Joust The Facts

Facts Are Facts, Never Fiction

In a Washington Post 'news' story on the Scooter Libby trial, writers Amy Goldstein (no relation to Jeff, obviously) and Carol D. Leonnig demonstrate how deeply they misunderstand the story they are reporting by bungling one of the central facts of the case.

Though a series of government officials have told the jury that Libby eagerly sought information about a prominent critic of the Iraq war, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, Fleischer was the first witness to say Libby then passed on what he learned: that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer who had sent him on a trip to Africa. Wilson's mission there was to explore reports, ultimately proved false, that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear material in Niger.

Ultimately proved false by whom?  Not by the CIA and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, both of whom found that Wilson confirmed a mission by Iraq to Niger in 1999 - that's seven years after the sanctions were in place, but one year after inspectors were kicked out of Iraq - seeking "commercial relations," felt to be yellowcake uranium, Niger's only significant export.  That confirmation was verified by an interview of former Niger Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki.

( ) The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,( ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

So there was no purchase confirmed, and no interest in selling to Iraq on Niger's part, but there was a mission seeking a purchase, hence the word "sought."  The reporters need not have dug that deep, however, to get that fact.  They need only have read an editorial from their own paper last September.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Including some Washington Post reporters, apparently.  I sense a correction coming, though not today.

JTF "Quote Of The Day" For January 29

From David Broder's column in today's Washington Post.  After noting that, in the confirmation hearing for General Petraeus last week, Sen. John McCain asked 16 pertinent questions of the General while Sen. Hillary Clinton took the opportunity to repeat Iraq War speech material and ask only one concluding simplistic question:

This month Clinton began her presidential campaign, as she did her first race for the Senate in New York, by saying that she wanted to do a lot of listening. She sure wasn't listening to Gen. Petraeus. She wasn't even asking.

Which reminds me of the conversation between Captain Renault, Victor Laszlo and Major Strasser in the Prefects office regarding Senor Ugarte in Casablanca.  (A lot of things remind me of Casablanca - sue me.)

Renault: By the way, Monsieur, last night you evinced an interest in Signor Ugarte?
Laszlo: Yes.
Renault: I believe you have a message for him?
Laszlo: Nothing important, but may I speak to him now?
Strasser: You would find the conversation a trifle one-sided.  Signor Ugarte is dead.

Much as Gen. Petraeus was to Ms. Clinton.  At least, when given the opportunity to engage someone who disagrees with her in debate and discussion - "conversation," if you will - she declined the opportunity.

Furtive Glances - "Working For The Weekend" Edition

It's an on-call weekend, and in addition I've been on the computer filling out a complex online application for a special certification with the rest of the time, so there's been little if any time for blogging.  Sorry.  At any rate, with apologies to Loverboy, here's a quick look around at what I've missed.

• Senator John Kerry did what!?  He didn't really cozy up to a rogue regime that sponsors terrorism, and then badmouth America and President Bush on foreign soil, did he?  Unbelievable.  Well, having pulled out of the presidential derby this should finish any thoughts he might have had of re-entering.  (hat tip: AndrewR at Ace of Spades)

1/28/2007 0630: Yeah, Curt might be able to beat him, bloody sock and all.  But, remember, they would be running in Massachusetts.  There the Democrat starts with 70% of the vote, then has to lose more than 20% due to outright stupidity to lose.

1/28/07 0915: Video of Mr. Kerry at Hot Air.  And Captain Ed's commentary is excellent, spotlighting the fact that the issues of Kyoto and AIDS in Africa were,  respectively, refused near unanimously during the Clinton administration and shown improved attention.

So not only is John Kerry a hypocrite, he's also an ignoramus. However, we have noticed that the Davos forum has become, over the years, a convention of sorts for both. Kerry should feel right at home.

I sense that Mr. Taranto's Best of the Web will feature discussion of this today.

