Tossing out Sheep that Disobey

click for full article

Evolution debacle (5-7)

Yesterday at one point I had MSNBC's "Connected Coast to Coast" on as background noise in the living room. At the end of it Ron Reagan went on a rampage about the Kansas school board giving credence to creationism or "intelligent design". Not surprisingly I got up this morning and came across it on the show's webpage when browsing MSNBC.

The state of Kansas is poised to vacate the Age of Reason. If all goes according to brain-addled plan, the Kansas school board will soon vote to water down the state’s public school science curriculum, minimizing Darwinian evolution and giving credence to a half-baked, non-scientific notion variously called “creationism” or “intelligent design.”

We dealt with the issue recently on our show and I got a little steamed, as I’m prone to do when faced with shameless lies told at the expense of innocent children. Evolution, of course, has mountains of evidence on its side—the fossil record; genetics; observations of rapidly mutating species in nature in the lab, as well as some compelling new computer models. I challenged our creationist guest to provide similar evidence for his point of view. He couldn’t... because there isn’t any. But it got me thinking: education that ignores the facts could be a lot more fun.

For instance, generations of school kids have been taught that George Washington and his troops defeated the British after crossing the Delaware River in wooden rowboats. Plenty of scholarship backs that up. But we don’t have any of the actual boats, do we? Who’s to say that Washington didn’t ditch the watercraft and instead cross the river on the backs of specially trained dinosaurs? No evidence for that - but in Kansas, we don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.

How about math? The diameter of a circle equals twice the radius? Nah, in my new new math, the diameter of a circle equals time to order out for pizza. Doesn’t sound like mathematical science to you? Yeah... and what’s your point?

All that’s necessary for ignorance to triumph is that people who know better step aside and get out of its way. We might want to consider that as we sit back twiddling our thumbs and playing politics while Kansas spirals into the Dark Ages, dragging its unwitting children with it.

It was a subject they had earlier in the week apparently, and a little further down the page there were brief comments by viewers, which I always enjoy reading. When I see a newspaper the first thing I do is open it to the opinions section. There were two responses that caught me the most:

I do have one question of the pastor who is your guest. Would he be willing to let evolution be taught as a viable explanation of creation in his church's Sunday school? I doubt it. Why not? Because Sunday school is not the appropriate venue for science. Likewise, schools are not an appropriate venue for religion.
--Michelle Duncan, OKC, Okla.

A theory is not simply an idea, an educated guess. In order for a theory to BE a bonafide theory, there has to be scientific evidence to give it weight. There is data and scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. Creationism, or intelligent design, is an IDEA based on hopeful theology, rather than a theory based on scientific evidence. If our schools are going to teach creationism (and misrepresent it as a scientific theory) then they should also teach Hindu creationism, Native American creationism, Voodoo, Buddhist, Babylonian, Egyptian, Shinto, Hebrew, etc. Pink flying horses, elephants and great turtles carrying the universe, serpents in the Garden of Eden. If we teach one, we should teach them all.
--Jacki Gansch, Columbus, Ohio

The whole matter, a "backwards slide to the dark ages" as I've heard people call the danger posed by the eminence of creationism and/or ID (depending on if you consider them two separate ideas), got me wondering: Where would "they" go next if education standards returned to the so-called " dark ages" (i.e. greater dominance of mythological superstitions than today) at "their" behest?

[sarcasm alert]

Would there next be a push for the banning of all surgical medical procedures and medications because humans are "playing god" by using them? "If you're going to die then you're meant to die", "Why prolong your glorious trip to paradise?" being the rationale. You're born with or contract a malignant disease? Too bad. "God's will". No cure for you!

#3: Captured

Found an interesting photo essay that was inspired by the recent capture of who is supposedly the #3 man in Al Qaeda that includes a number of other operatives and an unaffiliated foreign leader: "Disadvantages of Pissing off America"

Though, what's interesting is how he replaced the former #3 commander when he was captured. So, the question is, who will fill the vacuum of power within the Al Qaeda hierarchy, and will he be a more dangerous commander than his predecesor?

