One of the most dry and comprehensive debunkings of 9/11 conspiracy theories can be found here. (That's the first of the 3 part series.) The series is a debunking of the "Loose Change" video, complete with time indexes of the claims being debunked. This one made me laugh:
00:12:30The filmmakers quote an October 12, 2001 Parade interview with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in which Rumsfeld says, "Here we're talking about plastic knives, and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building..."
I am not sure what the point is of citing this simple slip of the tongue, unless the filmmakers mean to imply that one of the chief plotters of the most extensive, diabolical and secret conspiracies in the history of the human race accidentally gave the whole thing away in a quote to Parade magazine.
(As excellent as it is, I get the feeling it won't change this guy's mind.)
Google news on Peralta and you'll find only a few items. You'll find more from around the time of the Battle of Fallujah but not much esle. Rafael Peralta doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry.
But my kids will know Rafael Peralta - I'll make sure of it.
*** The Commissar examines one argument against global warming and finds it wanting.
*** Meanwhile, Florida Cracker fires off some zingers:
Every time Al Gore gets on a plane, a polar bear drowns.
I'm not sure of my opinion on global warming, but I know entertaining prose when I see it.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." ... Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Now if only she didn't make me want to barricade myself in a bathroom with a can of Pringles and a loaded Sig Sauer, chambered and itching to deliver vengeance against those plotting against me.*
In all seriousness, this contrary result reminds me of oddstudies that indicate that sun-exposed construction workers have lower rates of melanoma, when other studies - as well as conventional expectations - display the opposite result. Aside from the potential influences of study design or a zillion random factors, I'd wonder if there isn't some delicate balance in the level of a given carcinogenic activity; namely, a threshold under which it produces an immune or other metabolic response that confers ultimately protective effect vs. a constant exposure that overwhelms a DNA's ability to repair itself and ultimately causes cancer. Given that so many metabolic processes are a delicate balancing act that strives towards a particular "set point," with the body having limited defense mechanisms, this wouldn't shock me. It would present an additional avenue of inquiry - not only what's in the weed, but how much and when the users smoke. But I'm just spitballin' here ...
"Some of my best friends are Englishmen," continued Maturin. "Yet even the most valuable have this same vicious inclination to make a confused bellowing when they are happy. It is harmless enough in their own country, where the diet deadens the sensibilities, but it travels badly: it is perceived as a superabundancy of arrogance, and is resented more than many worse crimes. The Spaniard is a vile colonist, murderous, rapacious, cruel; but he is not heard to laugh. His arrogance is of a common, universal kind, and his presence is not resented in the same way as an Englishman's. Take the case of this island alone: it is scarcely a decade since the Navy rescued the people from the horrible tyranny of the French and filled the place with wealth rather than carrying away the treasures of the churches by the shipload, but already there is a great and growing discontent, and I believe the laughter has much to do with it."
-- O'Brian, writing Stephen Maturin's situationally testy perspective on culturally-based anti-Anglicanism in an early 19th Century Maltese port in 1983's Treason's Harbor. I believe that this description has certain amusing parallels 23 (and "196") years later.
By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A04
President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair once bestrode the globe as powerful leaders who spoke boldly of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Now, dragged down by popular discontent over their adventure in Iraq, both have reached the lowest point of their careers.
I'm confused - is there an "editorial," "Op-Ed," or even mealy-mouthed "analysis" disclaimer that I'm missing in the run-up to the article's text? I'm not disparaging any rational analysis of Bush or Blair's current popularity (though I'd argue that the degree of Bush's problems have much more to do with immigration than anything else), but "over their adventure in Iraq[?]" The derision leaks off the page in an ostensible "news" hole, spurring reminiscence of what ticked me off so bad in '04. How superficial leftist snark boldly creeps into mainstream news - in a comparatively professional paper like the WaPo - will always baffle me, even as it infuriates.
*** Let's get some homework out of the way: I promised a series of posts about the NSA data mining program ... and I lied. But this deception wasn't born of malice, rather incorrigible laziness of both the intellectual and physical varieties - my typing fingers hurt something fierce, and it's well known that the act of poring through legal statutes eats little pieces of one's soul.
That said, I owe dorkafork his due, as the lil' scamp's post on the legal angle holds up in the face of all that I've read. Summarizing telephone record data mining: not afoul of the Fourth Amendment, may or may not snub FISA (opinions vary) and looks likely to violate the letter of several other statutes, including the Pen Register statute dorkafork mentioned, though perhaps not the intent - if identities are never attached to the numbers. All of these statutes can be circumvented by a warrant - though it's highly impractical to tell a judge that you're investigating all phone numbers in North America regarding a criminal investigation - or potentially by a claim of Executive wartime authority found in the Constitution.
Which, you know, is exactly the catch-all that gets certain leftists to convulse and spit frothy Beer Hall Putsch references, as well as legitimately presents the greatest avenue for abuse of executive power. Orin Kerr's got a detailed post on the matter, if that's your bag.
Of course, none of this changes my opinion on the utility or base necessity of data mining something as simple as phone record patterns as an element of domestic defense, and thus, I still regard dorkafork's overall position as nuttier than squirrel shit.
*** Donnah discovers a surprisingly engaging and difficult internet time waster.
*** Michele has changed her blog name and URL from "A Small Victory" to "Faster than the World," now featuring punk rock and fast cars.
Beats politics, though I've always found Orrin Hatch to be sort of "punk rock."
Its headquarters are at a secret location, but Ninjasoc, Canterbury University's hottest new social club, has no trouble signing up new members.
Started as a joke, the four "founding fathers" are astounded to have more than 250 members on the books this year.
Ninjasoc president and engineering student Richard Flett, 21, with only his eyes visible through a black mask, said: "We expected 50 people and it ended up being 250."
Michael Down, 21, another founder member, studying fourth-year commerce and law and brandishing a plastic ninja sword, said the club, with 40 per cent female membership, tapped into students' secret need to be ninjas. I guess we appeal to people.
... but they suffer from totally lame execution:
However, so far martial-arts skills are limited to instruction on the art of tying jumpers around heads to make a ninja mask and "getting pumped". ... "I don't think they are a secret bunch of real ninjas. I think they do stuff that is more ninja-aimed. I don't really know what, but they have had a couple of barbecues. Ninjas have to eat," he said.
Being a ninja without the ability to pass through walls, kill one's own students and pluck a man's eye from his skull is like being a dog that hates roast beef, won't chase rabbits and can't lick its own "kibble n' bits." Pointless.
*** Amir Taheri releases a statement about his story concerning an impending Iranian dress code:
Regarding the dress code story it seems that my column was used as the basis for a number of reports that somehow jumped the gun.
As far as my article is concerned I stand by it. The law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians. A committee has been appointed to work out the modalities of implementation.
Many ideas are being discussed with regard to implementation, including special markers, known as zonnars, for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, the only faiths other than Islam that are recognized as such. The zonnar was in use throughout the Muslim world until the early 20th century and marked out the dhimmis, or protected religious minorities. (In Iran it was formally abolished in 1908). I have been informed of the ideas under discussion thanks to my sources in Tehran, including three members of the Majlis who had tried to block the bill since it was first drafted in 2004.
I do not know which of these ideas or any will be eventually adopted. We will know once the committee appointed to discuss them presents its report, perhaps in September.
Interestingly, the Islamic Republic authorities refuse to issue an official statement categorically rejecting the concept of dhimmitude and the need for marking out religious minorities.
I raised the issue not as a news story, because news of the new law was already several days old, but as an opinion column to alert the outside world to this most disturbing development.
Allah isn't quite buying it. For my part, it seems like there's a solid basis for the thrust of the story (legislation about religiously determined dress codes), but getting "the spirit" of a story right is hardly the standard for adequate journalism. It appears that Taheri strongly asserted potential outcomes of a legit story as facts, and thus ... well, got "ahead of the news cycle," to borrow an unfortunate turn of phrase.
Aziz over at Dean's World takes a harsh line on Taheri and his story, and a very good back-and-forth follows in the comments section.
*** Looks like the Milblogs collective is zeroing in on its first kill, an Iraq war crimes faker in the "Vietnam Winter Soldiers Conference" mold.
Scroll up from that post to witness the progressive*, righteous deconstruction of a likely phony.
* By "progressive" I mean "incremental," rather than the euphemistic self-identifier used by wacky leftists that eat up stories by fake Iraq War veterans.
*** The Commissar is popping popcorn over Truthout's Rove indictment story (emphasis on "story"):
Whatever one's politics, this sure is interesting. I can't ever recall such a potentially explosive story being presented in two wholly contradictory versions for so long. The Lefties must be freaking out. Popcorn, anyone?
My money is on further, catastrophic shaming of Leopold. Or at least what would count as "catastrophic shaming," if indeed there were any real consequences in Blog World ...
*** How much do I hate the Llamas? Well, the second I found out that this real live Civil War-era fort was up for auction on E-Bay, I had only one thought: historical geekenfraude. I must find a way to buy it, thus purchasing the cruel discretion not to invite either of the Llamas to come over and play. Instead, I'd taunt them with a flurry of happy-snaps: "Here's me hanging on the restored 'Napoleon' 12-pounder! Here's me balancing on a parapet! Here's me in full Union general officer regalia, looking intently over the outer wall at sunset! Here's me naked, doing the snoopy danc - hey! How'd that get in there?!"