• My UConn Huskies will be NIT bound this year, barring a miraculous turn of events.  They managed to lose to a pretty good Providence team by 12 on Saturday, but that wasn't the story.  No, the story was an 11 point halftime lead that became a deficit by the first TV timeout of the second half.  Sure, they are a bunch of freshmen and sophomores with little experience, but we're in the final third of the regular season.  All of those inexperience kinks should be worked out at this point.  And you've got to play with a little lot more fire and grit and heart when a team makes a run at you like the Friars did.  Instead this year's team rolled over and showed their belly.  At 2-5 in the league it will take some doing to get to .500.

• Tiger Woods won.  Again.  And when I write 'again' I mean for the seventh straight start in a PGA tour event.  Remarkable.

What's next? Eight. Because eight comes after seven, the number of consecutive PGA TOUR victories Tiger Woods has now registered dating back to last year's British Open. No. 7 he collected Sunday at the Buick Invitational, where in his first start of 2007 he fired the low round of the tournament, emerged from a skirmish with a handful of upset-minded foes, and further burnished his reputation as the most bullet-proof performer in a game that mows down all participants with impunity.

• Hats off to Will Franklin, whose back to producing informative (and classy!) posts with alarming regularity.  For example, have a look at this one on the cost of producing and using ethanol instead of gasoline, for all you alternative fuel fanatics.  He also pulled out this outstanding Groucho Marx quote and gives it's origins (it ain't Groucho's) - I simply must reprint it here.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it wrongly and applying it incorrectly."

And now, I give you the music.  Why?  Because Joust The Facts just hit 50,000 on the SiteMeter!

Maximum Sense On Minimum Wage

Gary Becker, Nobel Laureate in Economics, and Judge Richard Posner, senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School (and bloggers at the Becker-Posner Blog) write in today's Wall Street Journal on the minimum wage and the current efforts to dramatically boost it.  They find the economics far less convincing than the politics.  The piece is cynically titled "How to Make the Poor Poorer." (sorry, subscription only)

The adjustments to the hike in the minimum wage are inefficient because they are motivated not by a higher real cost of low-skilled labor but by a government-mandated increase in the price of that labor. That increase has the same misallocative effect as monopoly pricing.

Although some workers benefit -- those who were paid the old minimum wage but are worth the new, higher one to the employers -- others are pushed into unemployment, the underground economy or crime. The losers are therefore likely to lose more than the gainers gain; they are also likely to be poorer people. And poor families are disproportionately hurt by the rise in the price of fast foods and other goods produced with low-skilled labor because these families spend a relatively large fraction of their incomes on such goods. And many, maybe most, of the gainers from a higher minimum wage are not poor. Most minimum-wage workers are part time, and for the majority their minimum-wage income supplements an income derived from other sources...

Some economists deny that a minimum wage reduces employment, though most disagree. And because most increases in the minimum wage have been slight, their effects are difficult to disentangle from other factors that affect employment. But a 40% increase would be too large to have no employment effect; about a tenth of the work force makes less than $7.25 an hour.

When the Senate stalled the bill in order to discuss business tax credits - to soften the increase in the cost of labor that would be absorbed - it was trying to address these concerns.  All employer costs ultimately get passed to the consumer; if not, there would be no employer.  To  pretend otherwise is myopic, and economically foolhardy.  The writers favor the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) which is much more efficient in selecting the truly poor to receive benefit.

"Why can't we do just one thing for minimum wage workers, no strings attached, no giveaways for the powerful?" asked Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a leading sponsor of the bill.

Because, Senator Kennedy, passing the minimum wage increase will guarantee that a number of the lowest wage workers, those least able to be out of work, will be out of work.  This isn't a "giveaway to the powerful," Senator, it's a sensible move to soften what would otherwise result in a stealth tax on business.  The tax credits are likely to lessen that effect, though jobs would still be lost.  So, Senator Kennedy, go ahead and pass the increase without considering the economic effect.  Then, as a side bonus, you could attack the Bush administration for increasing unemployment.

