Diversity in the Department of Justice isn't really something I get worked up about, but I thought this was interesting. Apparently the DOJ released a report on workforce diversity a week or so ago, but did so in a way that allowed folks who knew what they were doing to read all the stuff the DOJ wanted to hide.
So...go to the Memory Hole and see the uncensored report. They've got all the stuff that was originally censored now highlighted so that you can see what the DOJ was trying to hide...not to mention how much they were trying to hide. Some of it's really pathetic.
Finished my first round of imports into the new iPod. According to iTunes I've now got a grand total of 1021 songs, taking up 5.81 GB. I'm sure there's stuff I haven't gotten in there yet, too.
Now if only the thing was smart enough to know that "Sign o' the Times" disc 1 and 2 are part of the same album, and the genre classifications weren't so often messed up (disc 1 of "The Headphone Masterpiece" is classified as "Rock," but disc 2 is classified "R&B", and my favorite-- "The Work - Pt. 1" is marked as classical when it's as close to James Brown funk as anything Prince has ever done). Oh well...I'll fix that stuff over time as it comes up.
The funny thing is, as a result of having all this music suddenly at my fingertips, I'm rediscovering the joy of making my own mixes. I hadn't expected that.
Washington, D.C.-- In a brief exchange with aides outside the White House bathroom, George W. Bush was heard to declare that the war in Iraq was not his idea. "Why's everyone keep buggin' me about this whole war in Iraq thing? It's not like it was my idea or anything. Jeez-- I just went along with it. It was those guys in the-- what's it called-- Army who organized the whole thing. I just figgered hey if they want to go work on their tans, why not? It's not like those reserve and National Guard guys were doing anything anyway." At the last statement, the President was seen to wink and nudge his companion twice and say, "I oughta know. I was in the Guard back in the day, y'know. Heh heh."
This should be interesting to watch-- a contest to make a thirty second political ad taking on the W.
At least no one died because of this one.
Remember that speech on the aircraft carrier? The one with the big "Mission Accomplished" banner? If you need a refresher, take a look at this lovely photo essay. Pay special attention to photos 10 and 11. These show the "Mission Accomplished" banner that now seems premature, at best.
Here's the lie, spoken by Dubya himself:
The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from staff. They weren't that ingenious, by the way.
Now take a look at those photos again and ask yourself. Does that look like a banner put up by people on their way back from a war? Or does it look like something professionally done? Well, let's see what CNN/The NY Times had to say about this back in May:
Officials of past Democratic and Republican administrations marvel at how the White House does not seem to miss an opportunity to showcase Mr. Bush in dramatic and perfectly lighted settings. It is all by design: the White House has stocked its communications operation with people from network television who have expertise in lighting, camera angles and the importance of backdrops.. . . .
The most elaborate � and criticized � White House event so far was Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.
Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.
You be the judge.
Washington, D.C.-- As word came of another deadly attack in Iraq, President Bush turned to Vice President Dick Cheney and said, "Yeah, baby! We got 'em where we want 'em! Gimme five!" Cheney slapped Bush's hand with only slightly less enthusiasm than the President offerred. An anonymous source indicated that this should not be ascribed to any disagreement with the President, but rather that the Vice President didn't want to take a chance on knocking any blockages loose "in the ol' ticker."
When asked about his exuberant display, Bush was quick to state that he certainly regretted any loss of life. "It's bad when anyone dies. I understand that. But lookee here-- an attack that big? That just shows how desperate the terrorists are. If things weren't going so well for us, they'd just do little bitty attacks. You know, like shooting spitwads at tanks and stuff, or short-sheeting Red Cross beds. I guess that school we opened in Fellatia [sic] or whatever must really have 'em scared."
This is weird-- the White House web site's robots.txt file is configured to keep search engines from looking at several hundred directories with "Iraq" in the name.
I haven't looked real deep into this, but it strikes me as odd that an administration so concerned with getting its own version of events out (bypassing the "filter" as Dubya put it) would at the same time be trying to keep others from finding information that it has fully under its own control.
UPDATE: Some thoughts on this from the Democrats (echoed by others if you follow the links) on this. This could be an attempt to keep others from noticing when they change content on the website.
If you checked out the last link, you may have already seen this-- a flash animation going after Dubya's "support" (or lack thereof) of the troops. Much of the content I've seen before, but what I find amazing is the emotional punch you get by combining it with the right music and images.
I wanna send this one out to my wife, and all her peeps on the left side of the aisle! Rock on, baby!
I'm thinking into my blog here, so bear with me...
