as their sample size precluded such a determination. If my post appered to infer any other criticism of DragonFlyEye, it was unintentional.

Many of us on the right use the catchall BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) to describe the reflexive assignment of evil intent to the administration. "Bush lied" continues to be used widely by the left in spite of the evidence to the contrary and serves as the most famous example. While it applies to a lesser degree to the blogs I quoted - for example, claiming "Bush Investigated For Propaganda" when the story, as bad as it was, made it clear that was not the case, I saved the label for Hume's Ghost exclusively. He earned this because he made it clear in his post that he had performed sufficient research to know the truth yet still chose to portray the story as "the FCC is currently investigating one of the most significant (at least to me) scandals of the Bush administration."

Surely there are examples of this kind of autoresponse on the right - ask any of us, I think most will freely admit it. Probably the best example is the reflexive claim of aiding the enemy that the right often hangs on the left. I've been guilty of that on occasion myself - it's unfortunate that we as humans can't more readily access the thoughts, passions, and motivations of others.

But I do see a distinct difference between various groups on the left. And it's not difficult to see a small faction that is so driven by their passions that they will go "scorched earth" on folks who least deserve it in order to make the administration look bad. Several very good examples immediately come to mind - Murtha's premature conviction of Marines at Haditha, folks leaking or printing certain classified items, for instance. There is a growing contingient on the left that applauds and encourages that harmful behavior and there's no doubt in my mind that this contingient is over-represented on the web. This makes makes such generalizations not only possible - they're awfully hard to resist.

Again, this isn't intended to be an indictment of DragonFlyEye, who seems genuinely interested in starting a dialog in which I'll engage in part two. I just think it's helpful to let all know where I'm coming from so the conversation isn't misunderstood.

Tomorrow, in part two - an honest discussion of the Bush administration's relationship with the press, and I'll answer DragonFlyEye's questions surrounding VNRs. Am I disturbed by them? Are they propaganda? Are they ethical? Are they legal? I may not please either side with my opinions.

A reader (name kept private by request) emailed to direct my attention to a followup post on Unclaimed Territory and asked if I thought my post from yesterday had anything to do with it. First, let's look at the latest, where Hume's Ghost issues a correction on his "Faux News" post:

Well, I don't call my blog The Daily Doubter for nothing. Looking at my first post here, it has come to my attention that sloppy writing on my part in the post on the widespread infiltration of faux news reports is misleading and needs to be corrected. I'm not sure what the blogging ethics of this are, so I'm going to identify the corrections here and then add this Addendum onto that post.

The way I have it written, it sounds as if the bulk of the VNR's being investigated by the FCC are government sponsored. That is not the case. The vast majority of video news releases are created by corporations (the VNRs tracked in the CMD's report were corporate sponsored ones).

*snip*

But here is the most misleading part of my post

But here is what bothers me about this story. We already knew this. Back in January of 2005, the New York Times reported that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had found that these undisclosed VNR's constituted illegal "covert propaganda."

Ok, we already knew that the press had been corrupted by fake news, but the GAO had not found that "these" VNRs constituted covert propaganda. It could not have, because the GAO was only commenting on the use of government sponsored VNRs. Obviously, what I had written makes it sound if all the VNRs in the CMD's report were government propaganda. This should have been written as:

... We already knew that the press had been corrupted by fake news. Back in January of 2005, the New York Times reported that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had found that the creation of undisclosed VNR's (by the federal government) constituted illegal "covert" propaganda.

Credit where credit is due - Hume's Ghost does acknowlege that his original post gave the impression that the majority of the VNRs being investigated are from the government. However, none of the VNRs being investigated are from the government, and Hume's Ghost stops a little short of saying that.

The heart and soul of Ghost's post (bashing the administration over VNRs) was based on a dishonest piece in the Independent (which was the focus of my post), and had he believed that none of the VNRs being investigated were from the government, then his entire post would have merited retraction starting with his tone-setting opening remark:

Allthough it hasn't managed to garner much attention, the FCC is currently investigating one of the most significant (at least to me) scandals of the Bush administration.

