The Laughing Wolf

The facts are that Susan Lindauer has been arrested and charged with being an unregistered agent and violations of financial regulations. She has not been charged with being a spy or anything else on that level.

The facts are that she also got her start as a reporter working for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The reaction of said paper was to go with a story headlined Accused Spy Is Cousin Of Bush Staffer. Her work at the paper got a brief mention buried in the middle of a string of jobs starting with Fortune and ending most prominently with Fox. In fact, they went out of their way to mention Fox at least twice, and ended with the now-obligatory quote about how she appeared to be an ordinary person, with the implication that of course they could not be guilty. No discussion of her work at the paper, and a blatant attempt to bury the same. No surprise.

No surprise either that almost all of the major media has gone with the “Republican” distant relation slant, ignoring the fact that he helped bring her down, and/or presented it without mentioning that she was a long-time Democratic staffer. For some good info on this, go check out the links here, here, and here. Whizbang is offering up not only that, but some good info that details her involvement in the Lockerbie trial.

The New Media is working to get the story right, though there is some sloppiness that needs to be corrected. She has not been charged with spying. She has been charged with working with Iraqi Intelligence as an unregistered agent, and with violations of financial transaction statutes. Now, other charges can be filed later, but this is a start and we do need to make clear that agent does not have to mean spy. What does matter is aid and comfort, and when, where, how, and to whom matter very much. Eugene Volokh has some comments here.

The Old Media is screwing itself into the ground on this one, and it is quite likely to hurt it severely in the long run. Attempts to go back and change things to pretend otherwise are not helping, and are being noted and logged. The American public has a long history of doing things like pulling for the underdog, and also of being very unforgiving of those it perceives as having lied to it in order to protect themselves.

This also ties in very strongly to work done by Blogfather Joe Katzman on Saddam’s Media War. If you have not read these stories, you need to go do so. Now. This is important.

Hat tips this morning go to Blogfather Joe and Cardinal Puppilieu, who have both done an outstanding job of pointing the way to a lot of good information.

This story is likely to be the tip of the iceberg, and there is probably more to it as well. Keep a close eye on it, as digging into it may well reveal some very nasty things. Nasty enough that she may not be the only one charged, and that the charges and penalties may go very high indeed.

-30-

Back in 1976, I took part in a National Science Foundation Summer Studies Program that focused on energy and national policy. I had heard of the power grid, and in my somewhat anal retentive mind saw it as a neat organized grid just like you found on grid paper. Boy, was I ever wrong.

The national power grid is really an international power grid, and rather than being one grid, it is a collection of regional and local grids patched together in a variety of fashions. The technology involved varies wildly, from some small parts with the latest and greatest, to significant portions that are using technology more than a half century out of date.

In biological organisms, hybridization usually brings a stronger system. In technological hybridization the same thing can occur, but it is far more likely that the result will be far weaker. Imagine trying to put together a computer network where each unit is a stand-alone system using different configurations and operating systems. Then you start to get a picture of the power grid.

Now, it really is not that bleak, but the fact is that major portions of that grid have not had the improvements needed to keep pace with the changes in the world. We now are far more dependent on electrical power than at any time in history. Not only are lights, heating and air systems, water pumps, gas pumps, and related systems needing electricity, the basic control systems for most things in our life require it as well. Computers are not merely on our desktop, and sometimes even controlling our home, they are in almost every appliance and modern convenience today.

You may think that if you have a gas stove, that a power failure might not affect you. Yet, if it is a modern, energy-efficient system, you would be wrong. Even gas stoves that have piezoelectric starters usually have a control system that requires outside power. Eliminate that power, and the stove will not cut on nor in many cases can you manually cut it on because of the built-in safety features.

This is but one example of how dependent we are on electricity. There are multitudes more, but I think the point has been made.

Yet, at the same time as demand has increased along with critical dependency, the power system as a whole has been not merely neglected, but deliberately stymied for years. With many groups, anything that a power company or provider wants is automatically evil, no matter what. It is almost a tenet of some environmental groups that power anything is bad for the environment. With others, it is an attempt to gouge the consumer, disrupt the view, etc. As a result, needed new transmission lines are disallowed; hardware upgrades at plants are blocked; operating and transmission system improvements do not occur; and, new sources of power are eliminated.

Take a look at the construction of new power plants as an example. Take a look at how many are being built, how many are needed, how many were planned but cancelled, and how many are planned. Then take a look at how long it takes just to get approval for a new plant, much less bring it on line. Then take a look at the new plants as a function of time, and then compare that to the rate of demand increase. It is not a pretty picture.

Now that you have done that, start looking at the associated systems. How many new transmission lines have gone up? How many do the companies say are needed? What is the rate of improvement in systems and hardware? How many have you opposed directly or indirectly?

Yes, power companies are out to make money and some have been greedy pigs. At the same time, they do have the right to make a nice profit and have the funds to plow back into the business to make improvements. In many cases, this has not been done. Some of it is the fault of the businesses involved, because they have made bad decisions and put a higher profit ahead of needed reinvestment. Some of the fault lies with us, the consumers, and the regulatory boards that are in place that prevent rate hikes and other related issues that would provide the funds needed. Activists, management, government, and consumer: we all share in the responsibility for the neglect.

We also share responsibility for the lack of preparedness. As individuals and as business entities, how many had basic flashlights or emergency lighting of any sort in our homes or offices? How many had some form of UPS for computer or other critical systems? Emergency water for drinking and cooling, or even for flushing a toilet? A plan for what to do if there were a blackout?

Back in 1976, I was stunned at the number of businesses, high-rise buildings, and others that had little or no preparedness. Even some of those places that had systems did not have working systems, as tests showed. It is not enough just to have such, you have to maintain it and you have to test it. I remember well one such test out at NASA that took out power for a much longer period of time than planned when the emergency backup system did not work.

Today, I see it as being as bad or worse. Our dependency has increased and our preparations have – in my opinion – decreased. Just look at New York, where major hotels had people leaving to sleep on the street because there was no ventilation, no way to open the windows, and no way for most to get up to the top floor rooms where the heat was building up the worst anyway.

The good news of the day is that what happened appears not to be terrorism, though it may have just given them a heck of a nudge towards a vulnerable target. It also does not appear to have been a lightening strike in Niagara, a fire near New York, or other rumored point of start. The best speculation so far appears to be that it started in the mid-west, but that is still speculation. It may be several days before the event can be traced and time-lined.

The good news is compounded by the way in which most people took the event: there were very few problems and those isolated. Most people joined together, made the best of a bad situation, and some even appear to have had a good time from what is being shown on network news this morning. Somehow, rather than this being a disaster that set people at each other, in the wake of 9-11 it brought people together, and brought out the best in many or most. That is an incredibly good thing to see.

If we truly want to prevent this from being a problem again, either through chance or by terrorist design, we need to begin paying attention to the grid. The things that are needed to bring everything up to date should be identified, costs set, and appropriate rate hikes or re-allocations made. Where money is already being set aside for improvements, it would be good to be sure that it is actually going for such and not into some bit of political pork.

Despite all, we do have the best power (and health and a few other things) system in the world. Now we just need to make it the best it can be, so that the lights will remain on and our advances in all areas can continue.

-30-

That photo, which went out without a full explanation and made it appear that indiscriminate executions were the order of the day by the evil South Vietnamese regime helped turn the tide of public opinion in America against the war. It was a powerful image, and is used in texts and classrooms today in almost every photo or journalism school around.

Ramirez used this image as the basis of a cartoon attacking those who were trying to “assassinate” Bush over 16 words. It was a powerful and effective cartoon, and it clearly showed the artist’s opinion of those doing the attacking.

Somehow, however, it appears that the Secret Service is concerned that the cartoon somehow depicts a real threat to Bush, and that it constitutes the same thing as writing or calling in a threat to kill the President.

Give me a frelling break. Only someone with less than a room temperature IQ could possibly get that from the cartoon. Only someone chronically unfit to wear a badge of any sort, even as a dog catcher, could possibly decide that this was a “threat” worthy of investigation.

Someone at the Secret Service needs to go. Whether that is Agent Peter J. Damos or someone – or even several someones – above him is immaterial. When time and resources are wasted on an idiocy such as this, that is the thing criminal. And just plain stupid.

The march is on. We have the Secret Service investigating an editorial cartoon that supports the President. We have the FBI investigating a man for reading a leftist editorial. What’s next, investigating Snoopy for FAA violations or being a terrorist for all the strafing runs he’s done on his dog house?

This type of idiocy is why people are concerned, and justifiably so, with the Patriot Act and other homeland security measures being undertaken. We get assurances that all will be well, that there will be reason and care. What we get are these types of things, which destroy Citizen confidence and undermine real efforts at public safety.