So here I sit ripping songs (I'm doing some Rickie Lee Jones now), reading various editorials, blogs, etc. The specifics don't matter, but there's a common thread running through a lot of these, which involves pointing out inconsistencies between what one or another politician said at one point, and what he or she is saying now. Something else they'll do is point out when someone is telling something less than the full truth (a currently favorite pastime among those who think Dubya could use an enema for more than one reason).
Now I'm seeing nearly all of this in print, because TV news is crap and because I'm sitting here at my computer. However, many of the quotes referred to in these articles exist on video from speeches, press conferences, etc. As I sit pondering the state of the world, it also occurs to me that many Americans probably get their national/international news from TV. Certainly that's where many of these press conferences and debates take place.
So...
Imagine that someone, say a candidate for office, had at his fingertips a database of video clips to use in a debate or other venue where he might want to pull up evidence of some statement or another. It wouldn't be as extensive as Lexis/Nexis or other full-blown databases, but it could have a library of clips that might be relevant to expected topics. You wouldn't want to have to hunt for a clip in the middle of a debate anyway, so the library should err on the small side.
The idea is that this person (candidate, whatever) could easily have this library stored on a laptop and then pull it out at an opportune time to challenge his opponent with his own words, coming out of his own mouth. Sure it would be a stunt that would make folks in the opposite camp go ballistic (and the TV production people might freak for other reasons), but done right I imagine that it could also be immensely effective. After all, if you're on television it's one thing to say that your opponent said something, but quite another to actually show him saying it.
This morning's been given over to ripping music to put on my new iPod. Something of a chore, but it's not like I can't just do other stuff while iTunes pulls off the music for me. At the chime I swap discs and go on my merry way.
So while I rip music I'm just sitting around reading stuff on the web and toying with story ideas for an animation I'd like to do with the site mascot (so far I have gag ideas, but not necessarily a good story). All in all a pretty pleasurable way to spend the day, don't you think?
Did your wife buy you an iPod today? I didn't think so.
The thing's an amazing little gizmo, and should serve a practical purpose (toting files around, maybe keeping some notes) in addition to being just fun. I'm letting it charge up it's battery now so that I can get some idea how long a charge really lasts. Looks like I'll also be ripping some more music, too...
Thanks, shnookie-boogums!
Read the whole article, but the lead three paragraphs should give you a chuckle:
Concerned about the appearance of disarray and feuding within his administration as well as growing resistance to his policies in Iraq, President Bush - living up to his recent declaration that he is in charge - told his top officials to "stop the leaks" to the media, or else.News of Bush's order leaked almost immediately.
Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.
(thanks Atrios)
The Stars and Stripes is doing a series on troop morale. Should be an interesting read.
It's not "Lying Liars," but Joseph Wilson is now publicizing a memo by Sam Gardiner (USAF Colonel, Retired) titled "Truth from the Podia" that details the lies and distortions told by the Bush administration about the war in Iraq. (For a briefer note, see the US News intro.)
At this point, of course, I pretty much assume that a) the administration lies to get its agenda through, and b) no one really seems to care. There's an echo of this in the postscript to the memo:
The reactions to my research have been very interesting.When I show the stuff to individuals inside the government, mostly the career people who have been around more than one administration, they have an almost universal first reaction. They say something like, "Be careful with this; they will punish you." I don't hear that I have gotten it wrong. They don't correct my research. I keep hearing the notion that, as I found in the research, punishment of those who disagree is a dimension the strategy.
Print media have been quite interested. I think reporters like the idea of someone confirming they had not been getting the true story. I have detected a major issue in these discussions in what reporters have not said to me.
I think the materials point to problems in the way newspapers did their job during the war. Why don't they react immediately that they need to do some self-appraisal? I think one could take the stories I have highlighted and ask some direct questions. How was it that the Washington Post took classified information on the Jessica Lynch story and published it just the way the individual leaking it in the Pentagon wanted? Why did the New York Times let itself be used by "intelligence officials" on stories? Why did the Washington Times never seem to question a leak they were given? Why were newspapers in the UK better than those in the U.S. in raising questions before and during the war?
I've not heard any self-criticism from reporters to whom I have talked.
When I've talked to television producers and reporters my sense is they believe the whole story is just too complex to tell. That's sad but probably true.
Cynicism is the most disturbing reaction I have found. I got from a limo driver who was taking me to the MSNBC studio for a debate on the no WMD story. He said, "It's just what politicians do."