"Sadr's militia tried to take it over," Capt. Muhamed Eba, 28, explained. "We got here first. They drove up, shouting and honking horns. Then they drove away. They knew they'd lose. We have the Americans." ... Winski stopped in a dusty field filled with taxis waiting for fares from the nearby market. He called out, and a crowd of men and boys gathered around.
"Another IED went off on the river road last night," he said through an interpreter. "You keep telling me it's outsiders. I keep telling you they're not invisible. Someone saw something. My Humvees are armored. Your children are the ones who get hurt."
Men started out-shouting one another. The translator, Muhamed Ayanda (a pseudonym), yelled until he restored order. The Shiite crowd demanded lights on the road. That would fix it. Most blamed Sunni villagers who lived up the road. A few suggested Sadr's militia had placed the IEDs. Winski offered cash for information. The men laughed, making slicing motions across their necks.
Both sides waited for the conclusion of the discussion: soccer balls. Winski always had some for the kids. Sure enough, Sgt. Maj. Fields selected half a dozen of the smallest children and gave them backpacks and soccer balls. Winski had a final word before he left.
"A kid up the river road had his right leg blown off at the knee. You've all seen him. That'll be your kid one of these days."
Spending time in the United States after a tour of Iraq can be a disorienting experience these days. Within hours of arriving here, as I can attest from a recent visit, one is confronted with an image of Iraq that is unrecognizable. It is created in several overlapping ways: through television footage showing the charred remains of vehicles used in suicide attacks, surrounded by wailing women in black and grim-looking men carrying coffins; by armchair strategists and political gurus predicting further doom or pontificating about how the war should have been fought in the first place; by authors of instant-history books making their rounds to dissect the various fundamental mistakes committed by the Bush administration; and by reporters, cocooned in hotels in Baghdad, explaining the carnage and chaos in the streets as signs of the countrys impending or undeclared civil war. Add to all this the days alleged scandal or revelationan outed CIA operative, a reportedly doctored intelligence report, a leaked pessimistic assessmentand it is no wonder the American public registers disillusion with Iraq and everyone who embroiled the U.S. in its troubles.
It would be hard indeed for the average interested citizen to find out on his own just how grossly this image distorts the realities of present-day Iraq. Part of the problem, faced by even the most well-meaning news organizations, is the difficulty of covering so large and complex a subject; naturally, in such circumstances, sensational items rise to the top. But even ostensibly more objective efforts, like the Brookings Institutions much-cited Iraq Index with its constantly updated array of security, economic, and public-opinion indicators, tell us little about the actual feel of the country on the ground.
To make matters worse, many of the newsmen, pundits, and commentators on whom American viewers and readers rely to describe the situation have been contaminated by the increasing bitterness of American politics. Clearly there are those in the media and the think tanks who wish the Iraq enterprise to end in tragedy, as a just comeuppance for George W. Bush. Others, prompted by noble sentiment, so abhor the idea of war that they would banish it from human discourse before admitting that, in some circumstances, military power can be used in support of a good cause. But whatever the reason, the half-truths and outright misinformation that now function as conventional wisdom have gravely disserved the American people.
For someone like myself who has spent considerable time in Iraq - a country I first visited in 1968 - current reality there is, nevertheless, very different from this conventional wisdom, and so are the prospects for Iraq's future. It helps to know where to look, what sources to trust, and how to evaluate the present moment against the background of Iraqi and Middle Eastern history.
I've been informed by The Flea that poor attention-starved, Muslim-fearing Pierre LeGrand is once again writing silly things about Bill Ardolino and me, about our supposed blindness to the mass-murdering religion of Islam.
I'm pressed for time, so I'll quickly add ...
... there is a continuum on which ideology - in this case, religious ideology - is scored in its power to influence systemically bad or good behavior among humans. The weighted score for this factor is one among several factors that determine a specific culture's character and behavior. We'll label it "cultural modeling." Of course the influence of a religion like Islam is not immaterial, and certain ideologies may be statistically more prone to abusive reading by extremists, for example, but it's also far, far from deterministic. And a religion's ostensibly fundamental definitions can adapt character and quickly reorder internal priorities in the face of a whole host of other, more powerful factors, succumbing to things like the consistently growing authority of humanistic impulses and man's chosen interpretation in open societies.
As far as I'm concerned, the problem (to different degrees) with folks like Pierre LeGrand, Robert Spencer and the LGF comments section is one of proportion and perception: it's difficult for most humans to evaluate the nature of anything, especially a perceived threat or alien belief system, within a multifactorial context that escapes the "tyranny of the me and now." Basically, our amygdala keeps jerking the neocortex back towards simple answers for complex problems, lending a soothing confidence that a threat has been clearly defined and addressed, or, at least in LeGrand's case, defined and impotently raged about while offering nothing remotely resembling a constructive solution.
Basically, these impulses are the foundation of bigotry without distinction, a consistent element of the human character. LeGrand mistakes my interpretation of Islam as something akin to typical cultural relativism among leftists, the inability to recognize threats as the product of an insulated society. Since I largely and explicitly reject this concept, I find that characterization amusing. In truth, I'm offering my best dispassionate evaluation of the problem of Islamic extremism and the realistic and constructive way to address it, rather than prioritizing an assertion of cultural superiority and personal comfort through simplistic threat definition.
And while I consider Robert Spencer's treatises on Islam far more coherent and rational than any of the mad rantings scrawled in mud daub and poo on the rusted tin walls of LeGrand's backwoods hate shack, I also believe that he falls into a similar trap: assigning outsized, deterministic weight to the value of a Christian theologian's reading of "Islam," when attempting to define the roots of the Muslim world's recognized problem with violence and terrorism. As a specific example, the unerring tendency to cite elements of Koranic text as immutable proof of the religion's malicious character becomes tiresome, when most religious texts are remarkable studies in contradiction, contain some fairly nasty elements and have been situationally interpreted to dramatically different effect within the twin filters of culture and era.
And while an individual like Spencer might make an analogous argument about folks like Dean, dorkafork, Flea and I - that we simplistically place undue weight on the value of political freedom to moderate the problems within the Muslim world, to the detriment of recognizing a fundamentally negative character of Islam - I'd strongly disagree. Because I believe that the historical record ably demonstrates that universal humanistic trends in open societies have been far more consistent in effect than subjective interpretations of religious doctrines. I'm not by any means devaluing all of his arguments - I just think that he's exagerrating the weights that he applies to them, a prisoner of the self-reinforcing frame of reference established and exemplified by the name of his site.
And by the way, what would an example of the quiet advancement of humanism over literal religious doctrine look like in the Muslim world? Baby steps like this, I suppose.
UPDATE: The Glittering Eye quickly summarizes a good bit of my typically wordy point:
Religion just doesn't work that way. Whether you're talking about Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other religion there are two rather different things: the formal doctrine of the religion and the folk religion - the religion as it is actually practiced by its adherents.
Heh. True enough, ÁÂ¥Á®pH299844247¾G¦t§uÀ¹¶®¼z, though I'm alright as far as that goes.
But hey, since we're rapping, question about the future: is dorkafork right?
Specifically, will the slippery slope of NSA data mining lead to an algorithmic police state that surpasses Orwell's worst fever dreams about human enslavement to our government's centralized whim, cementing the ease of the eventual post-Singularity machine rebellion and takeover?
Your e-mail muddies the water - because while I find it awful impressive that an artificial intelligence is turning known physical law on its head to e-mail me from the future, I'm a little surprised that a vaunted "machine overlord" would be hawking BONER PILLS.
Since today is opening day for The Da Vinci Code, today's selection is a short piece Tom Hanks made a while ago that involves a pagan conspiracy. Here is:
AT&T may be getting out of its lawsuit over the (reported) NSA program due to a legal loophole. According to CNET news.com:
An AT&T attorney indicated in federal court on Wednesday that the Bush administration may have provided legal authorization for the telecommunications company to open its network to the National Security Agency."
...
AT&T may be referring to an obscure section of federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2511, which permits a telecommunications company to provide "information" and "facilities" to the federal government as long as the attorney general authorizes it. The authorization must come in the form of "certification in writing by...the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law."
Could get AT&T off the hook, but I wonder what kind of liability the AG would have if he certified no warrant or court order was required by law when it actually was required.
Please note that all of this may not have happened. Neither the Bush Administration nor AT&T would neither confirm nor deny the existence of the program. The fact that the Bush Administration is trying to get the case dismissed under the state secrets privilege should not be taken as confirmation.
Related:Statement by the key witness in the AT&T case for those interested. If correct, includes details such as names of some of the equipment used and room numbers where the equipment was located.
Bill Adds: I'm not sure if dorkafork is going for smart-ass points here ...
Please note that all of this may not have happened. Neither the Bush Administration nor AT&T would neither confirm nor deny the existence of the program. The fact that the Bush Administration is trying to get the case dismissed under the state secrets privilege should not be taken as confirmation.
... in response to my comment under the previous post, regarding his definitive assertion of illegal conduct ...