To restore public confidence, steps need to be taken. The people responsible for these idiotic shenanigans, or otherwise took part in them, need to be fired (managers) and suspended (agents). There is no excuse for, or legal defense of, taking part in such patently absurd and illegal actions.

-30-

One interesting thing was her finish, when she said that "I am an American soldier too!" were her words then and now. Exactly what happened to her we may never know, and if some things are true I hope they are never publically confirmed, for she deserves better. Others can and will come out, and those words combined with the Bronze Star, lead me to suspect that the Wag The Lynch idiots really missed it in the same way the BBC missed and dismissed the American entry into Baghdad. We will see.

For now, she is almost home with just a few parades and such to endure. Her thanks to those who helped her, from Iraq to the man who would not let her quit physical therapy, were moving. Her tribute to her friend and fallen colleague heartfelt.

Endure them, and enjoy them as much as you are able to. There are hard days ahead, just as there are hard days behind you. Your home has changed, and is not as it was. Your hometown is the same. Most importantly, you have changed and nothing will be quite the same. With work and time, however, you can and will make it better even if different.

Those words are hard and cruel, even if true. Forgive my saying them, though they need to be said. For now, simply allow me to say

"Welcome home, Jessica."

Laughing Wolf

They think that two of the bodies are that of Uday and Qusay, and a third is that of Qusay's teenage son. The latter two are likely the most important in many respects, since Uday did not have nearly as much power as he did psychopathy. Qusay, on the other hand, enjoyed is father's favor, was head of the Republican Guard, and had other important posts and duties.

The White House is being smart on this, and apparently will not say anything or allow anything to be said on the record until DNA and other forensics can be run. I imagine that they will do a full forensics workup including dental, X-rays, DNA, and any other tests they can think of to do. It still will not be enough to convince some, here or there, but if done right it will work for most thinking people.

Meantime, there is a lot of evidence that says there was something of importance there. You don't have the firepower described unless you have something of high value in the place. Surely not the firepower to stop and hold Task Force 20 and/or the 101st. Someone obviously got a bit fed up and used TOWs and other resources to breech the compound so troops could get in, and then used heavy fiepower as needed. The location, the owner, and other factors also add to the idea that someone or something of value was there.

For now, we wait as doing things right takes time. I sincerely hope that they do things by the book from a scientific as well as a SOP point of view, so that no one can pick at it later. Not that it will stop some people, especially if they see a political advantage, but it does make it easier to rebut them.

UPDATE 2: CENTCOM says that it was indeed them, even though the DNA and related work is not yet done. I do hope this is true, but will feel better when full forensics can back up the apparent eyewitness identifications.

This person claimed that “…bombing two countries back to the stone age (say what you will, but the ***collateral*** damage in Afganastan and Iraq has been estimated at over 10,000 people).” Maybe it was, if you count all enemy combatants as civilians. As I pointed out in my response there, even the worst case estimates by people who don’t like us only put casualties at around 3,000 in Iraq, and there is debate over that figure since it may include FS “troops” in it.

This would be very bad, except that Saddam was killing more than 5,000 of his own people each year. There are no accurate figures that I have for the mass murders in Afghanistan under the taliban but I am willing to entertain bets that it was more than a few.

As for the stone age: where exactly? Tora Bora? Already there guy, all we did was clean out some caves and provide new building material (and hopefully some fertilizer).

Someone comes into your home, attacks you, kills members of your family, and is stopped from doing worse by something unexpected (grounding the planes anyone? Remember what was found on some planes that were grounded?), and swears to come back and finish the job later. What do you do?

Apparently, we need to all understand them, and show them and the rest of the world that we are good people and that they should not hate us (just our leaders).

Tell you what, you go do it. Go to Iran, go to Iraq, go to Indonesia, go to any country where they hate us and there have been problems. Go over there, preach, and try to convert. Show them we are good people. Let’s see how far you get, and how much fun it is given the lack of freedoms in those places. Afghanistan and Iran were not exactly garden spots before we went in, and at least now the demonstrators and their families won’t be killed simply for demonstrating, only when they attack us. Or when they screw up in bomb making class in the local mosque.

I have been around the world a bit, and one thing it does do is make me appreciate so very much the freedoms we have here. The opportunity, the ability to take initiative, and so much more. I was also incredibly lucky on 9-11 in that the people I knew in New York, including one who was supposed to be in the Towers, were not there and did survive. So many others were not so fortunate.

You don’t have the first frelling clue. We worked damned hard to MINIMIZE the casualties, they did not and do not. We did not deliberately target civilians, they did and still do. We have undertaken a massive effort to improve, educate, and uplift, they worked hard at tearing down so that they lived well while their populations lived in conditions I doubt you could take for five minutes, much less a lifetime. Go look at some verifiable, certifiable facts; get educated. Then talk.

For Now, Understand This: They have sworn to kill us as a nation, as an ideology, and as individuals. What else do we need to understand? This is war, they declared it, we will finish it.

I will reaffirm life on 9-11, and if Ifni smiles on me it will be in the most basic and fun way possible. I will remember those who died, what happened, and why it happened. Then, I will continue to do all I can to fight those who attacked me and mine. They want war to the finish, so they shall have it. What they have sown, they shall reap.

-30-

She was independent, stubborn, feisty, and from all accounts a wonderful friend and a formidable foe. She wore pants in days when it just was not done; presented strong and well rounded female characters in a time when that just was not done either; refused to follow the sexual mores of her time; and, even found her true love in a married man. Add to this talent, drive, and all the other things that made her a complex personage, and you had something truly wonderful.

A favorite movie of mine was “Bringing Up Baby” because it showed the comedic side of her so well. Indeed, the movie may well have been a bit of a spoof of her bull-headedness and other foibles. If so, she gleefully took to it and turned it into something special. She was also wonderful in “The African Queen” though her role and Bogart’s were a bit of a departure from the book.

To my mind she was sexy not merely for a lithe body that was too androgynous for its time, but for the mind and soul that inhabited it. She was beauty, strength, intelligence, and independence. That, my friends, is true sexiness.

Thank you, Katharine Hepburn, for being all that you were. Thank you for the enjoyment, the laughter, and the tears. Thank you for the thought you provoked, and for being such an excellent role model of the independent and ornery American.

-30-

But what exactly is he protecting them against? These camps, sponsored under the auspices of the American Association for Nude Recreation, are extremely well supervised. Because they are held at AANR affiliated clubs, known problem adults do not get in. Any adult who does get in is monitored, and the kids are very good at reporting anything suspicious. The fact is, most nudist/naturist children seem to have a better eye for problem adults than other kids.

Could it be that he is protecting them from sex and all its assorted nastiness? Take a look at the statistics regarding rape, date rape, sexually transmitted disease, teenage pregnancy, and other such problems and see where nudist/naturist children (or adults for that matter) stand in those categories. Again, they are on the right side of the curve in this regards. Nudity does not equate with sex. I am reminded of the old saw about nude and neked. Nude is fine and nothing is going on, neked is when you are up to no good. Some people automatically assume that nude is neked, when this is not the case.

Ah, I get it now. It is the psychological damage of seeing each other naked. The horror of being unashamed of your own body, of accepting that other people are different in a variety of ways, of understanding that clothes can be far more titillating than simply being nude. Why, it might just undermine all the guilt and psychoses that much of society loves to place on the human spirit, so that they have a healthy regard for the body, for sex, and more.

Gee, there is not rampant sexual exploitation of the kids; they are not engaging in wanton lust amongst themselves; they clock out far better than their peers in terms of problems physical and psychological; and, they seem to clock out ahead in other areas as well. So what is the problem?

Could it have anything to do with a senate race that the good representative has entered? Could this be nothing more than a cynical manipulation of a story – complete with botched or slanted presentations by a media drooling over the salacious nature of the topic – for nothing more than political gain? Given the lack of research and lack of interest in doing any research, objective or otherwise, expressed by Foley, one does have to wonder.

Could it be also an aspect of transference? The representative is said to have likened the naked kids to gasoline and fire in terms of sex. This says a great deal about Mr. Foley and his psyche, rather than it does about the kids and the camps. To my mind, it says in fact nothing good about the representative.

Could it also have anything to do with an apparent outing of the representative? While he has refused to discuss his orientation, stories here and here are just a couple of the ones in recent weeks that have focused on this issue. The heat from these stories and constant questioning by reporters was growing, and a growing problem for his candidacy. Again, one is forced to ask if his seizing of this non-controversy controversy is nothing more than cynical political manipulation to take the heat off the other controversy that is dogging him.

If it is indeed nothing more than cynical manipulation, Representative Foley would not be the first politician to wrap himself in the flag and the cry “for the children” to stage a witch hunt. We have seen it before in a variety of guises, from the non-existent mass molestations in day care to various stories of crack babies used as a rallying cry to pass more laws. Or, it has been used as a call to action, such as Waco where the government went in at least in part to save the children, and burned them to save them.