And ending with:

Why is it that the American public seems to not mind the manipulation of the truth in an effort to subvert democracy?

Also, Hume's Ghost doesn't credit anyone for his correction, and there's no indication that it's the result of anything other than his own introspection. And since planted stories shilling cadillacs, candy and chondroitin quite obviously present little threat to democracy, it appears to me that the thrust of his message remains intact.

So, the answer to my reader's question is no - I had nothing to do with it.

As far as the other blogs that I linked, I know a couple of them read my post (from the referral list on my stats page), and one of those squelched my trackback. And a couple of whois searches popped up as well, but I see those frequently after linking lefty blogs. No surprises here.

And DragonFlyEye has entered the room - I'll promote and address his comments in my next post.

Of putting fake stuff into news to make thing look worse than they really are, go check this out at Michelle Malkin's blog.

Apparently, embellishing news for negative effect in the UK extends beyond the dingy back rooms of the Guardian and the Independent. Normally being the type to give most folks the benefit of the doubt, in this case I have to go with the opinions expressed by Michelle and her readers - whoever placed the image knew exactly what they were doing and should have been aware of the incindiary nature of their actions.

Considering the feeding frenzy in the media over the Haditha story, I expect that this kind of opportunistic sensationalism will become more common. While some will be driven by ambition for ratings and sales, others will be driven by ideologies that view our military and their mission with contempt and loathing. It matters little which motivation is at work - the effects will be the same.

Considering the potential for increased danger to our Armed Forces and to Americans in general that this kind of dishonest reporting incites, this should be a career-ender for the person(s) responsible. Period.

Previous: Fake news or fake story about fake news?

AP/Yahoo on the makeup of a potential Democratic House leadership:

Only two of 20 earned grades of less than 90 percent on last year's voting records from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action interest group. Half had perfect scores of 100 from the ADA — or would have had it not been for missed votes.

Read the whole article. If this doesn't frighten you, nothing will. And it's a possible future unless the Republican Party pulls it's collective head out.

There's a bit of controversy about whether P.T. Barnum really said "There's a sucker born every minute". No matter - whoever said it was right.

Andrew Buncombe of the Independent knows it. And he artfully used that principle to stir up the left by livening up this Bloomberg story about corporate video news releases (subscription required, full text quoted here) with some old news, fake news, and innuendo.

Here's the thrust of the original Bloomberg article:

May 25 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin ordered a probe of dozens of television stations after a report found they aired advertisements as if they were news reports, people familiar with the inquiry said.

The April report by the non-profit Center for Media and Democracy found at least 77 stations, including 23 affiliates of Walt Disney Co.'s ABC network and seven Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. stations, ignored an FCC warning to disclose sponsors. The maximum fine for each violation is $32,500, rising to $325,000 for multiple infractions, said FCC spokesman Clyde Ensslin.

Got that? It's about TV stations and corporate-made Video News Releases (VNR). Nothing else. But as we've seen so often in the media, anything can and will become a Bush-bashing story.

The Independent's headline:

Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'

Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products.

Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.

Buncombe provides a reference to an administration-produced VNR and infers that it's part of the investigation:

The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items.

This particular example occurred prior to the FCC issuing it's warning on the use of VNRs last year, and was not part of the report that prompted the FCC investigation. The report can be found here, and here's an interesting snippet from a NYT writer on its contents:

Three of the 88 releases in the report were done for government agencies but were not broadcast, the report said.

Of course, we've seen this kind of thing before, so there's nothing really unique about this story. I'm documenting it mostly because of the effect this kind of dishonest reporting has. A small but growing amount of buzz has been generated on the left side of the blogosphere, and all of it based on the parts of Buncombe's article that are fake. And while it appears that few bloggers bothered to read the report referenced in the article, a surprising number apparently passed on reading the article they cut and pasted into their own posts. For example, Jason at My Observations quotes most of the Independent article and adds the headline:

Democracy At Work? - Bush Investigated For Propaganda

Which is a claim that Buncombe, even as distorted as his article was, didn't make. And had Jason actually read the very first sentence of the article, he'd know that.