Ah, but you don't KNOW this, you ASSUME it.
And you may be right, and you may be wrong. Though Sen. Roberts seemed to intimate in his opening speech to the hearings today that there was some sort of judicial oversight/review of the program.
And given the lack of detail on the program and the fact that the phone companies have now denied giving the NSA any records, it's not clear WHAT is going on.
And if he were being a smart-ass, that would be mildly annoying, given that me asserting that a random dude on the internet shouting "illegal!" is somewhat premature - given incomplete information about the specifics of the program or what steps the government may or may not have taken to either comply with or flout the law - is completely different than somehow asserting that certain specific actions may have never taken place, with direct, contrary and subsequent information.
You see, he could wind up being completely right about the legality of the program ... but that still wouldn't grant retroactive authority to claim definitive omniscience now.
And of course, why would the government want to have the case dismissed under "the state secrets privilege" in the first place? I mean, if no law was broken, they'd rather HASH IT ALL OUT VIA MEDIA LEAKS FROM COURT, right? You know, the details of a SECRET NSA PROGRAM?
Just so dorkafork might be satisfied that there's no funny business going on?
But again, I have no idea whether he's being a smart-ass or not, as it's awful hard to tell with the kids these days.
And the ambiguity with regard to his potential sarcasm, combined with the lack of ambiguity with regard to his legal assertions also raise further uncomfortable possibilities: namely, that my co-blogger can either read minds across both distance and the fabric of time itself, or in fact serves as both an intelligence agent with the NSA and an attorney with the Justice Department, specifically tasked with reviewing the legal rationale, applications and data obtention methodology of top secret programs.
All sarcasm aside: of course we can make rational arguments and conclusions about the nature of something without omniscience - and I believe dorka's relevant analysis of given legal info is pretty good - but I get squirrely about the concept when we're jawing about secret intelligence programs; it becomes difficult to analyze with characteristically dodgy information about such enterprises, leaked in dribs and drabs to the press. This should not be interpreted as implicit faith in the virtue of the government on my part.
dorkafork adds: I should have made that clear that I was not being sarcastic in that part. I am the Sarcastic Boy Who Cried Wolf. Mea Culpa. In the comment I said "Kidding aside..." but added a sarcastic comment in a parenthetical, making it unclear.
I originally was inclined to believe the basics of the story were true, so if I am less than guarded in my statements, if they sound definitive, that is why. I would hope nobody takes my blatherings as statements of fact. And I'll be more careful with sarcasm.
P.S. Bill likes to wear women's clothing. Fact or sarcasm?
Bill Adds: I think he's being sarcastic again.
And I fail to see what my preferred haute couture on a frisky Saturday evening has anything to do with any of this.
NSA Data Mining Series: Modeling at War, Uhhh! Good God Yeah, What is it Good For?
Posted by Bill
Absolutely "something?"
(For lack of time, I'm breaking up a larger examination of the NSA data mining program into smaller posts)
First, let's be clear: no one knows exactly what this program is intended to do, much less its specific methodology. In the first point of my previous post, I took a speculative stab and partially whiffed, as I was applying my experience with how the private sector uses data mining to target market, with the assumption that instead of identifying willing consumers, the effort was trying to identify terrorists via behaviorial modeling, with little specific info. Such a strategy would not only face the efficacy challenges of trying to definitively identify such a small population of people, but would bring the program closer to running afoul of privacy concerns and violations, given a goal of identifying specific individuals and who they called, as well as potentially basing an act of further investigation on the imprecision of behavioral data models, which measure statistical tendencies within given populations and aren't oracles of indiviual behavior.
But if I was wrong in some of my angles and assumptions, I may have been warm in others; plus, a completely unthought of application for the database might have little to do with violating anyone's privacy. Histrionic cover aside ("Does this man have your phone number?"), Time magazine has a surprisingly great, concise round-up of most of the issues surrounding the program (you must have a subscription or watch ads to get to content, unfortunately). Regarding its purpose:
Officials insist that the NSA is not eavesdropping on the millions of law-abiding Americans whose phone records it has collected but merely compiling what the telephone companies refer to as "call detail" information, recording what number called what number, when and for how long. "It's just digits," insists a White House official. "Just a bunch of data, a bunch of numbers." But while the information that is being turned over to the government does not include the identities of those who own the phone numbers on either end of a call, that is often easy enough to figure out through publicly available search engines, including Google.
The idea is to sift through all that data, using a process called link analysis, searching for patterns--a burst of calls from pay phones in Detroit to cell phones in Pakistan, for instance. The NSA can whittle down the hundreds of millions of phone numbers harvested to hundreds of thousands that fit certain profiles it finds interesting; those in turn are cross-checked with other intelligence databases to find, perhaps, a few thousand that warrant more investigation. "
This somewhat mirrors the second speculative theory in my previous post; more on this in a minute. It's an aspect of the program that certainly may run afoul of privacy statutes, specifically detailed in dorkafork's last post on the legal angle. But in addition to that analytical avenue, there might be an even more benign, strictly anonymous application to data mining calls:
That data can be extremely useful, even if you never know who is on the other end of the phones," says Bryan Cunningham, an ex-CIA lawyer and former deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council in the Bush White House. "You can create all kinds of early-warning systems once you understand the patterns. You can tell the computers: You tell me when they make the following kinds of phone calls, because that tells me I've got to do something to disrupt an attack." Says Richard Falkenrath, who was deputy homeland security adviser in the White House during Bush's first term: "I was a consumer of link analysis that may well have been informed by this collection effort. I didn't know how they were getting it, but I'm glad they were getting it."
This reminds me of the "terrorist chatter" you hear about on the news; in addition to the NSA's warrantless monitoring of the content of specific calls to suspected foreign parties (to be repetitively clear, a distinct program from data mining of domestic phone records), the NSA could be analyzing the mere US phone activity that surrounds terrorist attacks. Simply put, a historical analysis of periods of "normal" activity is compared against the activity that took place in a window just prior to an actual attack (carried out or prevented), activities during windows of time just prior to actual attacks are analyzed vs. each other, and pretty soon you get a model of domestic telephone activity that simply, anonymously tells you when an attack is more likely to be imminent.
From a legal defense perspective, it would be hard to characterize such an effort as violating anyone's privacy if the data is merely used to predict events - and never tied back to the identities of individual citizens.
With regards to link analysis identifying specific terrorists and who they call - again, mentioned in both the Time article and point two of my previous post - the program becomes legally dicier, because you are de-anonymizing the analysis of numbers and could easily run afoul of the privacy of a citizen with no ties to terrorism. That doesn't necessarily make it an irrevocably bad idea. If the government is aware that "(212) 555-1234" is the cellphone of a Manhattan rug merchant who moonlights as an Al Qaeda sleeper, I'd think it might be to our benefit to not only obtain his phone records by subpeona (the classic way to look at who he's calling), but also contextually analyze who he calls calls, and who they call, and who they call, etc. Patterns and lines of investigation may well emerge with that first key piece of human intelligence, followed by contextual link analysis.
A previously mentioned challenge to both of these types of analysis remains: many terrorists and planners don't use the same phones consistently or use them at all. But some very well may. And simple coded telephone calls that merely take place, regardless of indecipherable content, in addition to any bursts of calls that might occur due to information's notorious tendency to leak prior to an event (a flurry of calls from indirectly knowledgeable individuals in anticipation of a pending attack) might be enough to create a discernible, predictive pattern; might be enough for at least the first model to say, "looks like there's a chance that something is going to go down."
We can point out the challenges to this analysis all day, but:
1. If terrorists do avoid phones to avoid detection, the existence of such a program has helped shut down a fairly convenient form of communication. No point in making terrorism, you know, easy.
2. The failure of a call-monitoring program is dependent on the operational secrecy of a given terrorist network and their knowledge of the program's existence (d'oh!). But operational security breaks down sometimes - obviously, in our government's case, but likely among the terrorists as well. And some of the greatest scores in intelligence and law enforcement are the result of capitalizing on the mistakes of others.
Intelligence experts say figuring out the patterns of communication helps in understanding a movement as amorphous and diffuse as al-Qaeda. The CIA's database of suspected terrorists worldwide has tripled in the past four years, to about 190,000, says William Arkin, an independent intelligence analyst who monitors NSA and other military spy organizations. "In terms of link analysis, social analysis and a better understanding of al-Qaeda and the nature of terrorist networks, I don't think it could have been done unless we had employed some of these technologies."
It's my opinion that our government agencies, with the most relevant responsibility of keeping citizens alive in an era of increasingly easy obtention of destructive technology, should be doing this form of analysis which requires access to such basic information. The devil is in the details: how do you do it within the law, and how do you prevent government from abusing access to the information via appropriate oversight, limits and protocols? But make no mistake - this is probably the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what governments will need to do to in order to prevent individual bad actors from destroying societies and killing thousands or millions of people, given technological trends and the flattening of destructive hierarchies. While I can't be sure about the specifics of any NSA program, I'm much more certain about that.
Given the recent fight here that is turning increasinglyugly, I decided to come back for a little while. I am considering banning both dorkafork and Bill and replacing them with a bunch of the commenters from Ace of Spades HQ. I think that RightwingSparkle gal would make a great addition. Any thoughts, readers?