Another Major Bombing and a Convoy Trip

MSNBC headline

BAGHDAD, Iraq — An Iraqi carrying hidden explosives set them off inside a police recruitment center in northern Iraq on Wednesday, killing at least 50 people, according to the U.S. military.

Police said the final death toll could be much higher, and the Al Arabiya television station, quoting medical sources, said 60 Iraqis were killed.

>> Source Article [FOX NEWS]

But few people here will really give a shit. News like that has cascaded in off and on for two years. Mere numbers now. No faces. No images of victims to give people a grim understanding of what happens in each attack. All we get here are pictures of wreckage, verbal announcement of casualties (which frankly don't do the dead justice), and depending on circumstances around the incident such as timing or scope, the networks bring out retired military commanders to insist that this is a sign of "winning".

If these are signs of how we're winning, I'd hate to see what losing looks like.

But you have to respect the resolve both sides have put into their efforts, and the sacrifices made, even if they don't in the end add up to what people would want them to. And even the will power it takes to take part in the conflict for whichever side.

Semi-related piece:

...We are about to take a ride down Route Irish, the road that links the Green Zone with Camp Victory, the Coalition base surrounding the Baghdad Airport. Last week, as best we can tell, fifteen people died and seventeen were wounded on these six-and-a-half miles of road. In the past 48 hours there have been around 30 car-bombs in Iraq, almost half of them in Baghdad. It is enough to give pause.

The briefing ends. In silence, we turn to our assigned vehicles. As each arrives at his assigned seat for the ride, a light banter begins between the officers and the enlisted crews as the officers place their gear inside. Then each man draws from his ammo pouches a magazine of ammunition. The rhythm of metallic clicks as we chamber rounds in our weapons lasts for thirty seconds or so.

Leaving the Green Zone via Checkpoint Twelve involves the inevitable weaving through a serpentine. I am in the lead vehicle, my personal preference, which I indulge when appropriate, though I am sitting in the back seat this time. I am just a passenger for this ride. We accelerate slowly to provide the cars and HMMWVs behind us a chance to clear the weave and get on the ramp. I check my watch. Red Zone. It is 08:06:03.

Mostly you get small arms in this first section of the road. Quadisiya is the name of the section of town we pass first, on the right. The buildings are moderately well-off structures for Iraq. They are mostly two story affairs with flat roofs, though sometimes you will see strange architectural flares such as the bright green Japanese-style entry-way roof on one house about a half mile out of the Green Zone. We drive over a cluster of empty .50 cal shell casings and belt-links in the middle of the road, maybe a hundred rounds worth. Recent. We keep accelerating.

The road starts climbing. I hate this stretch, though it has been peaceful lately. What unsettles are the guard rails and fencing, all twisted and torn. Inward for the railings. Outward for the fencing. For about half a mile the road is lined with this unmistakable evidence of not just one, but dozens of IEDs in this short passage. This section of the road is raised and curving, so there is a touch of the claustrophobic as well. There is no where to go if you are hit.

>> "On the Road to Victory" [MSNBC]

Political Cartoons

It's been a while since I had one of these cartoon compilation posts. Figured what the hell, I don't feel like writing about anything right now anyway.

Border Insecurity

According to research done at Columbia University (search), illegal immigration is now costing the USA $68 billion every year. So the next time you hear somebody mention the deficit, hit him with that.

California alone loses $10 billion a year from its treasury because of the illegal problems. Spending on illegals in Arizona costs every household in that state $700 each. Last year, about 7 million illegals worked inside the USA, comprising 5 percent of the work force. The U.S. Justice Department (search) estimates that almost 300,000 illegals served some jail time in the year 2003, most for crimes other than legal entry.

Last year, almost 1.5 million pounds of illegal drugs were seized at the borders, most coming in from Mexico. And as we reported earlier, more than 11 million illegals are living in the USA right now.

Now, faced with that information, it's simply stunning that our government will not secure the borders. There are about 280 million Americans right now. But how many of us really care about this problem? Even if three million Americans sign the petition, which would be an enormous number for an enterprise like that, that's only 1 percent of the population.