Sean (he's a Libra) introduces the quoted article with:

In the following case, the "corporation" in question is the Bush Administration... and apparently our trusted media outlets didn't feel obliged to make clear that distinction for their viewers.

Sean should worry less about his teeth and more about shaken Libra syndrome when he sees that b-ball coming for him. Another breathless and uninformed headline:

More Media Whores for Bushitler

Barkeep, I'll have some of what he's having... There's also the occasional embellishment - most on the left seem to dislike Fox News, so this seems to be a natural for the dragonflyeye.net blog:

But back to these so-called VNR’s (Video News Releases). That the Administration and Corporate America seem to be engaged in exactly the same types of deception ~ and by all accounts, primarily through the collusion of Fox media outlets ~ is the kind of thing that should give even those cynical of media independence reason to pause.

Never mind that the report's top offenders were ABC affiliates - it's so much fun to bust on Fox, right?

Here's one that obviously had time to get creative with font sizes and animations, but no time to read the article.

I know, the above examples are not the larger mainstream lefty blogs. Okay, How 'bout Digby?

And about that disinformation and propaganda, I think we have a little hint about where that's going in this era as well...

Hook, line, and sinker - if it's anti-Bush, it must be gospel, right, Digby?

When I want the rabid anti-constitutionalist view from the left, I always trot over to Glenn Greenwald's blog. And there's no disappointment here, as Glenn is out on his book tour and Hume's Ghost fills in with a magnificent BDS inspired rant:

Allthough it hasn't managed to garner much attention, the FCC is currently investigating one of the most significant (at least to me) scandals of the Bush administration.

What's stunning is that he links several of the same sources that I use above, and still manages to conclude that the FCC is investigating an administration scandal. And on the left, this is apparently what passes for an influential blog - another blog called Outside the Spectrum links the post and comments:

More news today about the administration’s continued efforts to subvert the media from Glenn Greenwald’s blog. Apparently 77 different broadcast stations have used pre-packaged “news” items without identifying them as such, concerning subjects like how well the Iraq War is really going.

Um, barkeep? Maybe I should pass after all. Blindness and delusions aren't desirable side-effects.

What's sad is that in another month this will be likely become established "conventional wisdom" among the left, taking its place among such intellectually bereft gems as "Bush Lied", and "Domestic wiretapping". No critical thought applied. No research. As ubiquitous as it is dishonest.

Hume's Ghost closes his post with a question - "...why are we still even discussing this?". Because, Ghost, you and all the others want to believe. You went into the light - and ignored the signs that said "Bug Zapper". On one point I do agree with Hume's Ghost, though. No one could possibly mistake him for a pedant.

P. T. Barnum would have loved the modern left.

Update: If you really want to see fake news, try this instead. Michelle has a roundup with lots of real examples.

What's notable is that they're doing it to each other:

State Treasurer Phil Angelides and Controller Steve Westly are spending millions on attack ads heading into Tuesday's primary, trading accusations of being corrupt, indulging in dirty politics and wanting to raise taxes.

And they say there's no honesty in politics.

Breaking over at AP/Yahoo:

VIENNA, Austria - Six world powers meeting to discuss the crisis over Iran's nuclear program have reached an agreement on a package of incentives and penalties to be presented to Tehran, diplomats told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The diplomats were speaking on the sidelines of a meeting between officials from France, Britain, Germany, the United States, Russia and China. They requested anonymity because they were not authorized to make a public announcement.

I'll go out on a limb and predict Iran will not accept the package. Having a nuke gives Tehran such enormous regional power (and beyond) that I feel they would turn down any offer no matter how generous. More as this develops...

My schedule is finally starting to lighten up a little. So I'm gonna start posting again.

Thanks to my regulars for visiting often (according to my stats) and being patient.

LB