"Negotiate A Victory"?!

Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat and new chairman of the House Ways and Means committee spoke at Baruch College on Monday.  He said a few incomprehensible things, most of them pertaining to his continuing push for a military draft.  This one stuck out, though.

Speaking with reporters afterward, Rangel said, ``You cannot increase the military without raising the possibility of the draft.''

He said the purpose of a hearing would be to ask questions, such as, ``Mr. President, share with me what is victory, and if you have any clue what you're talking about, who is the enemy ... who do we negotiate the victory with ... who sets the agenda in the Middle East?''

"What is victory?"  "Who do we negotiate the victory with?"  What exactly does he mean?  I leave it to the reader to inform me.  Please enlighten me on the parameters for "negotiating" a victory.

The NY Times And The Law

In a NY Times editorial last week, after a move by the administration to submit NSA terrorist surveillance to judicial supervision, the editors wrote:

We hope they will do that. Congress has a legitimate interest in the creation of this program, which has always seemed motivated more by the president’s relentless campaign to expand his powers than by a real need to speed intelligence gathering.

It was, according to the Times, only the lust for supreme executive power that drove Mr. Bush to allow the NSA program, and not the desire to, oh, perhaps prevent something as horrific as 9/11 from ever happening again.  In the Times viewpoint, therefore, there was justification in exposing a classified national security program simply to put the reins on an out of control imperial president.  They were apparently justified even if they broke the law.

Section 793 of the federal espionage law prohibits authorized persons possessing "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation . . . " from disclosing it to persons not entitled to it. Section 798 of the espionage law prohibits the disclosure of classified communications intelligence activities to unauthorized persons "in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States . . . " The violation of these statutes is a felony. Because their disclosures to the Times may fall within these statues, the "current and former government officials" referred to in the Risen/Lichtblau story sought the promise of confidentiality from the Times to protect their identity.

Assuming that these statutes apply to the leaks involved in the NSA story, has the Times itself violated the statutes and committed a crime? The answer is clearly affirmative. Section 798, for example, makes knowing and willful "publication" of the proscribed information a crime. Moreover, under the basic federal aiding and abetting statute -- 18 U.S.C. § 2 -- in willfully helping the leakers publish their disclosures, the Times is as culpable as they are, and punishable as a principal.

Scott Johnson at Power Line further asks:

SO WHAT WAS the Times thinking when it published the Risen/Lichtblau story?

If their editorial last week is to be taken at face value, they were thinking that somebody had to stop this crazed guy inhabiting the White House, and, like Bluto and the Delta Tau Chi guys at Animal House, they were just the guys to do it.

Otter: ...I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part. 
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.

Read all of Mr. Johnson's post.  The Times is obviously counting on squeals of first amendment rights that don't apply, or the unwillingness of the Justice Department to prosecute such chicanery by a newspaper.  Of course, like in the Plame investigation, they could go after the leakers and compel the Times reporters and editors to testify ...

From The Medical Mailbag - 1/25/07

There is no such thing as a free lunch.  Or, in medical terms, there is no treatment which has no downside, only upside.  For example, let's look at a brief report on fracture risk in patients 50 and older on anti-depressant medications (SSRIs), from the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Results Daily SSRI use was reported by 137 subjects. After adjustment for many potential covariates, daily SSRI use was associated with substantially increased risk of incident clinical fragility fracture (hazard rate, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.4). Daily SSRI use was also associated with increased odds of falling (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.5), lower bone mineral density at the hip, and a trend toward lower bone mineral density at the spine. These effects were dose dependent and were similar for those who reported taking SSRIs at baseline and at 5 years' follow-up. 

Conclusions Daily SSRI use in adults 50 years and older remained associated with a 2-fold increased risk of clinical fragility fracture after adjustment for potential covariates. Depression and fragility fractures are common in this age group, and the elevated risk attributed to daily SSRI use may have important public health consequences.