I gave a briefing on my research to one of the major Washington research organizations, a think tank. A major thrust of reactions was to keep asking, "What's new." This kind of thing always takes place. I think I heard laughter when I said there was no passion for truth in those who were taking us to war. Didn't I understand what goes on in government?
I pain for the limo driver because leaders have pushed him to cynical. I pain even more for the senior researcher. He seems to have no sense of a higher vision. I pain for our democratic process when I find individuals not angered at being deceived.
The colonel's probably right, that the public (myself included) should be angry about all this, but at the risk of sounding like Luke Skywalker, it's all too big and too far removed from us to really do anything about. Sure, some will cry "get involved!" but what does that mean? Write to our congressman? Run for city council? Only read international news sources? Blow up our TV? Start a weblog? All of these responses may be perfectly valid, but none of them will really make a dent in the System. So those of us who know we're being lied to (which probably excludes FOX viewers) don't like it, but also recognize that there's not a hell of a lot we can do about it.
Well, maybe if the guy's hands were really cold:
A 28-year-old man accused of stealing a man's penis through sorcery has been beaten to death in the West African country of Gambia.
There's a little more to the story, but not much. Go and be amused.
MoveOn.org's latest campaign is to have people send Bush an affidavit attesting that they didn't blow Valerie Plame's cover. Other than as a stunt, I don't actually see what this will get anyone.
Of course, I filled it out anyway. I figure what the hell.
So there's a new magazine out, which "dresses up the New Testament to look and read like a teen magazine." No, I haven't read it. But here's an excerpt from my imagination:
So like this Angel Gabriel? Well he totally came up to Mary and said, like, you are so gonna have a baby! And Mary was all like, "No way!" And Gabby said like, "Way!" And then Mary screamed and was all like "Ohmigod ohmigod! Joe is totally gonna freak!"
At least I think it was Gabriel. Maybe it was someone else. I forget.
Why is it good to have balls, but bad to be a dick?
Courtesy Eolas v. Microsoft, there are going to be changes in IE next year that will affect any web page with Flash, QuickTime, or other embedded ActiveX content. So if you don't want your users to be prompted every time they hit such content (ugh), you need to update your web pages.
The fix isn't complicated, but it is annoying to have to move HTML code out into an external Javascript file just to satisfy some ridiculous patent dispute.
Oh well.
Looks like Sony's got a new gizmo in the works, which will apparently be "...a hybrid gaming machine with digital media hub features: a TV tuner, DVD and hard-drive recording and photo album and music player functions." They'll be selling in in Japan later this year with a price tag of about $720.
I'm sure by the time this comes to the U.S. it'll come down a little in price, but regardless, I can't imagine one of these things gracing our living room. We've already got a satellite receiver that can record about 60 hours worth of TV, a really nice progressive-scan DVD player, and a PS2. They all do very nicely, and space isn't at such a premium that we're looking to consolidate. A couple years ago we might have considered something like this, but it's really too late for us. Sorry, Sony.
Check out this item from Daily Kos, referring to an editorial in the LA Times describing how Dubya's administration is "medieval."
The thing I find interesting is that this isn't the first time I've heard some of these things. Check out this paragraph from "Close-up: The Mind of George W. Bush," by Richard Brookhiser (From the April 2003 issue of The Atlantic):
Bush's faith makes "his sense of history very hard for secular intellectuals to understand," according to Gingrich. Given the care with which his associates discuss his beliefs, there must be a lot of secular intellectuals in the Bush Administration. "The great mystery in his decision-making," Frum says, "is the role of religion. When Bush says, 'I'll pray on this,' it's not a figure of speech." Mitchell Daniels believes that faith gives Bush "a certain serenity," as if he trusts that "history will take care of itself if he pursues the right policies." Daniels is "tempted," he says, to call the force that Bush sees guiding history "Providence," but he is reluctant to do so: "I wouldn't want anyone to over-read [the word]," he says. Bush's well-wishers--at least those who are not as aggressive as Gingrich--worry that if they speak bluntly about his faith, it will put people in mind of the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s. Bush is not a culture warrior like many conservatives of that period, who thanked God for their enemies. But he is blunt, and specific, about his faith. "Providence" might strike him as too indefinite a word, smacking of the gentlemanly theological evasions of the Anglo-American Enlightenment (of John Locke, for instance).Practically, Bush's faith means that he does not tolerate, or even recognize, ambiguity: there is an all-knowing God who decrees certain behaviors, and leaders must obey. Such beliefs, however much they may alienate him from opinion-makers, are part of his bond with one other leader�the devout Anglican Tony Blair.