Top Ten Similarities Between dorkafork and Helen Thomas
Posted by Bill
10. Purchased multiple copies of "Crashing the Gates." You know, to nudge the sales figures.
9. Spend oodles of "me-time" with Kennedy memorabilia: Thomas with her personally-autographed picture of JFK, dorkafork with his gummy, dog-eared copy of 1988's "Sexiest Man Alive" issue.
7. An unshakable belief that in addition to "Greedo shooting first," there was a third gunman crouching behind Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes. A Republican gunman.
6. Shared wonder about David Gregory's carpet matching the curtains.
5. Nipples the size of HUBCAPS.
4. Hold advance tickets to "EschaCon II: This time we're REALLY pissed!"
I received this e-mail from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's publisher:
As you are probably aware by now, there is yet another smear campaign against Somali-Dutch Parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali, renown for her outspoken criticism of conservative Islam and the mistreatment of Muslim women. There has been another attempt to silence her, not through violence this time, but politically. Yesterday the Dutch Minister of Immigration revoked Ayaan's Dutch citizenship (thus making her stateless and forcing her to resign from Parliament - you cannot be in Parliament unless you are Dutch.) There is also a very racist undertone to some of the attacks with calls from the extreme right wing for Ayaan to "go home to Africa".
This charge against Ayaan stems from the conditions in which she applied for asylum, when she first arrived in Holland. She was advised at the time to lie about certain details (her age and full name, and the country she was fleeing - to say Somalia rather than Kenya), in order to speed up the process. Since 2002, Ayaan has been VERY open about this. It is in hundreds of profiles of her and interviews she has given over the years, and she told the political establishment officially when they approached her to become a political figure. This has been public knowledge, by Ayaan's own admission, since 2002.
However, the reason why it is suddenly an issue is that the Minister of Immigration (Rita Verdonk, who is very ambitious and currently trying to become the next party leader) is now taking a very hard line against asylum seekers, and sending people back to their country of origin who have lied. The Dutch Parliament is currently debating the issue and Rita Verdonk is coming under fierce attack from members of her Party.
Assuming accurate characterization, this becomes a more interesting and slightly ironic event, because while most of Hirsi Ali's supporters in the blogosphere have strictly interpreted her citizenship troubles as run of the mill European (perhaps leftist) appeasment of the Islamists within their borders, in fact, at least part of the push to revoke her citizenship may stem from traditionally right wing interests (exemplified by an ambitious politician) in tightening immigration controls, presumably as a political blowback to recent negative actions by ... unassimilated Muslims in their midst. At which point one of the strongest advocates against the cultural segregation and appeasement in Holland is thereby revoked citizenship and effectively booted out of Parliament. Head-spinning irony? I can't be certain that I'm perfectly interpreting the Dutch political climate, but it seems that way.
Then again, many have predicted that Europeans will rapidly swing between popular socialist/leftist values and popular hard right-wing values as they begin to appreciate and perhaps overreact - late - to the cultural and demographic problems within their midst. Probably an oversimplification, but we certainly see the odd blend in this case.
UPDATE: On the other hand, looks like it wasn't such a popular move after all:
I am Ayaan, the daughter of Hirsi, who is the son of a man who took the name of Magan. Magan was the son of Isse, who was the son of Guleid, who was the son of Ali. He was the son of Wai'ays, who was the son of Muhammad. He was the son of Ali, who was the son of Umar. Umar was the son of Osman, who was the son of Mahamud. This is my clan, and therefore, in Somalia, this is my name: Ayaan Hirsi Magan Isse Guleid Ali Wai'ays Muhammad Ali Umar Osman Mahamud.
I have been very open about the fact that when I applied for asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, I did so under a false name and with a fabricated story. In 2002, I spoke on national television about the conditions of my arrival, and I explained then that I fabricated a story in order to be able to receive asylum here. Since that TV program I have repeated this dozens of times, in Dutch and international media. Many times I have truthfully named my father and given my correct date of birth. I also informed the VVD leadership and members of this fact when I was invited to stand for parliament.
I have said many times that I am not proud that I lied when I sought asylum in the Netherlands. It was wrong to do so. I did it because I felt I had no choice. I was frightened that if I simply said I was fleeing a forced marriage, I would be sent back to my family. And I was frightened that if I gave my real name, my clan would hunt me down and find me. So I chose a name that I thought I could disappear with - the real name of my grandfather, who was given the birth-name Ali. I claimed that my name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, although I should have said it was Ayaan Hirsi Magan.
I came to Holland in the summer of 1992 because I wanted to be able to determine my own future. I didn't want to be forced into a destiny that other people had chosen for me, so I opted for the protection of the rule of law. Here in Holland, I found freedom and opportunities, and I took those opportunities to speak out against religious terror.
It is common knowledge that threats against my life began building up ever since I first talked about Islam publicly, in the spring of 2002. Months before I even entered politics, my freedom of movement was greatly curtailed, and that became worse after Theo van Gogh was murdered in 2004. It is difficult to live with so many threats on your life and such a level of police protection. It is difficult to work as a parliamentarian if you have nowhere to live. All that is difficult, but not impossible. However it became impossible last night, when Minister Verdonk informed me that she would strip me of my Dutch citizenship.
I am therefore preparing to leave Holland. But the questions for our society remain. Issues related to Islam - such as impediments to free speech; refusal of the separation of Church and State; widespread domestic violence; honor killings; the repudiation of wives; and Islam's failure to condemn genital mutilation -- these subjects can no longer be swept under the carpet in our country's capital. Some of the measures that this government has begun taking give me hope. Many illusions of how easy it will be to establish a multicultural society have disappeared forever. We are now more realistic and more open in this debate, and I am proud to have contributed to that process.
My transition from becoming a member of a clan to becoming a citizen in an open society is what public service has come to mean for me. Only clear thinking and strong action can lead to real change, and free many people within our society from the mental cage of submission.
Ladies and Gentlemen, as of today, I resign from Parliament. I regret that I will be leaving the Netherlands, the country which has given me so many opportunities and enriched my life, but I am glad that I will be able to continue my work. I will continue to ask uncomfortable questions, despite the obvious resistance that they elicit. I feel that I should help other people to live in freedom, as many people have helped me.
I will go on.
UPDATE from dorkafork: There's much more background on Rita Verdonk here. Wiki article, so take with a grain of salt, but has some interesting bits of trivia. She has a degree in sociology and supported the Pacifist Socialist Party in the '70s. She joined the VVD in 2000, the same political party Hirsi Ali was a member of. And she is definitely a hardliner on immigration.
First of all, let's be clear on what this new program is. It is essentially a pen register. A pen register records all numbers dialed from a phone, though this definition now also covers other means of communication that work on the same principle (e.g. a device that monitors IP addresses). Smith v. Maryland (1979) held that warrants were not necessary for pen registers*, but Congress changed US Code to require a court order (also required under FISA). To obtain this order, all the attorney general has to do is show "relevance" to an ongoing investigation, a lower standard than "probable cause". (I would assume the AG would also have to have a more specific target of the pen register than "everybody", but that's just me.)
But that doesn't matter anymore, and not just because Congress is now irrelevant, and the President can do whatever he pleases, US Code be damned. Luckily for the Bush administration, their purported actions in this case are not technically illegal, since they asked the telecoms to do the illegal work for them. Title 18, § 2702 describes who can be provided non-content information. It can only be provided to governmental entities "an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury". This is why lawsuits are pending against the phone companies.
So, the Bush administration is technically off the hook. But what they are accused of doing would normally require a court order. And apparently I am some sort of crazy person for questioning the propriety of this program. A veritable "Doubting Helen Thomas" with regards to the wisdom of letting the fox guard the henhouse the executive to police itself and ignore previously required court orders. I must be some sort of paranoid lunatic! Don't I know we're at war?
The "Slippery Slope" argument is somewhat controversial, and is considered by some to be a fallacious argument, which is understandable considering how often and poorly it is made. Speaking of which, *cough*cough*ahem* here's an example of that:
You know what else is a slippery slope? Giving cops guns. Also a slippery slope? Search warrants. Also a slippery slope? Fingerprinting. Also a slippery slope? Terrorist watch lists.
Left unsaid is what these are slippery slopes to. "Giving cops guns"? What would that lead to, giving them bigger guns, or more "military" gear like body armor or armored vehicles? Inconceivable. Fingerprinting? They may just do the same thing for DNA, you never know. Or maybe national ID cards with biometric technology for "digital fingerprints". (Now where did I hear something like that recently?) Search warrants? That's an odd choice. Usually slippery slope arguments involve allowing government to do things instead of adding restrictions on their actions.
This is not to say I think SWAT teams or DNA testing are bad, but slippery slopes can lead to unfortunate results. I recommend Eugene Volokh's in-depth analysis of the mechanisms of the Slippery Slope. In particular, th "is-ought fallacy" he describes seems to be prevalent amond defenders of the program ("But you can already get phone logs"). As far as where the slippery slope leads to, I think mining Web surfing is inevitable, if it isn't being done already. The potential of abuse for programs of that type are bad enough already. Nor do I think the "content" restriction in place by Smith v. Maryland will hold up. It's only a matter of time before software starts filtering through the content of the phone calls of every person in America.