Interestingly the increased odds rate for falls (2.2) nearly matched the hazard rate for fracture (2.1), although bone density was also diminished.  Should we be treating elderly - and even not so elderly patients with mild clinical depression with SSRIs?  Sure.  But should we be using them for "mood enhancement" willy nilly, pretending that the treatment is without potential adverse consequences?  No.  Not only is there a decrease in bone density, there's the doubly whammy of an increased risk of falls.

Furtive Glances - "Where's Giacomo?" Edition

I've lost this post twice now due to browser failure.  I'll try to recreate it piecemeal.  Patience.

Okay, so I took a few days away from the blog.  It's not the end of the world.  And no, it wasn't because of despair over Sunday's Patriot loss.  I simply had more pressing things to attend to, not the least of which was my practice.  It could have been a day less, but as I was composing this post last evening, just before saving it my browser failed (surprise, it was Firefox, not IE) and lost the whole thing.  I just couldn't face it.  Still, there were a few things worth mentioning.

• Senator John Kerry, the runner-up in the 2004 presidential race, has decided that 2008 isn't going to be his year either.  So he won't be joining the crowded field of presidential contenders.  Call it "immediate withdrawal."

WASHINGTON --An emotional Senator John F. Kerry today said he will not run in the 2008 presidential race and vowed to use his Senate perch to hasten an end to the war in Iraq, saying he would work with lawmakers from both parties to reverse President Bush's troop "surge" and force him to withdraw virtually all troops from Iraq by early next year.

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, used the unusual forum of the Senate floor to announce his political ambitions. Choking up as he harkened back to his service in Vietnam, Kerry said he would work to make sure the next president doesn't have to cope with the consequences of a "wider war" sparked by the failed policy in Iraq.

Apparently Mr. Kerry's top priority now is to cause the loss of a war to be tagged to a Republican administration.  Again.  Why would Mr. Kerry pull out now, when he was so close in 2004?  The Globe helpfully explains.

Kerry's decision to stay out of the presidential race reflects a realization that he would have had an uphill climb in capturing the Democratic nomination, given the other party heavyweights who are already in the race, according to Kerry associates.

But according to Kerry associates, the senator's plans changed dramatically in the fallout of his election-eve "botched joke" about the education levels of US troops. The harsh reaction to that incident -- from many Democrats as well as Republicans -- displayed to Kerry the extreme skepticism within his own party about whether he should mount another run.

And, with polls giving front-runner status to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, Kerry realized that he would face formidable adversaries in the quest for the Democratic nomination. Clinton, Obama, and a host of other candidates have been busily hiring campaign operatives and signing up key fund-raisers in recent weeks.

I see, running from a tough fight seems to be a habit.  It wasn't the "botched joke" so much as it was the pattern of "botched jokes."  Senator Kerry's arrogance is his main problem, and it's not a correctable one.

• The Associated Press' Terence Hunt produced yesterday perhaps the most transparently bilious lead sentence in a 'news' article that I have ever read.  It showed up on page one of my local paper, but as a wire story it was national.

WASHINGTON — A politically weakened President Bush implored a skeptical Congress Tuesday night to embrace his unpopular plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq, saying it represents the best hope in a war America must not lose.

That's awesome.  Not a single opportunity missed.  Not one.

• Terry McAuliffe, the former DNC chairman and now running Hillary Clinton's exploratory committee was on one of the Fox News daytime programs, and I had the chance to hear him as I drove.  He produced a screamingly amusing descriptions of the marriage of Bill and Hillary.  I've been looking for a transcript to quote him precisely, but I can't find it.  If anyone has the video I'll post it here.  Paraphrasing:

"They have a normal marriage and love each other very much.  They're just like any other family."

I'm trying to recall the last time I nailed a 21 year old employee in my office, but my memory is failing me.  It's this kind of thing that makes it easy to slide Mr. McAuliffe into the old saw, "How can you tell when he's lying.  His lips are moving."  Well, he learned at the foot of the master.