The old saying is people get the government they deserve and the old saying is true. At this point in our history, Congress and the president simply will not enforce the immigration laws, period. And the only force on this Earth that can make them do it is the American people. Will they?

>> Bill O'Reilly, 4-27-05 [FOX NEWS]

Political Cartoon (#1 for 4-25-05)

Speaking of Superstition...

I can't remember how I came across this link yesterday afternoon, but now seems to be the appropriate time to post it:

Marina Bai, a Russian astrologist, filed a lawsuit last month with the Presnensky district court in Moscow, demanding that the U.S. space agency call off its $311 million Deep Impact mission. As reported in MosNews.com, Bai is also asking for 8.7 billion rubles ($311 million) in compensation for moral damages.

“The actions of NASA infringe upon my system of spiritual and life values, in particular on the values of every element of creation, upon the unacceptability of barbarically interfering with the natural life of the universe, and the violation of the natural balance of the Universe,” Bai said in her claim.

Deep Impact, which is already in space, is scheduled to collide with Comet 9P/Tempel 1 on July 4th of this year. The spacecraft carries explosives, which will be used to dig out a crater in the comet. Scientists will then hope to learn what a typical comet is made of.
>> "I'll Take Silly Superstitions For $200, Alex" [Full Post]

ROFLMAO

Could've Been Ridiculous

Heh, It's been almost a week since I've even touched this blog. What can I say, I was really disappointed that I never got a call from the Vatican. I had even taken the time to come up with a reign name with the following under consideration:

Does the name shape the Pope or does the Pope shape the name?

If we could ask one past Pope for an answer, it would be the Cardinal who advanced to the title in 468. He became Pope Hilarius. At the time, the word - in Latin and Greek alike - still principally meant gracious or cheerful, and had not yet assumed its current sense of stand-up comedy.

They made him a Saint - possibly because he’d have to carry that name throughout history. But it’s instructive to note that there has yet to be a Pope Hilarius II.

- Keith Olbermann, MSNBC

Appropriately, I chose Pope Ridiculous... Because I'm basically agnostic, making it virtually impossible that I would have been selected with a .00000000000001% chance - But hey, it's still a chance nonetheless! Heh.

As for the new pope, I couldn't help but find his predictable squawking against relativism, atheism, and agnosticism to be humorous. Relativism asserts that due to differing points of view, differing experiences and environments in every individual's life, means that what is the truth is relative to those factors. Atheists don't believe in a god / supernatural deity, so all deity worshiping religions, whether they believe in one or more deities don't like that, predictably. And similar to relativism in a way, agnosticism basically states that the existence of a god is unknown (might exist, might not) or is inherently unknowable, rather than believe religious dogma on matters, hence why that is also seen as a threat to the church. Oh my, they sure don't like their righteousness being questioned, scrutinized or even marginalized, do they (just like any other civil or political organization out there)? Secularism is also, of course, "wrong".

And then Ratzi includes "vague religious mysticism" to the list of "threats to the church". Full-blown religious mysticism is alright. But vague or half-assed religious mysticism ain't gonna cut it. Heh, oh darn, you mean people have bullshitted faith before with a few hallelujah's and occassionally invoking Jesus or god's name when convenient and little else? What? no! what?? Are you joking?

Bah, he's just bloviating anyway. It's his job.



Meanwhile when the church oligarchy was selecting a new dictator for life (essentially what a pope is), their progress indicator to the thousands who happened to have the free time to just stand around in St. Peter's Square was that chimney and the color of the smoke that came out of it. There was confusion at times as to whether the smoke was white or black.

It sounds like improvement in needed.

My suggestion: A traffic light for status reports. The red light meaning "No pope this time", yellow for "we came close to a choice", and green meaning "we've chosen your leader for you." It's color coded, just like the smoke signals are -- but unlike the smoke, one of the lights can't be mistaken for another color (unless you're colorblind).

But there are also other alternatives just as basic and as simple: Such as colored pieces of cloth being waved out of a window as a signal by some insignificant member of the church hierarchy, or blowing a horn - once for "no decision", twice for "new pope". Or perhaps something even more simple involving an insignificant member of the church hierarchy, again, except this time just announcing out of an open window whether a pope was selected in a given vote or not.