The problem with all of this is a little thing called the Constitution. It is easy to demonize so-called fringe groups, from homosexuals to those of a different religious belief. Yet, those beliefs, activities, and such are protected. There is no part of the Constitution that says you must be in lock-step with the rest of society, that those “fringe” elements are fair game. They have been and often are, and that is the travesty and the shame of our system that it far too often fails them.

The fact is, whether you like it or not, the families involved have the right to be nude in their homes, in their parks, and in other appropriate areas. If you don’t want to see it, don’t go to them. Don’t go to a nude beach and then call the police because you were offended, because you chose to be so. They, the parents and the children, have the right to decide how they want to live, what they want to believe, and how they will do. Deal with it. Live with it. Learn from it.

The facts of the matter are that there is no demonstrable harm to the children. In fact, the body of evidence points the other way, rather clearly. The children can and do benefit on a variety of levels. Even if not, people have the right to make their own choices, even if they are not good ones. No law, no part of the Constitution says we can only make smart choices, and that others will decide for us what is good, right, or smart. Instead, it says we have the right to make our own choices.

There are many reasons to question Representative Foley’s conduct in this case. His actions are just as disquieting as the comments made by Dr. Frist, and about as idiotic. The good news is, we do live in a free society and even with The Media doing its usual job on fairness, balance, and accuracy, the rule of law still stands. What we need to do now is be sure that no one, particularly a politician in a tight spot, tries to enact a bad law or bad law enforcement for all the wrong reasons.

-30-

UPDATE: A new post on this topic has been posted.

I faxed a letter to Governor Granholm, who had been requested to get up off her duff and get involved by several organizations. Faxing and mailing work best, as e-mail is most often ignored by politicians. The reply I got deserves quite a fisking, and I have shared it around with some other bloggers. The hope had been to do a coordinated fisk, but that went out the window, so here is mine:

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns regarding the well being of children whom the court has placed under the supervision of the Family Independence Agency (FIA). Your willingness to speak up shows your commitment to Michigan's children.

Ah, yes. The children of the state, the empire. Very clearly, not the children of the parents, but of the state. Thank you for making that clear. I also love the name of the agency, with its clear implication of independence from the birth/real family.

As you may know, the FIA has the responsibility of overseeing the state's foster care system and relies upon the involvement of its citizenry as a key partner in identifying and preventing child abuse and neglect. The FIA takes all such concerns very seriously and is taking proactive steps to strengthen child welfare practices across the state. You should also know that Child Protective Services investigates each specific concern to ensure child safety and well being. Ultimately, we are all committed to protecting the best interest of all child placements under auspices of the states' foster care system.

Yep, the snitch lines for anonymous informants, the seizure of children and placing them in the system. Of course, the bounty placed on each child has nothing whatsoever to do with this desire to be so proactive. And ensuring child safety means breaking up families to suit, and placing the children in homes with known sex offenders. After all, it is through these placements that the bounties get paid, and all agencies and such get their cuts. This only happens with placements, however, and not if the children stay with the family.

Please be advised that each child who is in foster care through the state of Michigan is provided with a system of checks and balances for their care, all of which work together to ensure safety and well being. First, each foster child has a court appointed lawyer guardian ad litem to represent the best interest of the child in court. Second, each parent is allowed to have legal representation. Third, either the local prosecuting attorney and/or the Attorney General's Office are involved in each case to ensure child safety and well being. Fourth, each foster child as an agency social worker assigned to ensure that the best interest of the child is at the forefront of case decisions. All of these partners in protection provide reports to the court. The court considers all the facts and the recommendations made by the involved parties. Ultimately, the court makes the final decision about the direction that each case should take.

A system of checks and balances which very clearly is not working. Starting with “investigators” got upset that the family went to church each Sunday, and then lied in their report. A system that is more interested in removing the children and doing what brings in money, rather than what is right for the children. A system of checks and balances that, again, places children in with convicted sex offenders, despite that child’s own concerns for their safety, much less the family’s concerns. How nice of you to grant the parents a right they already have under the constitution, that of legal representation. No mention, however, of how this is provided or not provided by the state, and not really appreciated in many cased. What happens if the family can’t afford the representation? Also, are the social workers provided the same ones who lied in their report? And who does the prosecuting attorney represent: The State, the children in who’s names this horror is allegedly being done, or the parents? Where does the money come from to pay for this time, and does the state get additional money for such from the Clinton law? Also, how willing is the court to believe outside parties, particularly the parents, when the officers of the state have a vested interest in removing the children from the parents? About a $10,500 per child interest, plus other monies from the Fed?

While we recognize that the Crowton custody matter is a highly publicized case and others have revealed specific details, we must honor our legal obligation to protect confidential information. Public Act 238 of 1975 prohibits the FIA from releasing confidential case information to the general public. Nevertheless, be assured that the FIA takes your concerns seriously and will act on relevant information in a manner that serves the best interest of the children and family. Additionally, FIA also actively works with and involves the Office of the Children Ombudsman (OCO), which is an independent office established by law to review the actions of the FIA in child welfare cases. Any family or citizen can request an independent review of FIA or private agency cases by the OCO.

Gee, even though the Crowton’s have implicitly and explicitly waived that right and asked you to release details, get up off your duff and exercise your command responsibilities, much less your moral ones, and get involved? Nice cop out. As for the ODC, is that also funded under the child placement bounty act? Is it truly independent? What happens if it find lying and other criminal misdeeds on the part of the state and its agents?

Thank you again for your concern and involvement.

Jennifer M. Granholm
Governor

Politicalese for “shut up and go away, I am not going to get involved.”

Well Governor, you have to get involved. Every outside agency and organization, along with the family and friends of the family, have asked you to do so. As I pointed out before, there are clear problems here and they are happening on your watch, under your command. It is you who bears ultimate moral and legal responsibility for this, and you need to deal with this. What is happening is a travesty of justice, and if you want to retain any semblance of deserving the post you hold and the responsibilities that come with it, you will get involved and do the right thing.

This letter, obviously composed by a flunky who just does not get the new political and communications reality, serves to emphasize the poor response of the governor and the government in this case. I urge each and every reader to go research the case, and let the governor how you feel via fax and regular mail. Let’s put a spotlight on this until justice truly is done.

-30-

Whatever else may be said about him, he was a man of strong courage and integrity. He held strong beliefs and would stick with them no matter what, just as he stood by those he believed in for whatever reason. His courage was demonstrated in many ways, not the least of which was serving, in his 40s, in the military and taking part in the D-Day invasion. Not only did he take part, but he was one of the ones crazy enough and courageous enough to go in by glider.

But what I will hold him up for the most is that he showed that people can, will, and do change for the better. This is a debate, nay, argument I have with some people. The fact is, we all make mistakes. Some are minor, some are major, but what truly matters is not that we made the mistake but how we deal with the mistake. Particularly if it is a mistake of the mind, be it an idea or an entire philosophy.

With those, it is very easy to deny a mistake was made and cling even more tightly to the thing in question. We close our minds, turn off all thought, reason, and soul and will deny the evidence physical, mental, or spiritual. We cling to the belief as if it were a talisman, we continue to not merely dislike a person but hate them. We do this not because of what they are, but because they stand as proof that we were wrong and that can never be admitted, so the hate grows.

Yes, Strom Thurmond was a racist and a bigot for a large part of his life. He did a remarkable feat of filibustering against the civil rights act, to the point of going into the steam room before he started so that he would not have to go to the restroom during the 24 hour plus session.

Yet, later in life he opened his mind at least somewhat and changed his position. He then became the first Southern senator to hire a black aide, and did what he felt was now right to do. He also pursued this new course with the same courage, determination, and integrity that he approached all things.

His “true” commitment to such will be debated by others, as will the overall record of his life and work. This is not an insignificant body and I rather suspect that it will be a hundred years or so before an objective analysis can be made, so I make no such attempt here.

For me, the greatest legacy he leaves behind is that he showed it is possible for people to change, to grow, and to do so for good. Strom Thurmond also showed that having the courage and integrity of ones convictions does not mean clinging to false ideas, but rather facing those ideas, determining their shortcomings, and changing so as to discard that which is false or wrong, and bringing in that which is true and good. This is the hardest thing a Man, male or female, can do and by comparison it is easy to charge someone with a gun in their hands. It is so much harder, and far more scary, to face yourself and to have the courage to charge.

Strom Thurmond had that courage, and the integrity to carry through. It is a challenge not merely to the colleagues left behind, but to all of us as well.

-30-

It was this flame that led her to flee, knowing that certain death awaited her if she failed. It was courage of the highest order that led her to place her faith in a country that she had not seen since she was five, even though that country was represented the State Department that at the least abandoned her to her fate, and had failed in its duty to so many other women.