"Bill Clinton would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground to tell the truth." So said an Arkansas official familiar with Clinton on CNN during the 1992 presidential campaign. Democrat Senator Bob Kerry has said, "Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?"

More here.

1/25/07 1115: Jay Tea thinks Mr. Kerry may be against running before he becomes for it.

Disappointed But Not Distraught

I'm disappointed, I'll admit.  The New England Patriots couldn't quite get it done today.  The defense was tired, and though they played their hearts out there seemed to be no magic scheme to take away the Colts' main weapon, Peyton Manning throwing down the field.  They managed to get one dramatic interception, returned for a touchdown by Asante Samuel, and several pressures and knock-downs, but overall Manning had time to throw and often found his targets for simple first downs, and often even larger chunks of stadium turf.

From the New England side of the field there were really two key plays.  Two plays that meant the difference between a win and a loss.  The first was Reche Caldwell's second dropped pass, when he was left alone split wide right, with nary a Colt defender aware of him.  QB Tom Brady didn't see it as quickly as he should, instead focusing on directing the blocking scheme.  When he finally put the play in motion he got it out to Caldwell quickly, and it slipped right through his hands, dropping harmlessly to the turf.  Catching the pass was likely to have led to a first down, and possibly a touchdown.

The second play was the obvious choice, the third down pass to Troy Brown on a simple hook in the slot right.  Brown had the yardage, and had his defender to his back.  But safety Bob Sanders made a great play, crossing from the opposite side at full speed to deflect (and very nearly intercept) the pass.  That pass defended gave the Colts the ball back only down three in a half where the Patriot defense had tired and was   Peyton Manning had two timeouts and 2:17 left on the clock.  A mere 23 seconds later they stood at the 11 yard line, and three runs later they took the lead for good.

From the Colts standpoint it wasn't one or two plays that won the game, but rather one or two drives.  Down 21-3 they pieced together a patient, methodical and well-executed drive to finish the first half, and then a patient, methodical and well-executed drive to start the second half.  The drives led to 10 points, but more importantly got the Patriot defense gasping for breath and back on their heels.  Thirty-two second half points later and Peyton Manning had finally vanquished the Patriots when it really mattered, in the playoffs.

Congratulations to the Colts, and to the Chicago Bears, who overwhelmed the New Orleans Saints in cold and snowy Chicago with a fierce ground game and a fiercer defense.   The Bears played flawlessly, with nary a Rex Grossman interception.  There was only one penalty and no turnovers for the game, and Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson blasted holes in the Saint defense regularly.  The defense forced three Saint turnovers.

The Worst Kept Political Secret

There are three kinds of politicians in the world.

There are those who have strongly held beliefs and principles and espouse them openly, who gauge circumstances and developments against those principles and, while open to changing their mind if the evidence and arguments suggest, will react to the developments guided by those principles.  We'll call these the 'openly principled' group, with members including Ronald Reagan on the right and Ted Kennedy on the left.

There are those who seem to really have no base principles, whose desire to be popular with the people causes their positions to vascillate from one extreme to another, sometimes in the same sentence, or to spout meaningless rhetoric that really takes no position whatsoever in the desire to be all things to all people.  We'll call this group the 'openly unprincipled' group, with unprincipled meaning no guidance by conscience, not no conscience.  The best example here is Senator Flip and Senator Flop, John Kerry, who can extol the virtues of one course to one audience and, with a polar opposite audience, later take a polar opposite position, much as he did regarding Israel's defense wall.  Read that and other examples here.  Former President Bill Clinton may fall here also, what with his backing down on gays in the military and embracing of welfare reform even after in office.