Just suggestions, mind you.

H2N2 Snafu

The Power of Labeling

A Google News search of the terms "Muqtada al-Sadr" and "radical cleric" brought up 616 news and opinion stories, the latter derived from the former. Despite the prime minister's obvious status as an American-appointed puppet, "Iyad Allawi" and "collaborationist" yielded zero results. The message is clear: al-Sadr, and by extension Iraqis who oppose the U.S. occupation, are marginal wackos. Those who support it are referred to by questionable legitimatizing honorifics--prime minister, in Allawi's case--because the U.S. government called a press conference to announce him as such.

Repetition is key to successful advertising. The American media uses repeated arbitrary labeling in its supposedly impartial coverage in a deliberate campaign to alter public perception. Americans were meant to feel less sympathy for an kidnapped Italian woman shot by U.S. soldiers manning a checkpoint in Iraq after the talking heads repeatedly referred to her as a "communist journalist." A Fox News reporter in the same story would never have been dubbed a "neofascist journalist." John McCain (R-AZ) might become president someday but "maverick senator John McCain" probably won't. Ralph Nader's name rarely appears in print without the unappealing word "gadfly" or a form of "crusading." Why not describe figures in the news using terms that aim for neutrality, like "Italian reporter" or "former Green Party candidate Ralph Nader"?

Labeling bias works to marginalize political outsiders while powerful elites receive their full honorifics. Howard Dean was antiwar firebrand Howard Dean but George W. Bush was never referred to as pro-war crusader George W. Bush. The press calls the founder of the Moral Majority "the Reverend Jerry Falwell," not "radical cleric Jerry Falwell." Even the word "cleric" implies foreignness to a xenophobic public; American religious leaders are the more familiar "ministers" rather than clerics. Instead of telling readers and viewers what to think with cheesy labels, why not let public figures' quotes and actions speak for themselves? Besides, well-known players like al-Sadr and Falwell don't require an introduction.

Loaded labels are commonly used to influence the public's feelings about groups of people as well as individuals. Under Ronald Reagan the Afghan mujahedeen, who received CIA funding and weapons that they used to fight Soviet occupation forces, were called "freedom fighters." Iraqis who take up arms against U.S. occupation troops, on the other hand, are called "insurgents," a word that implies rebellion for its own sake. This was the same term used by the New York Times and other mainstream media to refer to anti-U.S. fighters in Vietnam during the 1960s. Only later, when the Vietnam War became unpopular, did American newspapers begin calling the former "insurgents" members of an infinitely more patriotic-sounding "resistance."

Editors and producers who value balance ought to establish a consistent policy--either negative smears or positive accolades for both sides. Anti-occupation forces should always be called insurgents, guerillas, etc., while pro-occupation troops are dubbed collaborators. Either that, or call them freedom fighters and government loyalists, respectively.

>> "Look for the Media Labels" [Yahoo! News Op/ED]

"Gov. of Basra" and "Estate Tax"

Every now and then I glance at MSNBC's "Washington post highlights", which contain what seem to be high quality articles comparred to the AP articles. Read two that seemed worthy of passing on:

>> Preaching the Rule of Law in a Tribal Land
Iraqi Governor faced with Challenge of Making Democracy Work
About the current Governor of Basra tenure thus far, including his security precautions, a police force more loyal to his opponents than to him, and his intent on being as transparent as possible with the people.

>> Estate Tax Provides Lesson in Politics
Break for well-to-do becomes issue for Main Street
How an inheretence tax that effects the wealthiest two percent of the population was twisted by a lobbying effort into a perceived threat as "the death tax" to the less wealthy by the rich and their political buddies to get it repealed.

"Failing Up"

click image for full article

Came across this article recently, thought it made a pretty good point based on observations.

Nice Excuse

Now are COUNTDOWN‘s top three newsmaker of this day.
...