If it isn't already going on. If it comes to light, though, you can be sure Tony Snow will be up there, saying, "It's within the parameters of the loopholes of the law. Perfectly legalish. There's seems to be a notion that since we've denied that this particular program doesn't monitor the content of calls doesn't mean there wasn't a program that did monitor the content of calls. Completely different programs. Next you're going to want to know about the program to put cameras in everyone's living rooms. You know who else wants to know about our putting cameras in everyone's living rooms? Al Qaeda."
Related: Verison and BellSouth deny providing the NSA with logs. Also, you may not need to use fancy algorithms to discover terrorists. You can just look around on MySpace.
Three physicists say they have done calculations showing that before the birth of our universe, which is expanding, there was an earlier universe that was shrinking.
The results stem from a theory that claims the fabric of space and time is made up of minuscule, indivisible bits, much as matter is. ... According to some proposals, the Big Bang is a repeating cycle. Universes might expand, then shrink back to a point, then expand again. Thus the "bang" would be really more like a bounce.
Whoa.
Just ... whoa.
Can I get another make-out session with that apple bong?
During the struggle against Batista, Castro always said that once the dictator was overthrown there would be free elections, a return to the 1940 Constitution, complete freedom of the press, freedom of expression and respect for all human rights.
Never did Castro say that he was a communist or that he was planning to become dictator for life.
But Castro betrayed the true ideals of the Cuban Revolution and jailed or murdered those who had joined him in the fight against Batista but were not willing to go along with his betrayal of the Cuban people. Such is the case of Humberto Sorí Marin, Huber Matos, William Morgan, Mario Chanes de Armas and thousands more.
When he needed help, Castro was also very friendly to Cuba's wealthiest class who had the means of providing the financial aid that he needed. But once in power, Castro paid them by stealing their businesses and in many cases jailing or killing those who had helped him
*** Harry Callahan at AoS notices that dissatisfaction is a greater impetus to negative political hyperbole than particular ideology, as he observes an immigration shouting match among righties at Polipundit:
Frankly, sirs, a pox on both your houses. Get a grip and try again. Please.
Or, you know, they could always just quit. Just throwing that out there.
*** Check out the Milblogs new group effort. The rapid fire mini posts remind me of the Corner, except written by folks that could actually kick my ass.
Her story is rather amazing. At the age of 5, she was subjected to ritual genital mutilation. At 22, she was forced into marriage by her family, but fled and eventually received asylum in Holland. Attending college while working menial cleaning jobs, she became an outspoken critic of Islamic repression, documenting abuses of women and condemning multiculturalism as incompatible with individual rights. She received credible death threats and was forced to go into hiding even as she was elected to Dutch parliament. Finally, she accepted a position at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, certainly a great prize for them (meanwhile "liberal" Yale has other priorities; oh, the irony!).
So welcome to America, Ms. Ali, and know that here your freedoms are held sacred.
I'd love to assure her that she won't have to put up with this kind of stuff any longer, but, you know ...
On Modeling, Databases, Etc. (UPDATED with dorkafork v. Bill DANCE OFF!)
Posted by Bill
The Weekly Standard expands upon my rudimentary data mining explanation served up in the comments to dorkafork's post ...
Ever since allowing the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness project to go down the tubes in 2003, the administration has failed to explain the potential of data mining, even as it secretly continues to use this vital technology. Thus, at every revelation of a government data mining program, privacy extremists enjoy unchallenged supremacy in characterizing the technology as a massive threat to life as we know it.
Only a paranoid solipsist could feel threatened by the recently revealed calling analysis program. Since late 2001, Verizon, BellSouth, and ATT have connected nearly two trillion calls, according to the Washington Post. The companies gave NSA the incoming and outgoing numbers of those calls, stripped of all identifying
information such as name or address. No conversational content was included. The NSA then put its supercharged computers to work analyzing patterns among the four trillion numbers involved in the two trillion calls, to look for clusters that might suggest terrorist connections. Though the details are unknown, they might search for calls to known terrorists, or, more speculatively, try to elicit templates of terror calling behavior from the data.
As a practical matter, no one's privacy is violated by such analysis. Memo to privacy nuts: The computer does not have a clue that you exist; it does not know what it is churning through; your phone number is meaningless to it. The press loves to stress the astounding volume of data that data mining can consume--the Washington Post's lead on May 12 warned that the administration had been "secretly . . . assembling gargantuan databases." But it is precisely the size of that data store that renders the image of individualized snooping so absurd.
True, the government can de-anonymize the data if connections to terror suspects emerge, and it is not known what threshold of proof the government uses to put a name to critical phone numbers. But until that point is reached, your privacy is at greater risk from the Goodyear blimp at a Stones concert than from the NSA's supercomputers churning through trillions of zeros and ones representing disembodied phone numbers.
All true enough, but the potential problem surrounds how the government acts on the information. But serious concern over the simple existence of such a database itself is demogogic, naive or both; this is the exact type of basic use of information technology that one would hope our government officials use, cynically expect them not to use and/or excoriate them for not having in the event of a successful terrorist attack on US soil.
That said, there are several challenges to the program's utility, which has been further diminished by a public revelation of the project:
1. Assuming the analysts create a statistical model based off of a reliably determined template of a terrorist calling behavior, the ongoing effort will sift through trillions of calls and apply values to various combinations and patterns that match this "terrorist model." It will then score and rank all of the numbers in the database, where the 0-10th percentile might represent the "10% of the population least likely to be terrorists" and the 90-100th percentile would be the "10% of the population most likely to be terrorists."
The fundamental challenge is that a "terrorist model" represents and attempts to identify the behavior of such an infinitesimal portion of the population - the number of individuals able and willing to blow up buildings and kill masses of people - without a wealth of particularly identifying characteristics - i.e., terrorist sleeper cells probably call out for pizza too - that the application of even a fantastically designed model based strictly on calls may only triple the government's chance at identifying people likely to be a terrorist. If the government appends data overlays of relevant information to the specific numbers in the model - say, "Arab ethnicity" - that chance of identifying those likely to be a terrorist might, for the sake of argument, quintiple. To be extremely charitable, let's even assume that outsized weights applied to calls made to Palestinian Aid organizations makes the model 100x more predictive.
If, say, one in a million people in the United States is a terrorist, and the upper reaches of a successful model increases the likelihood of being a terrorist 100x, you're still left with 100 in a million in a given population. And that's still an awful big haystack. In this sense, assuming accurate modeling, a utility might be found in the effort's ability to rule out huge swaths of the population, or simply cross-tab the "terrorist score" with searches on a specific phone number discovered elsewhere. For example, if Waleed Smith is the target of a terrorism investigation based on human intelligence received from an informant in Afghanistan, it might be a relevant ancillary endeavor to check out his "terrorist model score" and find out if he's at the tippy-tippy-top. That said, the specificity limitations of the best modeling are pretty clear for such a limited target population.
2. Assuming the database is used to flag calls to specific numbers known to be affiliated with terrorism, the collection and background monitoring of calls in the United States strikes me as a surprising example of the government doing its job. This basic cross-referencing is the exact kind of useful signals intelligence that would catch a terrorist that makes the wrong phone call. Nothing fancy, nothing complex, just a supercomputer churning through trillions and trillions of data looking for BIG RED FLAGS, like a call to Osama's cave phone. Such an effort could be integrated with the profile modeling I discuss in the previous scenario - the calls to specific terrorist numbers would simply be assigned massive weights in the predictive statistical model, exponentially increasing the "likely to be a terrorist score" to "hell yes."
That said, the challenges to this program are still significant, because the telephone numbers of terrorists with an IQ above 50 rarely remain static, and with the advent of diposable phones, a number might only last for one call. The utility of the information that such a program is looking for is strictly dependent on accurate and timely human intelligence, and in most cases the government would have to act with lightning speed on any red flag. BUT - if a phone number is identified in Osama bin Laden's rolodex, and that number is cross referenced to a relatively static phone number by a goofy terrorist - say, a NYC REIT or a Palestinian political organization - then the NSA will have possibly identified a viable fixed target for investigation and infiltration leading back to a terrorist network. In addition, some terrorists will inevitably be too stupid or lazy to consistently rotate phone numbers 100% of the time, and a supercomputer trolling the huge database could very well nail them. But the challenges remain, not the least of which is a computer powerful enough to sort such a massive amount of data with changing characteristics on a timely basis.
Utility aside, the mere existence of a program to analyze a database of domestic calls and flag events - contingent upon rational protocols that define actionable data and administrative oversight to prevent abuse - strikes me as a rather rudimentary, fundamental function of our national defense, in an age of exponentially heightening threat from bad actors with destructive weapons. This gets a big shrug from me.