The LA Times piece puts this more succinctly:
Bush has a religious epistemology. Having devalued the idea of an observable, verifiable reality and having eschewed rational empiricism, he relies on his unalterable faith in himself not just to inform his policies, as all presidents have, but to dictate them.
Personally, I have no problem with anyone having strong religious faith, but the idea that the President would put his beliefs ahead of rational thought scares the hell out of me. What was that group a while back with the Nikes and the castration and the suicides to catch a ride on a comet? Those are the kinds of people who put faith ahead of rationality. While they might be a lot of fun at cocktail parties, people like that should really not be in charge of things like nuclear weapons.
Did I really just compare Dubya with a member of a religious cult? Hmm...I guess so.
The current Table Talk topic at Salon is:
Is the White House a threat to intelligence?
Interesting piece in Salon today by John Dean, suggesting that Joseph Wilson & his wife file a civil lawsuit over Ms. Plame's being identified as a CIA operative:
So let me share a bit of history with Ambassador Wilson and his wife. And, well aware that gratuitous advice is rightfully suspect, let me also offer them a suggestion -- drawn from some pages of Watergate history that till now I've only had occasion to discuss privately. Long before Congress became involved and a special prosecutor was appointed, Joe Califano, then general counsel to the Democratic National Committee and later a Cabinet officer, persuaded his Democratic colleagues to file a civil suit against the Nixon reelection committee. And that maneuver almost broke the Watergate coverup wide open. In seeking justice from the closed ranks of the Bush White House, Wilson and Plame should follow a similar strategy.. . . .
Few appreciate the significance of this lawsuit in the unraveling of Watergate. It has been largely overlooked by history. A few years ago, I told Joe Califano about the impact his lawsuit had: Within the White House, it was considered one of the most difficult problems to deal with during the investigations of Watergate. The FBI was no problem -- no one has to talk to an FBI agent. And no Department of Justice is going to haul White House aides before a grand jury. But a subpoena demanding the production of documents, or an appearance to give testimony under oath at a deposition -- that was a serious threat. It also troubled the FBI and Justice Department, keeping them on their toes. It was remarkably effective.
I'm not a lawyer, but I thnk Dean makes a persuasive argument for this strategy. Filing a civil lawsuit would make an end run around Ashcroft/Bush's unwillingness to appoint someone independent to look into the matter. As Dean argues, it would also give Wilson and his wife a more active hand in pursuing the matter. Aside from getting at the truth, I would think that this would drive the Bush folks bananas.
Anybody out there who uses Maya, don't do this:
Just don't do that, unless you want to tie up your computer for an hour or so, to give you an excuse to go play basketball or something. Trust me on this.
This is something I've been wondering about. With all the talk of quagmire and occasional explicit comparisons to Vietnam, what do the casualty numbers look like? Here are some numbers, courtesy Daily Kos:
In Vietnam, we suffered 1,864 killed between 1961 and 1965, an average of 373 per year (someone I'm sure can find more precise numbers).In the eight months since Bush launched his war, we have suffered 316 dead, plus an additional 54 allied deaths.
And that paints just part of the picture. In the first five years of the Vietnam War, we suffered 7,337 wounded in action, or an average of 1,467 per year. In Iraq, we have suffered at least 1,695 wounded -- meaning we are running higher than casualty rates of those early years of the Vietnam War.
Of course, casualty rates are at best a crude way to look at where a conflict is headed. I would find it more enlightening to read a comparison of the political situation of similar conflicts, as well as a comparison of the types of resistance. Still, these numbers do provide at least some measure, and I'm sure that they will be used by others to argue both for and against the conflict.
This guy (reference this movie) plus this character equals...
Atrios is taking the media to task for letting the White House frame the Plame scandal. He particularly blasts the NY Times, which had described the scandal as "difficult to characterize." (More difficult than Whitewater?)
Anyway, check out this political cartoon. It puts things pretty succinctly, I think.
Writing about the conservative reaction to liberals suddenly getting some teeth, Joe Conason says:
That melodramatic warning is a happy omen. If conservatives are suddenly worried about civility, perhaps they will begin to act civilly. A truer threat to democracy was the lopsided national discourse that conservatives have so loudly and rudely dominated in recent years. That's over, and good riddance.
Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I would be surprised if this really happened. Remember, this is the same crowd that still bitches and moans about liberal bias in the media, when there's really no such thing. In fact, now that I think about it, in addition to not getting less civil, they'll probably use some of this to continue to squawk about the "liberal media." They'll only get more civil when they start losing elections and advertising dollars.