It is with incredible sadness that I write that she was forced to leave without her two children. Her work now is to secure their release, and their freedom, and you can click here to read some of her words. Please do, as they are some of the most inspiring I have heard in some time. Our work is to examine what has happened, find ways to prevent these travesties from ever happening again, and to force those who are legally and morally responsible for her plight and the plight of other women and children to accept their responsibilities.

A number of congresscritters are highly upset with the State Department, as they well should be. While the idea has not made it to print where I have seen it, I both hope and call for Congressional investigations of not merely these incidents but others that reflect poorly on State.

I had hopes that when Colin Powell took over that he had been given the same instructions as several other agency heads: clean house. It is painfully obvious that the house has not been cleaned at Foggy Bottom, and that such is long overdue. There are ways to do this despite civil service protections, and if it means abolishing the department and starting over, well, that need not be such a bad thing.

Another point to consider is that diplomatic immunity and respect for laws is both a necessary thing and a concept that requires reciprocity. The House of Saud has made it clear that they do not respect our laws, with child custody being just the tip of that iceberg. If our laws are to be flaunted, there is no reason that we should respect theirs.

I would say that this point has escaped the attention of the lace panty brigade, but I think they understand it very well. The fact is, they don’t care because they are too busy playing a game that mere plebians could not possibly understand. Indeed, mere messy citizens all to often complicate the game and that simply cannot be allowed. After all, the game is what is important, not little things like law or national interest.

The Saudi’s do not respect our laws. They have contributed to terrorism on many levels, and the lines about contributing to humanitarian efforts and not terrorism do not hold up to examination. I will say that I do not think they lie on a technical basis, but it is also clear that they have studied at the Bill Clinton school of “define is” to create terms and phrases that just barely avoid the issue.

The winds are blowing colder towards Saudi Arabia right now, and that is a good thing. For a good crisp wind is needed to clean things out. Congress, and the President, need to send a similar wind down Foggy Bottom way as well, so that the much needed cleaning can take place there as well.

Meantime, despite State, the rest of us can find ways to help Sarah and the others who were not as lucky as she. We can pitch in and help in a variety of ways, from donations to political pressure. If that political pressure includes messages to our elected representatives and leaders to clean house, that is fine too.

-30-

I became interested in the man courtesy of a spoof in a James Bond film, in which someone portraying him made a brief appearance. Sir Denis played into such things with a great sense of humor, such as a long-running spoof of his correspondence with a friend who was also editor of the Daily Telegraph.

This is a devastating loss to Lady Thatcher, who’s own health has not been up to snuff of late. My thoughts go out to her and to their family.

-30-

Since there has been some confusion, let me state that this is not the case of a woman who married a Saudi and then encountered problems. Sarah was a child of a union between an American woman and a Saudi male, who later divorced. At age five according to reports, Sarah was sent on a parental visit, which may or may not have been court ordered (citations have been difficult obtain), and the father then refused to return her. Since he was in Saudi Arabia at the time, it was not a case for the police. It was a case for the lace panty brigade at Foggy Bottom.

According to the mother, who has appeared on Fox and other news shows, she was denied help by the State Department. She claims that she was told flat out that they would not help because they did not want to jeopardize relations with a critical ally.

I have little problem believing this, or some of the tales that have come out since Sarah made it to a consulate and sought sanctuary. While America was founded on individual liberty and rights, the State Department has obviated such since the early 1900s with the rise of what is known as Wilsonian Democracy. If you are not familiar with this term, when you finish reading this, go to the main page and click on U.S.S. Clueless Essential Links and read up. You will be glad you did.

After Independence, America did not have the might to fight England or other powers, but eventually did so anyway with impressments of seamen as the root cause of the war. What is now known as the War of 1812 was much more widely known for many years as
“The War of Jenkin’s Ear” over a particular incident that pushed us into war. It was the problems with attacks on individual Americans, and American shipping, that added the words “to the shores of Tripoli” to the Marine Hymn.

Yet this has changed and the 1900s saw many shameful and cowardly acts by the State Department, which failed miserably and utterly in many cases to defend individual Americans around the world. In the late 1900s, much of this took place when we did not want to upset allies or potential allies, and gave them leave to rape, torture, and murder American citizens who were inconvenient to them.

This history does colour my judgment towards the present situation. Given the back history of State, I can easily believe that neither it nor its career personnel would be willing to act in the best interest of an individual citizen. Most especially if it was inconvenient or might upset someone still considered an ally.
Okay, so we have a little girl who is kidnapped and a State Department that in no way, shape, or form would do anything about this clearly illegal act. Damn custody decrees, damn the fact that the kid was an American Citizen and therefore their boss, and damn all. They had to protect the best interests of the government, forgetting that we are the Government.

Fast forward 18 or so years, to a girl who is now a woman. A woman who reports abuse of various stripes by her father and her stepmother. A woman who was forced to marry a man chosen for her by her father. A woman who by Saudi law could not refuse him sex after a marriage to which she did not agree. A woman who cannot file rape charges as a result of non-consensual sex because of Saudi “law.” A woman who risked death by contacting her mother through the internet despite being forbidden to do so, but grabbed an opportunity and made the most of it. A woman who begged for help, and then did something that took massive courage: She fled and requested sanctuary at the closest American consulate.

She did this knowing that if caught that she would be punished, most likely by loosing her life. She did this despite having to do it on her own, since according to news interviews the consulate was not a taxi service and could not be bothered with picking up a Citizen who was in danger and needed help.

Despite the disinterest of the consulate, she did indeed make it with her two children in tow. This is where tales differ, and differ widely. According to her and her mother, she was denied food for a while because she did not have any money to buy it. Her mother was told by a consular official to wire money so she could get things. She was made to meet with Saudi officials on ten minute or less notice who demanded her return and the return of her children. She was then allegedly forced by a consular official to sign a document giving up her children to her husband and/or the Saudi government as a condition of her being allowed to leave. Other things are alleged, though to be fair State has a very different version of events.

Knee-jerk reactions aside, there are some strong questions here. Leaving aside the abandonment of an American Citizen to kidnapping, rape, and more, there are some legal questions that need answering. I attempted to get some help on this, but Eugene Volokh is swamped and was unable to recommend anyone else to contact. I contacted Steve at Little Tiny Lies, but the questions are outside his prevue.

So, what you are going to get are my takes on Constitutional law and a few more questions.

First, there is no doubt in my mind that Sarah was and remains and American Citizen. She was born of an American mother and was apparently born on United States Territory, thus making her a full, natural born Citizen. For those not familiar with that phrase, it means someone born on U.S. soil. American citizens can be born overseas, but unless they are born on U.S. soil, they can never be President. I came to know of this through the children of an uncle who was stationed overseas with the military. They tried hard to have all their children on U.S. soil to preserve that right, but were not able to do it for at least one of them.

Second, since she is an American Citizen, Sarah’s children should be American Citizens as well, even if born overseas and as the result of a forced marriage/rape. If this is not so, and you are a lawyer, please do let me know.

Third, the matter of custody should therefore be a province of the courts since the children are technically dual nationals as I understand it. Again, if this is not correct, please do let me know.

I bring up some of this because of a column by Wendy McElroy, in which she discusses the advisability of getting involved with what amounts to a custody dispute. Yet, I feel that while it is a custody dispute, that there are other matters that make it much more.

It is about the right of an American Citizen, Sarah Saga, to the protections guaranteed her by the Constitution and denied to her by the Department of State for reasons of political expediency.

It is about the rights of her children, who appear to my eye to meet the qualifications of citizenship, to those same protections

It is about doing what is right, not what is easy.

The Chamberlain brigade is already beginning a counter-spin to the tale and in all fairness I must admit that they may be telling the truth in some or all of it. Based on my experiences, and the history of this organization and recent actions and attitudes within it, I do have some strong doubts, however.

Yes, Sarah has been told she is free to leave at any time, but that she may not take her children with her. If the law says that they are not citizens, and if she was not forced into signing the forfeiture document but did so willingly and without coercion of any sort, then she must leave without them, no matter how heartbreaking it may be.

If, on the other hand, the children are Citizens, and/or the document was signed under any form of coercion, then they need to leave with her. The military has had a dictum long lost to State, we don’t leave anyone behind. If they have any claim on citizenship, then they must come out with her. The courts can then decide on custody and more, and the history of Saudi Arabia should be brought into the equation. If it takes military action to bring this about, then so be it.

It is far past time that the Department of State began attending to the responsibilities it owes to the Citizens who are its bosses and its Government. This case is as good a point as any.

-30-

UPDATE

Let’s tackle the easy one first. What makes a story news? Simple, it has impact or importance to society as a whole, or at least to the majority of the particular segment of the public that consumes your product, be it a broadcast or a magazine. Importance can be summed up as death, fire, flood, famine, earthquake, or other ravage of nature or man. It means that resources are damaged or lost, that transportation and/or communication are damaged or destroyed, and that the public business – commerce and otherwise – will be disrupted.