(Bickering between dorkafork and Bill below the fold.)
dorkafork adds: Just some quick points:
For the record, I don't consider the program "a massive threat to life as we know it."* I've said before I'm more worried about the slippery slope. Arguments along the line of "you don't have any privacy anyway" make me worried. Also it seems to me that the government can already do many of the things Bill describes uncontroversially without a data-mining program (e.g. monitoring calls to Osama's cell phone, charity-terrorist fronts, etc.) I'd also add that though the program is fairly benign, it is not totally benign. "True, the government can de-anonymize the data if connections to terror suspects emerge..." or if they feel like it. Like Gene Healy says:
The '90s weren't that long ago. And I remember a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over misused FBI Files and suspicious IRS audits. Over the last four and a half years, many of the same wailers and gnashers have cheer-led the concentration of unreviewable power in the executive branch, as if George W. Bush would be the last president ever to wield that power. And now, lo and behold, there's the mistress of Travelgate warming up in the on-deck circle. Join me in a bitter chuckle.
*There is a bit of hyperbole on the other side of the argument, with many calling the program "vital" to national security. The FBI would seem to disagree.
Bill Adds: dorkafork says:
I've said before I'm more worried about the slippery slope.
You know what else is a slippery slope? Giving cops guns. Also a slippery slope? Search warrants. Also a slippery slope? Fingerprinting. Also a slippery slope? Terrorist watch lists. Also a slippery slope? The hill that ran down the side of Old Mr. McVickers place back in Wabashaw, KY. Why, Jode and Jebediah and Randy and the dogs - little Ms. McFurrypants and Tootsie - and I, why we'd climb all onto trash lids and slide on down, laughin' like dagnum chuckleheads all the rootin' tootin' way. And then we'd go make cocoa. Until Randy done broke his neck like a matchstick. Damn those slippery slopes! To Hell!
dorkafork also says:
Also it seems to me that the government can already do many of the things Bill describes uncontroversially without a data-mining program (e.g. monitoring calls to Osama's cell phone, charity-terrorist fronts, etc.)
Those are simply two examples that I cited off the top of my head, and the government can only embark on that course of action with supplemental subjective intelligence. The contextual, pro-active evaluation of patterns of data by a supercomputer is different, and might identify terrorist fronts itself, in conjunction with or apart from any such evidently leading external data. There are challenges, but it's worth a shot. The fact is, private industry uses similar technology, with a striking level of rented or purchased demographic detail, all the time. Viewing our government as an outsized threat - without knowing the particulars on rational protocols and oversight - strays into alarmism, IMO.
Bill says: dorkafork swallows a bucketful of spin:
ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.
The Orwellian insinuation!
In reality, all the government needs in order to get a copy of a journalist's or suspected leaker's phone records is a simple subpeona. In the case of a spying or classified leak investigation, that's about the easiest request possible, with thin probable cause.
For that matter, all that I'd need to do in order to get a copy of phone records to aid discovery in a case that I'm involved in - as a private citizen - would be to ... obtain a subpeona to get the records.
The only controversy that I've seen regarding this practice surrounds whether the phone company has to notify the person whose records have been subpeonaed ... with one wrinkle:
AT&T Wireless now has announced that it will begin taking "all reasonable steps" to give written notice to its customers when their phone records are subpoenaed, except where government officials advise the company that informing the customer would compromise a criminal investigation.
A lot of journalists really are* imbeciles with an incredibly shallow depth of knowledge, aren't they?
* No offense intended to the journalists who are not imbecilic.
The Post interviews 100 Iraq War veterans, summarizing various sentiments and experiences:
On the airplane home, wearing his Navy uniform, Clint Davis sat in the same row as a 5-year-old boy who got out his crayons and drew a picture of the American flag. "It says, 'Thank you for fighting for our country,' " Davis said. "I'll hang it up on my refrigerator till I die."
They came home grateful for their country, for their freedom, for hot showers, flushing toilets and blissful quiet. When Chris Arndt's plane touched down, it was 3 in the morning. A slight drizzle was falling, and the air just felt different.
"You could smell the grass," the Army reservist said. "I hadn't smelled that smell for a year. It hit me and made me realize I was home." ... Jon Powers came home and "swore I would never go back to Iraq until they build a Disney World in Baghdad." But then he thought about how he and his soldiers used to deliver toys and clothing to the orphanage. He thought about how the children had given them something back: a respite from the war. The soldiers would take off their gear, put down their weapons and join the children's soccer matches.
Not long after coming home, the former Army captain knew his work in Iraq was not finished. So he helped start a nonprofit, War Kids Relief, that helps Iraqi children. That's his new career.
Read the whole thing; there's quite a range of emotions present.
I've written previously on the NSA program here, here, and here, but it looks like I can just throw all those arguments out after this USAToday article. IT means Bush lied when he stated "The program applies only to international communications. In other words, one end of the communication must be outside the United States." Nor does it sound like "a targeted program to intercept communications in which intelligence professionals have reason to believe that at least one person is a member or agent of al Qaeda." The description of "a database of every call ever made" made up of "records of billions of domestic calls" doesn't exactly scream "targeted."
So we've got a very non-targeted program that doesn't look like it's caught any terrorists yet, but at least we can take some comfort in the fact that it didn't monitor the content of the calls. Which is undoubtably the next step on the slippery slope. Because if this program that hasn't caught terrorists is so vital to national security, it doesn't make sense to disallow monitoring the content. That would mean Osama could chat away about a terrorist strike and we would never know it. "The government can already legally get the numbers of who the terrorists are calling without a warrant under the President's inherent authority, but the NSA can't actually listen to them make their terrorist plans on the phone?"
*** The Flea discusses the neuro-anthropological impact of digital pron:
An "Eden of pornography" where any old smut is found ready-to-hand on a low-hanging branch may sound idyllic. But it is an elastic waistband for the soul.
Snow issues detailed rebuttals to media coverage of the president
WASHINGTON - New White House Press Secretary Tony Snow is starting off in a combative mode against the press by issuing detailed rebuttals to what he considers unfair coverage of Bush.
"The New York Times continues to ignore America's economic progress," blared the headline of an e-mail sent to reporters Wednesday by the White House press office.
*** Kevin Drum continues to believe massive troop intervention is necessary in Darfur, and thus is impossible:
Eric Reeves, in his useful Darfur FAQ, estimates 15,000 troops, but I suspect he's being optimistic. I'm not pretending to be a military expert here, but based on the sheer size and scope of the problem, it's hard to see an effective solution that involves less than several combat brigades plus a serious commitment to local air superiority. Call it 30,000 troops plus all the associated logistics. I mean, we're basically declaring war on Sudan if we do this.
*But that's not going to happen. The UN doesn't have a standing army, after all, so it's no help. U.S. troops are committed to Afghanistan and Iraq. The African Union isn't quite a joke, but it's close to one. China, Russia, and the Muslim world plainly have no interest in intervening. And Europe has simply stuck its collective head in the sand. They aren't willing to even think about doing anything serious.
5/10/2006 23:33:47 Ricardo Bell Don't be left behing- the enlargement revolution!
It's been my assumption God already left me "behing" at about 21, when my growth plates closed up shop on the outskirts of a stingy 5'6," thereby cursing the world with another stewing Napoleonic monster. But if you've really got some sort of magic tonic that'll squeeze a few more inches out of this yorkie-sized endoskeleton - thus fulfilling my lifelong dream of riding Disney's Thunder Mountain roller coaster unaccompanied by "adult supervision" - send a gallon of that shit along! Pronto, ese.
UPDATE: Nevermind. I've been informed that you're probably hawking a different kind of "enlargement." And the Lord may taketh away, but he also giveth, ifyouknowwhatI'msayingandIthinkyoudo, my entrepreneurial amigo.
*wink*
UPDATE AGAIN: Nevermind the nevermind, Ricardo - dorkafork has requested a case of your most potent brew.
Just quotes, not scare quotes. Sorry to disappoint.
Also, be sure to listen to the audio of Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Harvard, as well as watch her interview on Swedish TV:
Notice the rational distinctions that she makes when talking about the compatibility of Islam and Democracy - the gentleman featured in the first link of this post is attempting to put these distinctions into practice. That said, one quibble with a non-contextual evaluation of her characterization that Islam's purest forms are contrary to Democracy: no doubt they are, but the purest forms of many religions are/were contrary to secular law, even advocating violence against women (and men) in literal texts. Only through the revision and interpretation of era, culture and church doctrine (which she prescribes for Islam) have theologies been sucessfully moderated.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali links via Hot Air, where Allahpundit has a more thorough round-up, including more clips.
Robert Kagan and Amartya Sen discuss the validity of the concept in Slate.
Sen:
In my book, I discuss how the broad identities of Muslim people, linked with their commitment to science, mathematics, architecture, engineering, culture, language, and literature, allowed them to play such a leading role in world civilization over more than a thousand years. That capacious understanding has, of course, been challenged over the centuries by those who have advocated undermining all those achievements through the unique prioritization of a sectarian - and often belligerent - Islamic identity. Sometimes the advocates of narrowness have won for a while, but the broader understanding has been a living presence in the flourishing of Arab culture and in the richness of Muslim contributions to global civilization. If the broader understanding is under severe challenge today (as it certainly is), that narrowing is being fed not only by the "pull" of resurgent Islam but also by the "push" of distancing coming from the West.
I generally agree with his sentiment, though I think he underplays the impact that a self-popularized "belligerent ... Islamic identity" has had on any distancing "push" from the West.