No. 1, Thomas P. Budnick. He‘s in jail for trying to poison his friend in 2002 by spiking a 40 ounce beer with nitric acid. He was convicted on a lesser charge because he spilled it on his friend‘s leg, burning him before the guy had a chance to drink the stuff. Still, Budnick has appealed his conviction, saying his lawyer was incompetent. Mr. Budnick represented himself.

>>
4-7-05 broadcast [MSNBC]

Historical Funeral: Observations and Ramblings

It was interesting to watch bits of the funeral at the Vatican, even from my non-religious vantage point. While my attitude towards it was mostly ambivalent I mostly just watched because of how historical it was. The third longest serving Pope being put to rest, hundreds of world leaders and thousands of civilians crowded into the surrounding streets and plaza.

There was also the "Very low" chance that something unexpected would happen - not exactly a positive thing to do but 2,000,000 people out in the open are an easy target. All it would have taken was one minor breach in security. So it was a realistic possibility however improbable.

That was one of the things that ran through my mind. The immense security there had to have been for that event just by the massive number of international dignitaries in attendance, and the other being the obvious logistics nightmare: Millions of visitors to the city, hundreds of world leaders, all of the latter needed places to stay presumably (while of course the regular folk were not a priority there), food, water, sanitation, parking spaces, temporary berths for the aircraft of dignitaries, and on and on.

Though there was also how bland the majority of the religious precession's garb were, even for most of the cardinals. While a few had more decorative outfits complete with old fashioned crowns that seem rather self-aggrandizing in nature.

The world may have some of the strong points of the pope close at heart right now such as compassion and humility, but that will no doubt be short lived as everyone returns to their own battlegrounds and routines. After all, the funeral was to pay respects to the individual, not to adopt or endorse all of his edicts. But they were pandered to in rosey tributes from political leaders to the talking heads of cable news that will fade away soon enough. Probably not so much so for the actual religious leaders of the church and some other faiths touched profoundly by this in a spiritual way.

A relevant quote: Joseph Stalin is attributed as saying, "The Pope? How many military divisions does he have?" With many states the power to be able to dictate to other countries and to one's own people have rested in their ability to wage war and to force the issue at gunpoint (or missile lock). No one would take the United State's demands seriously if we didn't have a powerful war machine to back it up (not that that is always a deciding factor with other nations). The United Nations is probably at least partially defunct because of their lack of a centralized military force among the political roadblocks all over the place.

The Vatican's power obviously lay in the hearts and minds that currently adhere to (or at least claim that they adhere to) the churches messages and doctrine. It's the only major entity that has survived for centuries with no self defense forces - unless you count the guards boasting medieval outfits and old fashioned close combat weapons. Some of that power lay in god-fearing superstition and the dogma that the cardinal-selected pontiff is infallible given his "holiness."

That's another partially interesting bit - how we promote democracy, while the Vatican is essentially the most peaceful (at least in modern decades) dictatorship around - no doubt because of the lack of a force to indoctrinate at gunpoint and through purges for one (no nations go on armed crusades nowadays for the sake of the church). Seriously, the elite of the church (the college of cardinals) pick one of their own to be the supreme leader for life. And the elite - the cardinals, are appointed by a pope.

It's funny how we have reverence for life in a few occasions, then flagrantly end lives at whim in wars, crime sprees, purges, and listen practically emotionally detached at horrendous death tolls from natural disasters, famine, earthquakes, mudslides, and accidents that get only a passing "that's sad".

I'd say that the whole week or so of the pope's death dominating the news was life changing. But not for me. I didn't see it at work, either. It was just another normal week. Typical antics, and conversations on anything but politics or religion. The world didn't stop for this. Simple as that. It only drastically altered the schedules of the elites.

To me the people I interact with are the ones I find important (duh). Something happening to one of them would affect me far more on an emotional level and maybe philosophical level than this did. We just don't have emotional connections and compassion for every human being (another duh). Maybe our hearts aren't big enough or maybe we're just not righteous enough like the church's pacifist leaders would appear to be. I dunno.