Human interest stories were originally done as ways to illustrate pure news. The human touch resonated with the reader, then later with the listener/viewer. They then moved into a full genre of their own, independent of the news of the day, for good and for ill. For the good in that they can bring things to the surface that need to be dealt with, and for the ill in that they allow a great deal of manipulation to take place without a good system of checks and balances. For every Cooke or Blair caught, there are likely many more who use or abuse the system to manipulate towards a particular viewpoint. The system is all too often more lax on human interest than on news. Such stories can also be much harder for blogs and other independent outlets to check out and verify, since changing or hiding identities is a much more common practice with them.

If you are thinking that most of what is passed off as news today really is news, you win! Most of what gets done as news is not news, it is fluff, human interest, and things that are not news but that research has shown to increase and/or retain viewers and readers. What little real news that is given also is presented in a way (slanted) towards the biases of the people in charge and in ways that marketing research again suggests will encourage readership and viewership. That is why on truly important stories of the day I try to go to as many CREDIBLE sources as I can, because comparing between them lets facts come out and biases and outright lies be exposed.

Why was the story in the Toronto Star news at all? Wasn’t it just another President-landing-in-a-flight-suit story type thing? Joe makes some very good points in that the only way the rescue could be “fake” was if Pvt. Lynch was not in Iraqi hands. She was, we went in, got her, came out. Little or no discussion on resistance, treatment, and more at first, and not a lot afterwards.

On one hand, and in the most importance sense in many ways, Joe is right. This is not a story, because she was in Iraqi hands and we went in and got here. No one disputes that, so her rescue cannot have been faked.

On the other hand, he is wrong because the charge alleged in the story was that it was staged. Such an allegation is news.

It is news, and newsworthy, because it would mean at best that the Coalition of the Willing and the United States of America had screwed up, and that at worst these same groups had willfully and deliberately kept Pvt. Lynch an enemy prisoner of war for propaganda purposes. If true, either requires debate and action to correct either poor judgment or a deliberate abuse of power so that such does not happen again.

Now, much of this is not direct allegation, but is done by implication. My real problem with the story in question is that it does a lot of implying that seems designed to put Coalition operations in this regard in as bad a light as possible. It implies that the rescue teams were wantonly and willfully destructive with their actions. It implies that they did so knowing there was no opposition, and therefore no valid reason for their actions. It implies that such was Keystone Cops at best and Machiavellian planning and operations at worst. In short, it seems to be doing all it can to diminish, demean, and defame all those involved.

For me, that is the true story here. That is why I went into it the way I did. And yes, I did use the word fake in my lede, though it was not truly accurate. Joe is right, the event was not faked, and the story in question only implies that it was staged. Yet, that is a distinction lost on most readers. The difference between staged and faked is one that will be missed, and I chose to go with the other term because it is what would be perceived and what was also being used on the news. Another dictum of journalism is to go with what your audience knows and is familiar with, and I really do need to quit doing that. My audience here knows better and deserves better.

If there were any truth to the allegations made in this story, directly or by implication, then it is newsworthy. It should be, and would have been, pounced on by organizations who would see the ratings coup, the prizes and awards, and the chance to become the next Woodward and Bernstein. That the Star and the reporter did not do what was needed to do this for themselves speaks volumes to me.

So that brings us to the second point, the other way it is newsworthy. Was the story nothing more than a smear campaign? Was it an act by elements of The Media to discredit that which they opposed? Was it just another case of liberal extremists not only never saying they were wrong or sorry, but trying their best to fling mud on those they can’t touch directly? Could it even be something worse, like deliberate lying on the part of the reporter? These questions are valid and have been raised elsewhere in blogs and even in The Media. That makes it newsworthy in and of itself.

So, to answer the questions: No, I really don’t think this story was news, and were I the editor who got it, I would have had a lot of questions that would have had to be answered before I ran it.

It became news, however, because it was published. The questions it raised were intriguing, no matter which way it was approached. All of those questions deserve answers, and I simply regret that I have only been able to provide questions and not answers. Some of the answers can only come from the publication and the reporter; all the others must come from people asking hard questions in places to where I currently have no access. All I, any of us, can do is hope that they will be asked and request those that can – such as Fox, SkyNews, etc. – do so, and soon.

-30-

The New York Times has long considered itself, and been regarded by many in The Media, as the newspaper of record for the United States. I admit that in my career, before I saw the light, that I aspired to have a byline there. It was the pinnacle of print journalism, and it stood for the highest standards in all areas.

The information it provided was to be beyond reproach, checked and confirmed, by a staff that knew they were the best of the best. Most members of the public have taken what it says unquestioningly because it was supposed to be this paragon of virtue.

The fact is, however, that it has been incredibly biased in its coverage. That is bad enough, but was an issue that was getting public scrutiny such that interested and responsible citizens could get the information they needed to make up their own minds on the matter.

Now has come Jayson Blair. To steal from Day By Day, the newspaper of record now has a record. The citizens who have depended on the information in it to make informed decisions and provide informed consent to the actions of government have been betrayed.

That betrayal extends beyond Mr. Blair. Mr. Blair did indeed make the decision to break every rule and canon of journalism and needs to be held accountable for his actions on professional, civil, and criminal levels.

Yet, he did not act alone. The management of the Times was well aware that there were problems with his work. One manager wrote a very strong memo that was, apparently, ignored by higher management. It is clear from the Times’ own coverage that individuals within the management chain were aware of the problems and failed to act. That failure to act was not merely a breach of journalistic ethics and responsibilities, but was an utter and abject abrogation of the responsibilities to the other employees and to the governance of the United States.

The colour of Mr. Blair’s skin has no bearing on his responsibilities as a reporter or the decisions he made. He needs to be judged on the basis of his actions and decisions, nothing else.

The same can not be said about the management of the Times, both publishing and editorial. If any individual there failed to do their duty in part or in whole because the subject was non-white, then they are as guilty of bigotry and racism as any supremacists of any stripe that they have reviled in their pages.

Journalism is not a profession that needs to provide different standards based on gender, race, or religion. There is no physical fitness requirement that needs gradation to accommodate such difference. The same standards apply to all, and discrimination of any stripe is reprehensible, condescending, and demeaning to all concerned.

Jayson Blair needs to be held fully and completely accountable for his actions, and the damage he has done. Vilifying Mr. Blair, however, is not the answer, and must not become the story that is spun out of this.

Mr. Blair did not act in a vacuum. It is evident from this instance that there are significant and serious problems with the management of the Times. Even if none of the other rumors and allegations of falsehoods with other stories and reporters are true, the management of the Times has failed of their responsibility.

A housecleaning is clearly needed at the Times. It needs to be undertaken vigorously and immediately, or else so-called newspaper of record will diminish not itself, but a critical cornerstone of our freedom.

-30-

Then, two tornadoes were detected about 30 miles from here and moving on in. After studying the weather radar and other info, I elected to get a shower. Yep, a shower. Two reasons. First, there is a streak in me of the "Yes, the ship is going down and we will go out dressed as gentlemen." Second, and far more importantly, is the prevention of infection.

The big problem with a tornado is not the sucking, but the shooting. They fire everything from cows to pine needles at high velocity, so that most injuries are projectile injuries. The problem with projectiles is only half the object. The other part are all the microbes that come in with it. A bullet or a pine needle, they all bring in bits of cloth, skin, and other such things that are just coated with microbes. These, in turn, cause infection. So, clean skin and clothes just in case.

I also dressed in heavy clothing. One of the best things you can do is bundle up in a heavy storm. The clothing protects you from many dangers, and can help mitigate a projectile injury. If you have body armour of any type, wear it.

More in a few minutes. LW

0817 Tornado Emergency Declared by EMA. Touchdown.

0822 I really don't like green sky. Heavy clouds, dark, to the west. Siren going off again, lots of lightning. Time for step two.

0823 Multiple incoming. Joy

0825 Overhead?

0831 Well, seems several have spawned out, though I am in the clear for now. Just high winds, heavy rain, etc. The apartment below mine seems to be having trouble, as there was the emergency carpet people in. Not surprised, can hear water running down the wall, none in on me so far but need to check.

Other reports have circulation at various other locations. Interesting, esp. in terms of the Chinese curse...

0835 No damage or leaks so far. Time for a quick review of some things. When an emergency such as this does occur, have a good safe shelter. Designate one room of your house as a storm shelter. In my case, for what little good it will do, I have an interior bathroom designated for this purpose. It is the center-most room, as well protected as anything in this building can be, and I can pull stuff in to cover me if needed.

A quick point: a storm shelter should be low, interior, and secure. A terrorist incident shelter needs to be high, interior, and secure. Remember, most chemical and biological agents are heavier than air, and will sink. Get above them. A storm shelter should ideally be underground, but do what you can.