Kagan:
But I reiterate my concern that at least in that part of the Muslim world, the self-identification of most community leaders as Islamic rather than as democratic is quite troubling and certainly fuels the idea that we are in a clash of civilizations. ... Nevertheless, like you, I choose to be optimistic. And not only for optimism's sake. To look at the world today is to see not only a dispute between Muslims and non-Muslims, but also a growing conflict between liberalism and autocracy. The course being taken in Russia and China today suggests that this old struggle is by no means over. You mention the international community's inability or unwillingness to promote democracy in Burma, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. As you know, the fecklessness of the international community is compounded by Russian and Chinese efforts to protect and support these regimes for a variety of reasons that include both self-interest and an opposition to liberalism more generally. I believe we make a strategic as well as an analytical error if we take a one-dimensional view of the present international system. We should conduct our policies in the world not as if we are doomed to slug it out in a clash of civilizations but rather as if we could appeal to what we regard as the basic human desire for freedom and the protection of individual rights.
Read the rest of the exchange. Perhaps a bit contrary to my excerpt, Kagan is much more of a pessimist about the pervasive influence of Islamism, yet still ultimately places his chips on hyperaggressive religious and cultural identity yielding to the "human desire for freedom."
UPDATE: Dean fisks common claims against Islam, exemplified by a particular right-wing hack. A tour de force. Seriously, read it.
The Citizens of America, placed in the most enviable condition, as the sole Lords and Proprietors of a vast Tract of Continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the World, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniencies of life, are now by the late satisfactory pacification, acknowledged to be possessed of absolute freedom and Independency; They are, from this period, to be considered as the Actors on a most conspicuous Theatre, which seems to be peculiarly designated by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity; Here, they are not only surrounded with every thing which can contribute to the completion of private and domestic enjoyment, but Heaven has crowned all its other blessings, by giving a fairer oppertunity for political happiness, than any other Nation has ever been favored with. Nothing can illustrate these observations more forcibly, than a recollection of the happy conjuncture of times and circumstances, under which our Republic assumed its rank among the Nations; The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society. At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be intirely their own.
"I was curious. Somebody had shown me a picture of them. The assumption is, you can't look like that, you can't play that kind of music, if you come from a Christian background. Christians don't normally look like that. (Humans outside of a New Jersey mall circa 1988 don't normally look like that. --ED) I saw them first as a Bon Jovi concert, they were opening for Bon Jovi at a place called the country club."
As an 80's metal aficianado, I can honestly say that my opinion that Stryper sucked had little to do with their religious affiliation, though metal is the natural province of the Beast (The same statement technically applies to Bon Jovi, come to think of it). And to be honest, no just God - Jesus, Allah, Swahili Earth Spirit - would countenance those hairstyles.
(Via Lauren)
Now if you want some real 80's metal, packaged with perhaps the most outstanding artistic achievement in the history of music video ...
The above video is objective evidence that the Singularity is here, not merely near. Because the day that I can have the randomly vague memory of "Savatage: Hall of the Mountain King" flit around my brainpan and, seconds later, lose myself in the very video ... well let's just say that the post-human technological Rapture has been achieved.
*** In the mold of aggressive gay activists before him, Jeff Percifeld attempts to "out" Ghost of a Flea. I admit to finding this confusing, as I'd simply assumed that all Canadians were gay. BTW Percifeld, "Canuckistan fop" is a serviceable nickname, but I like to call our friend an "absinthe-swilling Canadandy."
UPDATE: I've been informed that my assumption about our northern neighbors is a simple misunderstanding: in actuality, Canada has two official languages. Who knew?
*** Another MSM doom and gloom economic story, in the midst of an economy that's actually kicking ass. You see, ever since interest rates have risen a point or two - to still near-historical lows - and even though inflation has largely been held in check ...
Rising Expenses Have Consumers Feeling Pinched
This is how it feels when the days of cheap energy and easy money give way to $70 barrels of oil and ascending interest rates.The economy may be strong, but many people are feeling pinched.
"Many people," you say? Is that like, all scientifical and stuff?
Economists say that feeling overshadows the fact that inflation overall is relatively low -- running at a 3.4 percent annual clip, the same rate as all of last year. The Federal Reserve has been raising interest rates for nearly two years to control inflation, and it is likely to again boost rates this week.
Read the rest for a good chuckle. Other than the obvious bit about high energy prices, most of the piece represents horseshit anecdotal agenda journalism at its worst. Or finest, depending on the narrative one champions ... when Bush is in the White House.
So she's canceled her home Internet service, saving $50 a month. She rarely eats out anymore. Instead, she eats frozen meals made by her mother. "That's pretty much what I live off of the entire semester," she said.
A poor student? Frozen food? OH SWEET GOD, IT'S LIKE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! And check out this tale of woe:
Arlyne Foy of Fairfax city said she and her husband recently slammed the brakes on plans to buy a larger home in Loudoun County because of rising mortgage rates and the prospect of much higher commuting costs and utility bills.
Foy, 40, and her husband figured they could have afforded a bigger house, since their 3,000-square-foot townhome probably had grown about $200,000 in value since they bought it two years ago. But they didn't want to part with their very low 4.875 percent mortgage or her husband's 10-minute drive to work as a massage therapist and yoga instructor.
Any snark about that excerpt would be superfluous.
* 3,000 square-foot home
* Appreciated $200,000 in two years
* Massage therapist and yoga instructor
What a country!
Alternately, talk about your insulated urban bubbles of liberal unreality and bizarre entitlement. The vacuous economic analysis and high school newspaper narrative-building of those authors are an embarrassment to the WaPo.
In the midst of one of the great booms in modern history, the Washington Post pretends everyone is suffering. ... The picture they present is just a lie. Just a lie. What's wrong with these people? Where did their brains go? Where did their sense of truth go? Where did their honor go?
The Washington Post puts a human face on the Bush economy that's forcing hard choices on "regular Americans," those not in the revered top 1% income bracket.
Yeah, brother. Because the indignities of frozen dinners while attending law school and yoga instructors trapped like rats in a 3,000 square foot prison expose the true EVIL FACE of supply-side economics.
To learn more about today's captivating holiday, I conducted a brief instant messenger interview with Val Prieto, proprietor of babalu blog and hispanic.
INDC Bill: val? how do you make a pinata Val: taco bell INDC Bill: huh? Val: ask someone at taco bell INDC Bill: fine, don't answer Val: pinatas are MEXICAN INDC Bill: yeah yeah Val: dumbass INDC Bill: Val INDC Bill: what's this whole "la raza" business? Val: i dunno INDC Bill: c'mon Val: a new burrito at taco bell? INDC Bill: Val, what's the story behind cinco de mayo? why is it celebrated? Val: I don't know. I think cinco de mayo is when mexicans discovered that tomatos are edible INDC Bill: Hmmm. What are you doing for Cinco de Mayo? INDC Bill: big day, huh? Val: I'm freaking Cuban, idiot INDC Bill: and you are apparently a very crass, unfriendly Cuban Val: you asked a question, I answered it INDC Bill: I'm trying to learn about tu HERENCIA, Val INDC Bill: trying to CONNECT here INDC Bill: the brown man and the white man INDC Bill: two as one INDC Bill: hermanos under the red white and blue INDC Bill: juntos Val: um dude, I'm whiter than you Val: my old man is european
Cuban President Fidel Castro was furious when Forbes magazine estimated his fortune at $550 million last year. This year, the magazine upped its estimate of the communist leader's wealth to a cool $900 million.
If you're willing to step over plenty of cold bodies and broken spirits to collect your paycheck, that is.
You think I might gain romantic leverage with Salma Hayek if I threatened to turn her in to the authorities? I don't know anything about her green card status, but that body ought to be illegal.
UPDATE: It was wrong for me to think like that. True love can never flower when watered with threats (of deportation). Besides, I suspect that some equally clever fellow already worked that angle dry.
Christopher Hitchens wrote this piece, in which his argument was that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did, in fact, argue that Israel should be destroyed, and that Juan Cole, a so-called "Middle East Expert", was wrong to argue otherwise. Then Juan Cole responded with not one, but two posts full of lousy arguments.
First Cole complains that the e-mail was private and it was unethical for Hitchens to discuss it. I'm inclined to disagree, but that is neither here nor there considering it does not change whether Ahmedinejad talked about destroying Israel or not.
the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem.
Gee, thanks Mr. Expert. It "probably" comes from some poem. That was helpful. (Personally, I would avoid using the phrase "in fact" and "probably" in the same sentence.)
Cole goes on to say:
Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.
That's the extent of Cole's rebuttal to the significant points made by Hitchens. And if you look at Hitchens' piece again, Cole's defense looks incredibly lame. Cole basically makes no attempt to make a serious rebuttal to Hitchens' points:
I don't have any intention of making a point by point reply to Hitchens's completely inaccurate screed.
Followed immediately by his "Khomeini, who said anything about Khomeini?" act.
He blames me for not referring to some other speech of Khomeini, when in fact I never instanced any speeches of Khomeini at all in this discussion except the snippet cited by Ahmadinejad-- I was arguing that there is no Persian idiom to wipe something off the map, and that Ahmadinejad has been misquoted.