Political Cartoon (only one for 4-7-05)

Political Cartoon (#2 for 4-6-05)

Political Cartoon (#1 for 4-6-05)

Battle Just East of Baghdad

U.S., Iraqi troops battle dozens of insurgents
2 American soldiers, Iraqi troop killed in fighting east of Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. and Iraqi forces battled dozens of insurgents in a remote area east of Baghdad and three soldiers, two American and one Iraqi, were killed in the fighting, the U.S. military said on Tuesday.

...

The battle erupted on Monday afternoon when two Iraqi army battalions were carrying out a “cordon-and-search operation” in eastern Diyala province, it said in a statement.

“The mission to search for weapons cache sites in the area uncovered dozens of terrorists and a firefight ensued.”

Around 100 U.S. troops with Bradley fighting vehicles moved in to back up the Iraqi forces, and called in air support. The area was still being searched on Tuesday, the U.S. army said.

“There were two to three dozen insurgents there, with evidence of prepared fighting positions,” Major Richard Goldenberg, spokesman for the 42nd Infantry Division, said in Iraq.

In the latest abduction, police said Brigadier General Jalal Mohammed Saleh was pulled from his car. He was the commander of a special armored division, one of the first armored units in the re-formed Iraqi army.

>> Source Article [MSNBC]

Cynic = Injured Romantic

I thought the Glenn Beck quote was post worthy. I know it applies to both of us. But I kept from citing my own experiences, some of them really messed up, as evidence.

To me cynacism to a healthy degree is more realistic than optimism and such that emphasises hope and faith that causes one to naively downplay or blindly rule out certain possibilities. That doesn't stop me from prefering the latter of the two moreso than I used to, though. Heh. I'd probably lose my sanity again if I didn't.

Cynic = Injured Romantic. Though also for me it's been quite a while since I've even bothered to date anyone so the "drama" factor that would during angsty times fuel my cynical side has been relatively low, with a few exceptions here and there of course.

Iraq Democracy (2)

Blind Doctor

If this article had been posted yesterday I would have thought it was an April Fools Day joke:
"Blind Student earns M.D." [CNN]
Very comforting... Much like a blind sniper or blind driver.

Assault on Abu Ghraib

I had been quietly wondering how long it'd be before the Abu Ghraib prison was attacked by insurgent forces after the revelation of some of the abuses and no doubt a limited number of perpetrators of the abuses that were expendable (i.e. not commanders, just "rogues" "bad apples").

screenshot of MSNBC article (image linked to article)
>> related FOX NEWS article

>> semi related FOX NEWS article: "U.S.
Forces May Have Beaten Iraqi General"

Deteriorating Pontiff (screenshot montage)

click for full size

Iraq Democracy (1)

Pat Buchanan: Good Enough for Salad Dressing

April Fools, Pat!

Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan cut short an appearance after an opponent of his conservative views doused him with salad dressing.

>> Source Article [MSNBC]

My, what civilized conduct. It takes a lot of class to throw salad dressing at someone you disagree with immensely on political views. Not to mention decent aim. Heh, the demonstrator could have gotten Pat worse - he could have doused him with premium fish sauce. He wouldn't be able to get to a shower fast enough with that smell clogging his nostrils.

He chose to throw salad dressing instead of, say, a can of soup, popcorn, or any other food product out there. You know what? Isn't that discrimination? Was the salad dressing not "good enough" for him? Is that why it was worth throwing instead of the alternatives? Or was Buchanan not good enough of a target for the alternative projectiles? Would that make the Salad Dressing a martyr?

Maybe this guy was just real hungry and thought Pat was a salad or whatever else the guy would put salad dressing on... [edit] maybe I should specify by saying "whatever other foods" just in case his use of dressing is not limited to food......... [/edit]

On a more serious note, at least it didn't result in someone needing to throw a fist or bust a cap into someone. It's far better to just have to take a shower as a result rather than to have to go to jail, the hospital, or the morgue.

Policy "No Influence" on Intel (Yeah Right)

"Second, its authors are either startlingly naive or disingenuously deceptive about the political context behind the intelligence errors." That's the same reaction I had when I heard the news reports on the article stating "the commission said it found no evidence that the White House or the Pentagon put political pressure on intelligence analysts", denying the existence any kind of outside influence.