If you don't have a battery powered radio or TV, why not? Do you really think power and cable are going to stay up? Plan ahead.

0845 Rain is letting up, lots of flooding that is visible from where I am and reported on the news.

Some quick thoughts on shelter in a storm. When the time comes, close all blinds and curtains. If the windows shatter, this will cut down on flying projectiles, with luck.

Put on your heaviest coats and clothes. Get in your shelter and cover yourself if possible. In the days of iron pipes, I was taught to grab..

I do hope that was thunder, do not like long, low rumbles right now

0847 Must have just been, as nothing on radar and no other signs outside. Back to where I was

In the days of iron pipes and cast-iron tubs, sheltering in a bathroom was a great idea. I was taught to hang on to the iron pipes as a child, and an old-fashioned bathtub was a wonderful shelter. When I build my house...

Forget hanging on to PVC, and a fiberglass tub is better than nothing. Put precious ones in it and cover them. Put yourself over them and hang on. If it is just you, get in, cover up, and hang on.

Damn, sirens again. Let me go check the radar...

0850 Nothing obvious, but another good storm seems to be just to the west and moving east. No obvious signs outside, but am going to be prepared to move to shelter, such as it is, really quick. Have to get a TV for the office, as I have the big TV and the bedroom TV on loud to get the good local weather.

This is why I believe in rational preparedness. Things like this happen on a very regular basis here. This is why I have plastic sheeting to cover windows and doors, battery-operated appliances, and more. It is also why I have an old military helmet and gear: In a storm, these come in VERY handy.

Yes, I am being as safe as I can be and am padded as much as I feel needed. If something happens, I will wish for more but am as protected as is practical. Heavy rain. Let me go check the perimiter again. LW

0900 Not bad right now. No leaking into my apartment, but I think my downstairs neighbors may be flooding. Not only are they ground floor, but it sounds like that pesky roof leak is still there and still going down over my fireplace and down into their apartment. Streets are flooded, and idiots are driving into them. People, use some sense. If the street is covered, don't drive into it. If you do, they should not rescue you and allow this to be a method to put some needed chlorine in the gene pool. There are people that really need help and you are diverting from them. Quit being so frelling selfish

0915 So far, so good. No damage here, though a LOT of flooding around. When a sloped parking lot is mostly flooded, you have problems. No fatalities or injuries reported yet from the storms or tornadoes. One from someone driving into a flood, but I suspect you can gather my opinion on that. Sorry for the family's loss, but little sympathy otherwise.

To go back to some lessons or preparedness. Despite keeping this journal, I have been being safe. Early on, I did shower and dress, and padded as much as I felt prudent. I also have an old military helmet that did go on during the worst. This is also a time that if you have body armour, wear it. I also put into my safe zone a flashlight that had been tested, a rechargeable searchlight, a battery-operated television (batteries checked and replaced), and other supplies. Nearby were first aid kits and more. Made sure I had some water handy. Take care of the basics...

On me, I also put some things I think are prudent. I did put on my cell phone, a knife, and other emergency items so they would be *on me* and have a good chance of staying with me. That way, no matter what, I had some basic supplies. Given the way this place is built, I have no confidence in being where I was when the storm started, and might have needed to try to fix myself and work my way out of wherever and whatever.

Largest problem with being prudent is that it is quite warm, and I would love to shed some layers but it looks like another storm is popping up to the west, according to the radar. Will be uncomfortable until I am sure what is happening. Why do so many radar WWW sites put in a five minute delay? When things are popping, the key to preparedness and prudence is accurate and timely information. A delay can and will get people killed. Idiots. LW

0925 Things are clearing up. Still lots of rain, but the storms to the west seem to be falling apart. Will drop down a level or two and resume semi-normal operations. Also go over some lessons learned. One is, where is the sports strap for my glasses? I have several, and could not put my hand on a single one. Not good. Other than that, things went well. Am still PO'd that the battey for the camcorder was dead, wanted to try to capture some of this. Oh well. It will be charged just in time for the sun to come out, probably.

My final words on this, I hope, are to be prepared. Have plans, be prepared to implement them on a moments notice, and keep up with things. Most things are survivable, and can be survived in style, with proper planning. It does not have to be extreme, just prudent.

Be safe out there. I have far too few readers to loose any of them.

Laughing Wolf

Had Jane truly taken such action, it would have been the proof needed to show that she had indeed stepped fully and irretrievably across the line into treason. Not even her most ardent supporters would have been able to pass this action off as free speech, and her most ardent critics could have used it to secure indictments. It would have been proof positive that her actions resulted in the death and/or disablement of military personnel.

So, having said all this I must say that Jane is not guilty of this charge and I am taking steps here and in private to refute it. To do so is a responsibility I have as an individual to the society in which I live. The fact is that so many internet mail things like this are false, and why I rarely pass them on without checking them thoroughly.

All that being said, however, I will now indulge myself a bit to play Paul Harvey and tell the rest of the story. The rest of the story is that, in my opinion, Jane Fonda is an opportunistic traitor, in the moral if not legal sense given that Tokyo Rose was convicted for "mere" propaganda, deserving neither respect or support. I agree whole heartedly that she did not and does not deserve the honor of having been in ABC’s 100 Years of Great Women. All that is coming out now about ABC and its bias just adds fuel to this fire. Yet I must also point out that this event took place in 1999, which is another point the e-mail in question misses.

Snopes also has a good take on Jane’s self-serving “apology” to our troops, one that has never been repeated even in the extremely lackluster manner of the original. Indeed, it has been widely reported that Joan Baez, another anti-war protester who later changed her views, called on Jane to acknowledge that the unified Vietnam was not what they had hoped, and Jane refused.

She has never truly changed her tune on this. She called our soldiers “war criminals” and worse, she supported and encouraged the North Vietnamese, she publicly thanked the Soviets for supporting the North Vietnamese, and more. She did some of these things not as an impressionable youth, but as an adult into her mid-30s. We won’t even go into her statements over the last 20 years about my home state of Georgia and politics in general.

Anyone and everyone makes mistakes, and we all say things we regret. We hold opinions, often strongly, that we later change in light of experience and fact. The true mark of a responsible individual is when they own up to such things.

Jane Fonda has never done so. She has never admitted she was wrong in any way, shape, or form about her actions and beliefs. The closest she has come is saying that she should not have had her picture made on the anti-aircraft gun. For her actions and her continued support of same, I can not have any liking or respect for her. Future actions might could change this, but that depends on change, maturity, and responsibility that she has yet to demonstrate. While I can hope, it is not something I expect to ever see.

-30-

This is not exactly surprising. Her sojurn in Iraq and Iraqi hands was not a trip to Club Med. What exactly happened is not fully known, and what can be learned is being played close to the vest to protect her privacy. Even so, it is clear that she endured much.

I do hope that the efforts to help her regain her memories is successful, and done such that she gains strength from it. Further trauma is not something she needs or deserves.

I also hope for this for some very selfish reasons.

First, we do need a good example for all females in the military. We need someone that can be held up as a gold standard of what it means to be a soldier and to do one's duty. There are fictional characters aplenty, such as David Weber's Honor Harrington, but we need reality. The early, unconfirmed, reports seem to show that Pvt. Lynch is just that. She held her own, fought till she was out of ammunition, and may have fought on even beyond that. Her weapon apparently was in good shape and well maintained; she fired back with effect; and, she kept on until overwhelmed. If this is indeed true, then she has set a very high bar for all how serve now and in the future.

Second, we do need to honor her appropriately. There is a problem with awards that have lost meaning because they have been given out indiscriminately. This year's Oscar for documentary would appear to fall in that category. Many military medals are also percieved in that light, so care must be taken in any award given.

I have heard calls for the Medal of Honor, but that is overboard. If you want to know why, go read the citations at Medal of Honor Citations and you will see. What she apparently did and endured was great, but does not meet the qualifications for this honor.

That leaves the Silver Star and Distinguised Service Cross. I can and will make a good argument for the DSC, provided that the reports can be verified. Some of this can be done from eye witnesses, forensics, and related avenues. It would help the process along greatly if she were able to provide information so that they know where to go to investigate.

So, for selfish reasons and in hopes of healing body, mind, and soul as needed, I hope that efforts are successful. We need her, and she deserves healing and all appropriate honors.

-30-

America is a series of great experiments, all of which revolve around individual liberty and responsibility. That indeed the masses can govern themselves. There are many who hate this idea even today, and want power over the masses for their own use and gain. The concept of individual liberty is an anathema to them, be they at home or abroad. They do not want citizens, merely subjects.

The quickest way to turn a citizen into a subject is to remove the concepts of individual liberty. To have the people voluntarily give up freedoms for safety, or the illusion of same. To have the citizens vote to make themselves subjects.