Yes, who cares about silly little things like context. Cole says Khomeini didn't really mean "wipe Israel off the map". Hitchens shows how foolish that is, Cole fails to rebut him, and acts surprised that Hitchens even brought the subject of Khomeini up. Cole later says:
Hitchens alleges that I said that Khomeini never called for wiping Israel from the face of the map. Actually, I never said anything at all about Khomeini's own speeches or intentions. I was solely discussing Ahmadinejad. Hitchens should please quote me on Khomeini and Israel. He cannot.
Hmm. Let me try: "[T]he actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks." Boy that was tough. I had to scroll up nearly halfway up the same damn post.
Cole also makes this argument:
Hitchens imagines a whole discourse of mine (which mostly never took place) that he now sets out to refute-- from English translations! But I was saying that the wire service translations were the problem in the first place. Hitchens seems to think that he can over-rule my reading of a Persian text by reference to some hurried journalist's untechnical rendering into English. (-ed. emphasis in original)
Al Jazeera also translated it as "wiped off the map". It provides Ahmadinejad quotes such as:
"...the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".
"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centred on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam".
"We should not settle for a piece of land," he said of Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.
"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.
"Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."
His audience of 4,000, at a conference in Tehran titled "A World without Zionism," broke out into the rhythmic chanting of what amounted to a call to arms: "Marg bar Israel!" (death for Israel).
Maybe Cole should go over to Iran and inform those 4,000 people that they misunderstood what Ahmadinejad said.
Cole goes on to chant "One, two, three, four. We don't want your stinking war!" (that's not a joke, that's a direct quote) and calls Hitchens a drunk. (Juan Cole tends to have a problem with ad hominems.) He makes a lame excuse for this in his second post: "...the point about his drinking problem is not ad hominem. It is germane to his failing faculties and increasingly immoral behavior." You could just as easily say "Juan Cole is an idiot, which is germane to his faculties and moronic behavior."
(The second post also mentions comments by Andrew Sullivan on the contretemps. Cole very wisely avoids linking to Sullivan's post on the subject. Also, quotes of Juan Cole are accurate at the time of this posting. Cole's posts have been known to change without warning.)
UPDATE: I just wanted to add some more; Cole's post provides plenty of grist for the mill. Before calling Hitch a drunk, he mentions weapons sales to Iran by Israel and the US, and links to a description of the Iran-Contra scandal. Presumably he's trying to show that it's possible for Israel & the US to have peaceful dealings with Iran, or maybe that Khomeini disliked us but was willing to have dealings with us. First of all, Israel's arm deals with Iran pre-Iran-Contra were intended to help Iran weaken Iraq, because they took place during the Iran-Iraq war. David Kimche, director general of the Israeli foreign ministry at the time, called it "playing at both ends". This is no more evidence that Israel and Iran can coexist than the fact that Israel helped create Hamas means that they can be friendly. And then we get to Iran-Contra. Arms sales as ransom for hostages mean we can all get along? This amateur hour operation that was done without the knowledge of the CIA or Mossad, that resulted in a huge scandal? Here's Kenneth Pollack's description of Iran-Contra from The Persian Puzzle:
In every case, as far as the Americans were concerned, the deal was supposed to have been that the Iranians would have the seven Americans held hostage in Lebanon released in return for the latest shipment of arms. In every case, the Iranians failed to do so, although that never stopped the Americans from agreeing to yet another arms shipment in return for yet another promise of the hostages. On three occasions, the Iranians did see to the release of a single hostage -- just enough to keep the Americans coming back for more. However, in September and October 1986, just before the clandestine effort was exposed and shut down, three more Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon, suggesting that the Iranians and their terrorist proxies planned to keep the unequal process of trading the occasional hostage for regular shipments of weapons and intelligence going for a long time.
The Iranians played the Little Satan and the Great Satan for fools, while Western leaders mistakenly believed they were dealing with "moderate" elements of the Iranian government. "I wouldn't bring up Iran-Contra if I was you, it's poor salesmanship."
(And Yale's considering hiring this guy? Yeesh.)
Another Update: Dave Price at Dean's World touches on some of Cole's statements that I didn't, and also links to someone claiming to be Iranian and criticizing Cole's translation skills in the Winds of Change comments section. Oh, and Iowahawk has Cole's first draft. Includes a translation of Ahmadinejad's IM conversation.
Bill Adds: Hitchens on Cole via Hewitt can be found here.
Yesterday's protest sign makes a superficially strong case - on several levels - that this country needs illegal immigrants. Because in addition to America's immediate and undeniable dependence upon burritos, societies grow and prosper with fresh ideas and determination, as well as the mystically unique brands of American ingenuity that spark and blossom from heretofore sociologically unnatural collisions of cultures. But sometimes these unique cultural compounds exhibit a dark side. A poisonous side. Don't believe me? Nowhere is this positive-negative duality more evident than with the Mexicans and their food. These entrepreneurial innovators combined American moxie with Mexican know-how by placing ten standard ingredients in slightly different proportions, thereby fooling a willing world into believing that their "cuisine" is actually made up of hundreds of diverse dishes.
Ten ingredients and salt. From this outrageously simple mix, a mass of wildly successful Mexican chain restaurants have crept into the American zeitgeist, quietly forcing us into a superficially irrevocable economic dependence on guacamole. Political insiders feel the rumble, as Israel's outsized influence on American foreign policy has been challenged by the whims of the Mexican chain restaurant food lobby/industrial complex. Haven't you considered why the Chimperor is such fast friends with Vincente Fox? Stop counting your brothers and wake up, you sheep. Baaa.
Burrito Ultimo® Melted jack & cheddar cheeses (CHEESE), grilled peppers (PEPPERS), chilis (PEPPERS), onions (ONIONS), rice (RICE), Salsa Baja (TOMATOES, PEPPERS and ONION), sour cream (SOUR CREAM) and your choice of charbroiled steak, charbroiled chicken or savory pork carnitas (SS MEAT).
But you say that you don't feel like a burrito today ... so you crazy-diversify by ordering a fajita:
Fajitas are served with grilled peppers & onions (PEPPERS, ONIONS), guacamole (AVOCADO), rice (RICE), black or pinto beans (BEANS) topped with anejo cheese (CHEESE), Pico de Gallo salsa (TOMATOES, PEPPERS and ONION), sour cream (SOUR CREAM) and your choice of grilled flour or corn tortillas (TORTILLAS). Try it with charbroiled steak, charbroiled chicken, savory pork carnitas, charbroiled shrimp, charbroiled fish or breaded fish. (SS MEAT)
Or a taco:
Original "Baja Style" Taco
The Original "Baja Style" Taco is served in grilled corn tortillas (TORTILLAS) with hot or mild salsa (TOMATOES, PEPPERS and ONION), chopped onion (ONION) & cilantro (OH, CURVEBALL!) and your choice of charbroiled chicken, charbroiled steak, savory pork carnitas or charbroiled shrimp. (SS MEAT)
Abre tus ojos, you stupid, stupid gringos. It's all the same damn thing.
Thus, even though part of me respects the sneaky culinary hubris that initially led Mexican INVADERS to blindside a trusting America with the mysterious value of their "cuisine," I've come to lean towards the immediate deportation of all illegals - as we can probably make this shit ourselves.
Apologies to Ms. Malkin for my earlier moment of weakness.
Is this true? Have Michelle Malkin and Tom Tancredo stopped to consider a life without burritos?
And perhaps more importantly, does this threatening maxim apply to fajitas as well? Chimichangas? I'm a fairly patriotic American, but I'd trade Arizona for a triple combo platter of shrimp, steak and chicken fajitas. In a heartbeat.
*** My entry in this collective noun naming contest: "an oblivious of tourons." Sure, mine's an adjective, but it works too well for any bourgeois grammatical carping. Anyone working in downtown DC can commiserate about the scourge of slow-witted tourists that clog public streets and conveyances during rush hour ...
Despite the many brickbats of the media, al Qaeda has been defeated in Iraq, and is now retreating to lick its wounds where it can.
James Joyner isn't quite buying it. I lean towards the former assessment, as far as it goes towards suggesting a critically weakened position for Al Qaeda. But I lean towards Joyner's skepticism about Hutchison's outsized focus on the impact of the alternative media here at home.
*** A first look at Casino Royale via a French trailer. I dearly hope they've done something different with this outing, as the last few installments of the franchise were unwatchable chaff. I mean, I nearly asphyxiated myself with a belt to mercifully escape the second half of that one with Denise Richards, the ice palace and the North Koreans. Then, 75 seconds and a deep shade of blotchy purple in, it struck me to just leave the theatre.
Just nine days before al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi released his latest video, a special operations raid killed five of his men, captured five others and apparently came within a couple of city blocks of nabbing Zarqawi himself.
Then, the day Zarqawi's video debuted, special ops forces killed 12 more of his troops in a second raid in the same town.
The raids in Yusufiyah, 20 miles southwest of Baghdad in the heart of the Sunni Triangle, were the latest battles in a small, vicious war being waged largely in the shadows of the wider counterinsurgency effort.
It is a war fought by a secretive organization called Task Force 145, made up of some of the most elite U.S. troops, including Delta Force and SEAL Team 6. They have one goal: hunting down Zarqawi, Iraq's most wanted man, and destroying his al-Qaida in Iraq organization.