Reading beyond the executive summary reveals that the intelligence failure on Iraq had little to do with management, interagency disputes, or sloppy organizational charts. Rather, the main causes were twofold. First, on many points, well-placed intelligence analysts were simply wrong; it's as plain as that, and it's hard to see how any reshufflings or new directives might have overwhelmed human fallacy. Second, everyone knew President Bush was gearing up for war; he, therefore, wanted, needed, to find Iraq worthy of invasion; and the heads of intelligence, doubling as administration appointees, accommodated that disposition.

The commissioners try to skirt this political dimension of the intelligence analysts' findings. "In no instance," the report states up front, "did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgment." However, it goes on, "That said, it is hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence agencies worked in an environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom."

Later on, the report elaborates: "Some analysts were affected by this 'conventional wisdom' and the sense that challenges to it—or even refusals to find its confirmation—would not be welcome." This "climate" was shaped, the report continues, by a "gathering conviction among analysts that war with Iraq was inevitable."

The report also notes an inherent conflict. The director of the intelligence community must be close to the president in order to have influence, but this means he risks a "loss of objectivity," as the director then becomes "part of the team." As a result, intelligence analysts "may be dissuaded from offering dissenting opinions."

One reason the commissioners address this point so briefly, and obliquely, is that President Bush didn't want them to bring it up at all. As Lawrence Silberman, the panel's co-chairman, explained at the press conference this morning, "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us agreed that this was not part of our inquiry."

...

Another source of error is that intelligence analysts assumed Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, especially biological and chemical weapons. He'd acquired them before; U.S. analysts had underestimated his capabilities the first time around, before the 1991 Gulf War; therefore, the report states, evidence from 2001-03 was viewed "through the prism of their assumption that Iraq was reconstituting" its WMD, resulting in a "tunnel vision."

This is an insightful observation, but what can anybody do with it? We all view evidence through the prism of some assumptions. That's the nature of human perception and cognition. If we didn't, we would experience the world as random sensory stimuli.

As one way to deal with this natural tendency, the report suggests the cultivation of "competitive intelligence analysis." Special groups should be set up to interpret intelligence data in ways that are "explicitly contrarian" and "licensed to be troublesome." This sort of enterprise works well in certain contexts. For instance, war-game exercises pit a blue team against a red team, so that war plans can be tested against at least the simulacrum of an enemy. But an institutionalized red team in intelligence analysis would come to be viewed as a formality to be tolerated, then sidestepped. When President Lyndon Johnson held Cabinet meetings on the Vietnam War, he always invited George Ball, a State Department official who famously opposed the war, so all the officials could say they listened to a dissenting view. Ball otherwise had no effect on their thinking. **

...

The report does make a few suggestions that are sensible, practical, and nearly cost-free. The most intriguing and significant is the idea of forcing intelligence agencies to make clear—to the president and other policymakers—how much of their analysis is based on solid data and how much on assumptions and inferences. Too often, these distinctions were left out of intelligence estimates on Iraq—or buried so deeply in the report that they weren't noticed by officials too busy to read more than the summary.

>> Full Article [Slate Magazine "Military Analysis"]

** This is a fairly cynical presumption, though it may be very accurate too, given the current perceived attitude of the intelligence "community". Though it's probably also justified or influenced by insights like those provided in this article, "Look Who's Not Talking -- Still" [NEWSWEEK] which indicates that elements of the intelligence "community" at the least, if not the broad presumption of the entirity of the "community", still do not share information with other agencies. (granted that was easily predictable).

Such "war-game" esque analysis would be benefitial, if not completely ideal, but as the article's author asserted, that in no way means it'll be genuinely implimented. That analysis given the existing information would seem to be realistic, but it may not be. Intelligence management could see the value of such provacative analysis instead of just sidestepping it.

Even if they do end up supporting it and relying it, that doesn't mean there won't be times where they sidestep it anyway because it contradicts what the WMD report called "conventional wisdom" (i.e. no scrutiny) caused by political influences that the report blatantly disregarded.

Aim for the Mountain

Now here are COUNTDOWN’s “Top Three News Makers of this Day.”