Understandably, this is happening today. A truly free society is impossible to police using traditional methods. There is no way to track, trace, and conduct surveillance in the way that would guarantee all perps would be caught and dealt with. Not, that is, without creating a massive police state. In the name of public safety, things need to change. Liberties need to be temporarily curtailed for the greater good, or certain freedoms given up to ensure your safety.

This is the most slippery slope of all, and we are already on it. We have been on it for some time, but the events following 9-11 have served to bring it to the fore. Look at history, not just of the United States, but of the great republics – and empires – that have gone before. Look hard and learn the lessons.

There have been some wonderful discussions on Jerry Pournelle’s site that cover this topic in a depth not possible in a short piece. A recent piece regarding Claudius and the creation of the Roman Empire is very thought provoking. Read it and some of the other posts, and follow-up with some of the excellent discussions on U.S.S. Clueless and at Mrs. Du Toit.

I leave you today with a quote and a thought.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

What happens now is up to you. You are responsible. Are you citizen, or subject? The choice is yours.

-30-

Yes, a Monroeite. It can be argued that Monroe fits into a Jacksonian or similar mold, but James Monroe presented something that would be used by most of the major camps. It combined foreign policy and domestic policy to create the Monroe Doctrine, which can be summed up as “Don’t play your games in the Americas.”

To leave it at that, however, does it a disservice as it was much more than just a statement of foreign policy. It affected domestic policy as well, though that is most often ignored in schools. That is a shame as it helped set the stage for many more things than just foreign relations.

The Monroe Doctrine has been amplified and other doctrines have joined it, but for simple but profound statements of policy it has remained the model. Until now.

The Bush Doctrine states that the United States is at war with terror and tyranny, and you are either with us or with the terrorists. Concise and straightforward, this statement is the heart of the Bush Doctrine.

There is more of course. In the President’s own words, the full doctrine is as follows:

“Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice. Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world -- and will be confronted. And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America.”

Even more than the Monroe doctrine, the Bush Doctrine will reshape the landscape of foreign policy. Unlike the infant America, we now have the force and the capability to project that force to anywhere in the world. We can project a larger amount of force with fewer resources than anyone else. That puts teeth into the doctrine in a way that matters.

The world is changing in new and radical ways, and old ways and institutions are going to fall. Whilst care needs to be taken that good things don’t go out with the unworkable onto the trash heap of history, change is for the good. New alliances, new partners, and new ways of thought are coming to the fore. It will be interesting to see who can dance to the new tune, both at home and abroad. For the President has restated his new doctrine, said what he meant, and clearly means what he says. Interesting days lie ahead.

-30-

The plane was nothing special, just a COD. No, not the fish, but the plane that sometimes brings the fish, big fish or real fish. It makes deliveries to carriers, and today it delivered something much more. Flying in the plane was an older pilot, in the company of a young, dedicated, and experienced pilot.

Any pilot, civilian or military, knows what that means, and it is not just someone carting an old geezer around. It is a sharing, a passing of the torch both ways. The older pilot imparts some talk of what went on before, and the younger pilot – openly and/or clandestinely – brings the other pilot up to speed on current operations. They talk, exchange knowledge, and do so in a way that most observers would not understand.

And there is much about the older pilot that many do not understand. Many people, including some I know, hate him with a passion. They hate him for his political affiliation; they hate him for his religious beliefs; they hate him for what he represents; and, most of all, they hate him for being more than they can ever be.

This older pilot has been called an idiot, and worse. His mental agility and mental capacity are the stuff of jokes from one and all. He may not be the most erudite person around, but there are two points to consider here. First, he has never used erudition and smooth talk to lie on matters of honor. Unlike others before him, he has and understands the terms honor and integrity. Second, he is no idiot. Idiots do not make good pilots, and even if they do make it through the training program they do not last long. Either they are booted out, or they take themselves out.

If you hate someone simply because of a label, such as black, white, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, Methodist, Catholic, or Jew, you are a bigot. A small-minded imbecilic cretin who deserves no consideration. Yet, the very people who decry bigotry and racism the loudest in this nation have no problem hating the older pilot because he is a Republican. Worse than that, he is proud of it. Such a thing! The outrage! Indeed, where is the thought and outrage at the mental and philosophical bigotry behind that thought and the multitude of statements that accompany it.

An even larger problem for some is that is that this man says what he means and means what he says. He does not play “the game.” He doesn’t couch his words in layers of meaning to give weasel room, or engage in endless debate over the meaning of “sex” and “is” and other irrelevancies.

Who cares if he landed the plane himself, had help, or let the “kid” do it for him. The fact is, he took the time to prepare, to wear the uniform, and do it right. He did not have such contempt for those he was with that he ordered them disarmed and mocked the uniform. He was one of them, and now leads them, and does not hold them as being dirt beneath his sandals.

You can see the difference it makes in the crew; in the returned salutes followed by warm handshakes. The pilot did not stand on ceremony, did not insist on mickey mouse forum and getting away from the masses. He mixed, he toured, he talked, and he listened. He followed protocol to the extent necessary, then did what was right and got back to the troops.

“United States, Arriving!” was what came out with the pipes. Indeed, in many ways the best of America did arrive. Honor, integrity, and true people skills: all those things and more were on the deck of that carrier just now. The pride and joy I felt in seeing that were overwhelming.

I do not agree with everything George Bush does or says, particularly on the home front. I will oppose a number of issues in the strongest possible terms, from extending the so-called assault gun ban to the Patriot act in all forms. Yet, I will not stoop to the unthinking and uncritical attacks of those who want to destroy him, and America as we know it. I can and do respect him, even when I disagree with him.

More’s the pity I can’t say the same for many others. To them I simply say that if you want to find the liar, the cheat, and the idiot, then look in the mirror. As far as the war on terror is concerned, I give thanks that we have the leader and the team we do, and not his opponent. I give thanks that I witnessed what I did today, live, as it happened for I saw a promise made.

The torch passed back and forth. The vow is sealed, and the promises will be kept. Our military is no longer despised by those who lead it, and The Man has given his pledge to them and to the world. Terrorists and those who support them, despair.

-30-

The ideal situation would be that a major operation got exposed and that Interpol, Brazil, Canada, and the U.S. are cooperating in running it down and rolling it up. Some of the initial information in the original Reuter’s story would seem to suggest that. There were details in it that indicated that the authorities knew a great deal, and that more was being learned.

Those same details, however, could also suggest that various authorities were far more interested in covering critical portions of anatomy. Indeed, the current story makes this appear to be much more likely. Lower echelons are being blamed, there is no need to be concerned, and don’t look at the man behind the curtain.

To complicate things a bit, it can be quite difficult to tell when a cover-up is designed to cover official screw-ups and when they are being put in place to protect an investigation or counter-intelligence operation. Both could be the beneficiaries, but it usually is one or the other. That is one reason why reporters have dug into stories they shouldn’t, because it is hard to tell and when there is no trust or understanding between the two sides…

It may also be simply a case of a news story breaking, and not cleanly. Early reports are by their very nature incomplete and inaccurate. That was a factor in why many news services used to refuse to run breaking stories until more information can be obtained. This worked in the days of the press, but radio and television killed this useful pause for thought. Weasel words are used instead, from “It appears” to “It is unconfirmed but…”

These qualifiers are quite often lost and are most often a sop to placate the journalist and protect the outlet. They are, especially in broadcast journalism, small and rushed through. It is rare to see it done otherwise.

The internet has compounded this problem. Stories go out world-wide in seconds, and then take on a life of their own. Sites proclaim them, and then never change them. Old news, news that is thoroughly discredited makes the rounds and lives again and again.

If this is the case, however, why have the Brazilians and the Canadians not put out more definitive statements? At higher levels there is a tendency to want to say nothing and say it well, but even the dimmest politician knows that the quickest way to kill a false story is with short, simple, truthful, declarative statements. You are open, you are honest, you keep it short and sweet. It works, and it works well. So, that brings up the question of why this has not been done?

If it were just a simple case of bad information and fast reporting, the situation should be getting clearer, not murkier. Even if the people in Brazil were not media savvy, the Canadians are and they are not helping. Which brings us back to the first hypothesis.

Time will tell the what and the which. What is needed now is information, truthful information given in a timely, responsible, and professional manner. Once that is done, then we will be able to analyze the situation and decide what needs to be done and how. Both in terms of the story, and in terms of how we cover it.

-30-

I can think of several possibilities for this right off the bat. First, we assume that the victim did not talk with anyone or leave any messages because such are not explicitly mentioned in the Reuters story. That is a dangerous assumption given the dearth of facts. It may well be that the person told all to someone if and when he requested help. It may be that some other form of communication was responsible for that detail.

It could also be very true that this was done in a disingenuous fashion to point away from a major problem area in Brazil. It would not be the first time a government has done such. This possibility, too, must not be discounted.