Then there are those who have guiding principles but know that they must also maintain popularity - 'political viability' it's called, in order to achieve ends guided by those principles, and so will carefully choose language that leaves them options, or avoid answering the questions completely.  The principles themselves are there, but they are difficult to define, for the politician seeks to avoid publicly embracing them.  We'll call this group the 'covertly principled' group.   They are the most mischievous and, I believe, dangerous, because they know that what they want the people will not, and so it's hidden until it can no longer be hidden.  This group's patron saint currently may be Senator Hillary Clinton whose government takeover of one-seventh of the US economy was shrouded in illegal secrecy until the devilish details eventually emerged.  Some of us still would like to know who was behind the Clinton administration firing of all sitting US Attorneys immediately upon taking office (Pres. Bush is now being taken to task for replacing a few) and the procurement of over 900 confidential FBI files, among other things, suspecting that perhaps it wasn't all Bill.

And now she's running for president.  Former British PM Margaret Thatcher fell into the 'openly principled' group, which is why she and Mr. Reagan were such a team.  Mrs. Clinton, you're no Margaret Thatcher.  One of her themes in her announcement is the need to have a conversation with the American people, to talk.  I suspect that she won't want to talk about anything that will provide transparency to her policy positions, nor any insight into the last Clinton administration.

Practice Makes Perfect

Or, in the case of the New England Patriots in the NFL playoffs, nearly perfect under head coach Bill Belichick and QB Tom Brady.  Practice not just for blitzing schemes, two-deep and press coverages, empty backfield pass patterns or offensive line blocking schemes.  Dan Wetzel has an informative article on Yahoo! Sports on the preparation that goes into end-of-game situations, something that the Patriots seem to have mastered under Belichick.

  FOXBOROUGH, Mass. – For all the attention paid to New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick's genius schemes and innovative game plans, perhaps his greatest strength is getting the simple stuff straight.

Belichick, whose Patriots face the Indianapolis Colts for the AFC championship on Sunday, calls it "situational football." Everyone else knows it as not blowing timeouts, managing the clock with proper play calling and calmly and rationally thinking through decisions rather than winging it on a hunch.

This is the stuff you'd think every millionaire pro football coach would have mastered years ago and wouldn't fall victim to in the playoffs, where a single play can determine a season.

He details some of the faulty decisions last week by some of the top coaches.  Belichick and Brady, on the other hand, handled their decisions flawlessly last week, with play-calling, execution and clock management that produced a touchdown with eight seconds left in the second quarter, and also produced a take-the-lead field goal with 1:10 left on the clock.  That's a lot of time to leave for your opponent, unless they've managed to use up all of their second-half timeouts, one with a hopeless replay challenge during a previous Patriot touchdown drive.

Belichick is the first to tell you he isn't perfect, but by NFL standards he may be as close as anyone, ever. While there is no statistical analysis of smart game management, Belichick's record in the playoffs (13-2) and overtime games (9-1) backs the perception that no one is better at making quick, effective decisions based on sound philosophy.

This is the coach who rarely screws up, who almost never lets the game's emotional rollercoaster knock him off his principles.

"That's why you don't see him all excited until the end of the game, because he's always constantly thinking about the next play," said defensive end Richard Seymour.

It all comes from preparation.  Practice makes perfect.

"We practice them," linebacker Mike Vrabel said. "It's not just enough to know the situation, you've got to make a play and then you've got to go, 'Well, what do I do now? Do I call timeout? Does Bill call timeout?' A lot of our practices are geared towards situational football."

The Patriots begin practicing game scenarios on day one of training camp and do something just about every day. One time it might be the proper time remaining on the game clock to kick a field goal on third down, the next might be going over various time, down and timeout situations where throwing over the middle is allowed.

Over the course of a month of practice, Belichick believes everything gets covered. Then they repeat. And repeat again. Eventually the guess work is gone and it becomes almost natural.

Other coaches and other teams obviously do this.  You have to.  Do they do it as well?  The evidence available would say no.