Number three, the Utah Department of Transportation. They couldn't hit the broad side of a mountain with a howitzer. What do I mean by that? I mean, they couldn’t hit the broad side of a mountain with a howitzer. That’s what they were supposed to do. It’s the way you start the controlled avalanche in Provo Canyon, but they missed it and the howitzer shell went over the top of the mountain and landed in the shed in the backyard of Scott and Laurie Conners. Miraculously, no injuries!

Go and practice.

>> "Countdown" [MSNBC, 3-28-05]

Violence (2)

Violence (1)

Political Cartoon (only one for 3-23-05)

Political Football

A Toy from Goodwill

Quote of the Day.
Slight backstory is necessary: a person I know, whom I'll randomly refer to as "R" is seeing a girl behind her boyfriend's back.

R: I told her she's just a toy. You take it home, play with it for a bit, then take it and leave it at Goodwill.
Me: Even though you got it from Goodwill in the first place.
R: (laughs for a minute) Yeah, I got her used.

"Spring Training"

Got up around 5 pm and saw that MSNBC was carrying live the House Government Reform Committee's hearing on baseball's steroid problem. Maybe I'll be able to expand on some of this tomorrow (kinda got some unwanted "blocks" right now), but I found most interesting the grilling the committee members from either party gave Commissioner Selig, Union Chief Fehr, and most noticeably harsh towards VP Manfred. Some of the harshest came from Representative Waxman, the ranking Democrat, while VP Manfred really showed frustration when Republican Representative Shays gave him a run for his money (which I applauded Shays for when he was finished).

Some of the specifics for this topic I have to wait for until I can find a transcript or even partial transcript, as long as its the entirety of the part of the session involving MLB Management. Yeah, I'll have to compile something tomorrow, I've got to head of to work in about an hour now, so I'll just save any further notes on what to perhaps add in an upcoming post to Wordpad or something.

Two things I will also note here aside (and perhaps again in a later more comprehensive post) from the first paragraph's contents are:

1. The committee was pretty sternly bipartisan, so much so that it almost represented what I'd consider an ideal legislative body to where party affiliation and party line and special interests have no play at all in the affairs and the stances of the representatives.

2. Keeping 1 in mind (to later frown at how it was a one time deal), Congress has more pressing concerns -- but I digress on that partially because I think Congress has a right to demand that wealthy sports athletes be held to the same criminal standards as most of the populous -- and Congress should tackle those concerns with the same candor the Gov. Affairs Committee is using on the Baseball Steroids matter.

But it won't.

I _Am_ Doing My Job

Well, We Could Use Some Volunteers

Ignore a Subpoena?

MLB said [Union Chief] Fehr and [MLB VP] Manfred would testify voluntarily "despite serious legal concerns" but that players "will respectfully decline the invitations to testify".

In a rare show of unity over the steroids scandal that has battered the sport over the last year, the players and owners said they would fight the subpoenas, which are far more than simple "invitations" to attend.

>> Reuters

"Respectfully deline" to testify when you are told that you have to? I know if I was ever in such a situation I would not be able to get away with "respectfully declining". "Respectfully Decline" translates to: "Blow it out your ass!"

Reverse Rule

Reverse Rule Formula: If anyone else does "X" (action, words, etc.) it's ok, it's "cool", but if I do it it's "Wrong".

The Effect of an Individual

It's remarkable how elements of our society can be sharply effected by just on person at the bottom of the food chain solely by the prestige and authority figures he murdered (Judge, Sheriff's Deputy...).

Reuters/WXIA-TV

It shows the power of the individual, not in the best light in this instance but one of the effects an individual can have nonetheless. Though most individuals other than political and corporate leaders remain insignificant - mere cogs in the machinery of our society, with the "right" circumstances and factors, a particular individual can do quite a bit, for better or worse.

The prominent position of one of the victims in the Atlanta Courthouse Incident, Judge Barnes, is the only reason why the cold-blooded individual at large seems significant. If he had killed someone of lesser stature like an "average" citizen he would not have been mentioned in much else other than on the local metropolitan areas' 10 pm news since he was not popular or a government official himself.