Another possibility to consider is that this detail was part of a counter-intelligence operation. It may be something intended to spook someone, or someones, into action or movement so they can be tracked, apprehended, or taken out.

Joe Katzman calls for truth, full and immediate, so that we can evaluate and make good decisions in the days ahead. I agree with this with one caveat: if there is a counter op going on, then I can wait a bit for the full and complete truth. If some delay is the price of rolling up a major threat, I will be glad to live with it.

What I will not be able to live with is if this is something else. If Brazil is doing like Canada, which has also been disingenuous in terms of “no threat to Canada” routine, and it places people in danger, then that is not acceptable. In that case, the governments and people involved will be as guilty of the terroristic act as those who actually do it. In that case, they should all be dealt with as terrorists. Nothing less will be acceptable.

-30-

By keeping to strict rules, and acknowledging when there is even the slightest potential for, or appearance of, conflict of interest, the public benefits. It provides you with the knowledge and framework to evaluate and interpret the news.

I bring this up because of an outstanding article at Winds of Change entitled Saddam's Archives: Iraq's Media War. It was an article that caused me to go “I wish I had written that.” But it also pointed out to me the difference between journalism as it is supposed to be in the West, and how it is in the rest of the world. It also points out a double, or even triple, standard by The Media.

In short, the article documents how Iraq bought and paid for favorable coverage in Middle Eastern media. This may well have extended beyond the Middle East, since not even all Western nations subscribe to the strict rules of journalism. This means that the news that got out was biased, and that the people who got it at home and abroad had no way of knowing that they, and the news, were being manipulated.

This gave Iraq, and Saddam’s regime an unfair advantage. They were able to control and manipulate the news in ways that those playing by the rules, like the Coalition, could not. It means that members of the media, lied in ways that go beyond mere bias.

This should not be a surprise to anyone, but it is not something I expect to see covered in the U.S. by The Media. For it hits too close to home to be truly covered. Not only would it force an assessment of their own coverage and potential biases, it would force them to examine how they get the news from the rest of the world.

The Media tends to publicly posture that all journalists the world over are the same, adhere to the same ideals and goals, and follow the same rules of the game. This despite decades of proof otherwise. This double standard has resulted in some of the worst reporting to be seen.

During the cold war, The Media took reports from “media” in the Soviet Union and satellite countries and ran it as straight news, or, worse yet, stating that information from the U.S. Government was on the same level or even below. There has been the same unquestioning, indeed eager, acceptance of reports from sources and media in the Middle East and elsewhere despite readily apparent bias. It was accepted even though The Media had to know that most of the rest of the world does not play the game the way they do.

Indeed, if you go talk to other media people around the world, citizens in other countries, and sources in other governments, they will tell you that they are not playing by the rules. That only a fool would play by them and give up such an advantage. They will even tell you that we do it to, and that obviously we put up the rules as a sham, a polite fiction just like a lot of treaties hide things nicely so people can do what they want.

On some level, members of The Media know this, even if it is not acknowledged. While I doubt that many of them would refer to foreign media as Wogs, that is exactly the attitude many have towards them. That they don’t understand, they don’t live up, but that is not their fault. They can’t help it. This triple standard is why media elsewhere is not likely to change anytime soon. It may also be why The Media is not in full hue and cry over the recent jailings in Cuba by Castro of journalists and others. It may be why others elsewhere do not get the push they should. They can’t help it, after all, they are just wogs reacting in a justifiable manner to the imperialism of the U.S.

What is needed is the elimination of the different standards. If we are to uphold some noble and needed goals, then we need to uphold them. We need to force the introspection in The Media; and they, in turn, need to force other media around the world to uphold the same standards. If those people do not, then all their information needs to be presented with notices so that it can be judged for what it is, not what we want it to be.

A free and honest press is essential for the preservation of freedom and liberty for all. Not just here, but abroad. Make it so.

-30-

Transportation security is mostly window dressing. By putting passengers through a process designed more to show that "something is being done" than anything else, a mental sop is created. What makes this a sop is that it is not random. The PC crowd and The Media have guaranteed that anyone who is remotely Middle Eastern is not touched for fear of lawsuits and tons of bad news coverage over the flagrant violation of their rights based solely on ethnicity. Nevermind that the people who did all the bad things on 9-11 were Arabic males of a certain age and other common characteristics; never mind that there are females that now fall into this same category; never mind that there are a number of other factors that can and will give a good indication of whom to search and/or detain. That would never do, as all profiling is e-ville.

Instead, we harass 90-year-old grandmothers, we make student athletes disrobe and remove artificial limbs in public for no good reason, we do things in an intrusive manner rather than in an effective manner because it shows that something is being done. Even if that which is being done is idiotic.

Anyone who cares to carefully go back and review everything that has come out on 9-11, from early coverage on, will note one critical detail: No one has ever said that all the box cutters and reported explosive devices (Yes, check the reports, at least one group of terrorists did claim to have a device) came through passenger security. In fact, it is pretty well acknowledged that they did not do so, that many believe they were planted by people who serviced the planes. This is one reason why flight crews have searched planes after servicing and before boarding ever sense. It is not 100 percent, but it is still being done.

Now, these service people are now being checked out and such, but it is a slow process. It did not happen nearly as early as it should. It is still, in my opinion, not all it could or should be thanks to the guardians of PC.

What we have now is a brand new bureaucracy. One that is concentrating on window dressing rather than what is effective. The new and the old have got the old mentalities, the 9-5 syndrome, and power that they wield when it suits them. We could have had so much more.

In response to 9-11, suggestion lines were set up and they got good business. Most of the suggestions appear to have been file 13'd. I know mine was, and it was a way to quickly and easily surge the number of armed travelers to augment the air marshalls. Every day, thousands of people travel on government business. Many of these are former military, security police, etc. Why not put together a program like the MP and SP augmenters and qualify them to carry on flights? They are already trained in basics, and you could do a quick course on law and use of force, and train them for air travel. Great increase in security at low cost, using already available resources. This went in both officially and unofficially, and was met with deafening silence. Despite being effective, doable, etc., politics ruled the day. Nor is mine the only such story.

There are means and methods to do effective security without tearing up the Constitution and without compromising individual liberty. Fear the bureaucracy. Fear the so-called Patriot Act. For crying out loud, you really need to take a look at the Patriot Act II and be really scared. What will all this get you? Ineffective and inefficient operations, and the death of individual liberty.

Benjamin Franklin made a good quote about those who would give up freedom for the illusion of security. The illusion of security is indeed what we have, and individual freedom and liberty is under strong attack. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

But do not let fear paralyze you. You can act and you can make a difference. Let your elected officials know how you feel and hold them accountable for their actions. We are the government, We, The People. Remember that, and do accordingly.

-30-

Let’s see. France and Belgium have clearly violated their sworn oaths as part of the NATO treaty to come to the aid of other members. Not just the U.S., but Turkey really is the primary example. We should in no way have expected them to deal fairly with us, after protecting them during the cold war, but Turkey deserved better.

Now examples of France actively conspiring with an enemy of the U.S. have come to light. More than merely sharing information – spying – for them, France would also appear from reports coming out to have also provided advice and counsel to Iraq on how to proceed in dealing with the U.S. Never mind that the U.S. has been in a state of declared war since just after 9-11. Never mind that the U.S. has twice directly acted to keep France free in the last century and indirectly for more than 40 years. Merde.

While I doubt it will be done, a very good case for declaring France to be in violation of treaty exists. They have violated the agreements of participation in NATO, even to the limited extent that French honor demanded. Twice over. They have actively engaged in providing an enemy with diplomatic and military intelligence, in violation of sworn oaths of mutual defense. They have also done this in the face of a history of being saved by the U.S. and Great Britain.

Then again, that is part of the problem here. In the simplest possible terms, it is ego. France’s ego can not accept its position in the world, and has hives over acknowledging its debts to others for remaining free. France has done it all itself, don’t you know. Sigh. The corruption in terms of artwork, oil, money and such is merely the manifestation of the deeper issue. Then again, as it turns out, none of it is terribly deep. The toddler France did not bury its own dealings deep enough in the global sandbox playground.

-30-

If this is indeed an attack of some kind, the real question is what type of toxin was used, and why. The who really does not matter. All that matters is that they are hunted down and killed. Period.

Anyone who would do this is a poisoner, plain and simple. They are poisoning their victims, and they are poisoning society. The original texts of the Christian Bible decreed Suffer not a poisoner to live. This got mistranslated -- accidentally or deliberately depending on who you talk to -- into Suffer not a witch to live. I go with the original sentiment. Anyone who does this, as a joke or for real, poisons society and needs to be removed.

We just did a spectacular demonstraton on what happens to those who support terrorism and pose a threat to the U.S. Afghanistan was one phase and Iraq another. This will be just one more phase. More on this, and some of the philosophical portions behind it, later.