One of the things Belichick looks for in players is the intelligence and calm under pressure to remember and instantly produce on the field the things that were practiced and discussed in microscopic detail during the week.  Oh, Belichick will cover all of those infinitessimal details, but unless you have players who can remember what you've taught them and apply it when necessary it does no good.  He found that quality in Brady, which is why, despite the fact that he was a raw rookie in 2001-02, and despite the fact that Drew Bledsoe had taken the Patriots to a Super Bowl under Bill Parcells in 1996-97, and despite the fact that few QBs in the NFL have an arm as strong and accurate as Bledsoe, Belichick stuck with Brady from the moment he replaced the injured Bledsoe.  It's also what, for instance, Mike Shanahan sees in his new QB in Denver, Jay Cutler.

So practice doesn't really make perfect, unless you're able to apply that practice when it really matters.  Game time.  Then, if you keep your head, practice really can make perfect, even against more talented opposition like the '01-'02 Rams and the '06-'07 San Diego Chargers.  And maybe, later today, the '06-'07 Indianapolis Colts.

If you're looking for insight on how Bill Belichick got to this point, you could do worse than David Halberstam's Education of a Coach.

Kissinger On The Iraq Options, Course

Henry Kissinger writes in the International Herald Tribune that "Withdrawal Is Not An Option," an honest assessment of some of the mistakes in the Iraq War, but more importantly, looking forward, analysis of the consequences of withdrawal that demonstrates the problem thinking of those urging such a course.   Earlier, in a discussion of the shocking honesty of UPI reporter Pam Hess, I wrote:

From Jack Murtha to the NY Times, no politician that advocates any form of withdrawal from Iraq, and none of the reflexively Bush-opposed media who report those proposals seem to seriously consider that topic.  Their thoughts seem to stop at "Well, it couldn't be any worse than it already is."  That's a fallacy, though, because of course it could be worse.  Ms. Hess has seen it.  "But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water."  Why would that be the case, he wonders, knowing the answer.

The answer to the question is, and can only be, that losing would be a disaster for America and a huge boost to the extremist Islamic terrorists.  If you consider that question, and honestly give an answer to it, then such suggestions as immediate withdrawal to Okinawa or timetables not based upon circumstances in Iraq become transparent idiocy of the highest order.

Mr. Kissinger agrees, writing that American forces are "indispensible."  "They are not in Iraq as a favor to its government... They are there as an expression of the American national interest..."  He looks at the supposed withdrawal options, and finds them lacking.

An Ivy Education Costs How Much?

Here's a good Friday afternoon story.  It appears that Brattleboro, VT. isn't the only locale where hanging out in the altogether is all the rage.  Here's an ABC News report on "naked parties" at Yale University.

Jan 15, 2007— When Yale University student Molly Clark-Barol got the invitation, she was reluctant to go. A naked party? Where people stand around without any clothes on? It sounded way too awkward.

But she decided to check it out and says she found the experience "kind of liberating."

"It was really low key, kind of just like any other party," says Clark-Barol. "Except you're naked."

Yale is one of several Ivy League schools at which naked parties are part of the campus culture. Ask the partygoers why they attend and they may tell you something about releasing academic pressure, self-expression or experimentation.

But push them a bit more and you'll find that when you put 30 or so naked college kids together in a room, the pulse of youthful rebellion runs strong.

There are probably more than a few pulses running strong.  Reading the article, this hasn't been just a recent clandestine development.

The tradition of naked parties at Yale is not new. In the 1990s, a naked party held in a small campus dining area called the Buttery was dubbed, "Nude Night at the Butt." Also in the late 1990s, a secret society called "Porn 'n Chicken," met together to watch pornographic movies while eating fried chicken in the nude, sources tell ABCNEWS.com.

I remember reading a story about the "Porn 'n Chicken" club a while back.  Though traditions and events exist at the other Ivies, Yale seems to be the school that has taken this the farthest.  Why would that be?

Of course, what would a mainstream news story be without a salacious negative Bush tidbit.

And the rumor that President Bush's daughter, Barbara, might have attended a naked party during her time at Yale prompted Hustler magazine published Larry Flynt to offer a $1 million reward for any evidence that might exist. So far, he hasn't had any takers.

College.

They Were In New York, Weren't They?

The World Trade Center Towers, I mean.  Past tense, "were."  Puzzling.  It seems that such information might be news at the editorial offices of the New York Times, which, unless I'm mistaken, are also in New York.  The Times continues their jihad against the NSA terrorist surveillance program in an editorial today.

We hope they will do that. Congress has a legitimate interest in the creation of this program, which has always seemed motivated more by the president’s relentless campaign to expand his powers than by a real need to speed intelligence gathering.

Really.  At the Times, apparently, it's inconceivable that Mr. Bush might perhaps have been deeply affected, since he was the chief executive when America experienced it's worst terrorist attack ever.  This was an attack that destroyed two landmark New York City skyscrapers and killed 3000 of her citizens.  It's inconceivable that Mr. Bush might have been driven and determined to do anything, and perhaps everything, in his power to prevent such an attack from ever happening again.   No, for the editors of the Times there's only one reason President Bush could have approved the terrorist surveillance, and that's to "expand his powers" in an effort to become the Imperial President.  Or at least it seems that way to them.

One key point here is that the court has satisfied the immediacy the administration felt was necessary, i.e., "speeding intelligence gathering."

But we’re pleased that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales informed leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr. Bush had decided to end the warrantless program. He said the administration had worked out a way to speed the process of getting a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to intercept communications to and from the United States “where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of Al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.”

The Times' editors clearly feel the program was illegal, but according to AG Gonzales that point is not conceded.

It was also troubling that Mr. Gonzales repeated his insistence that the warrantless spying was legal.  That suggests that the administration — which has never explained why it could not have sought warrants from the start (ed: actually, they did, but you didn't - and still aren't - listening) and turned down offers to amend the law — will continue to resist legislative oversight of the wiretapping. It’s also likely to argue that the lawsuits challenging the eavesdropping should be dismissed. The damage has already been done by the president’s decision to ignore the law, and the lawsuits should proceed.

Over at Power Line, again, there's a speculative but rational explanation of the nature of the program and how the court is peripherally involved that makes quite a bit of sense, and would be educational for the editors at the Times, should they choose to consider a reason for the program, and the recent change, other than Mr. Bush's drive to be the Imperial President..

From published accounts, it appears that the FISC balked at accepting information that was collected in this manner for probable cause purposes when it was submitted by the FBI in FISA applications targeting US persons. It may be that the FISC considered that this type of operation was an end run around them. The deal might then be something like this: the FISC is informed of probable cause against the non-US persons, if those persons are being targeted for collection when they communicate with persons inside the US. That keeps the FISC in the loop and they get to say they're monitoring intel operations for possible abuse: they can say that whatever submissions they receive must be sworn to, and so that means there is accountability. But the order that the FISC has now issued may mean that they will drop objections to accepting NSA information for purposes of probable cause in FISA applications that target US persons, now that a chain of accountability has been established that covers all the information that is submitted to the FISC.

This is speculation, but I think there has to be something in this for both the Government and the FISC. I think the Government would win on any challenge to the existing FISA law, and no one really has the stomach to amend FISA. On the other hand, the Government is tired of being beaten up with baseless accusations of lawlessness. This way they accomodate [sic] feelings on the FISC, but don't yield on principle

The Times is also stamping it's feet that much is, fortunately, still secret.  Also note the unnecessary quotes around "terrorist surveillance program."

[AG Gonzales] said the court — created by the 1978 law on domestic wiretapping — issued an order on Jan. 10 governing this new process and that eavesdropping under “the terrorist surveillance program” would be subject to the court’s approval.There are still some big unanswered questions. For one thing, because the new warrant process is secret, we don’t know whether the court has issued a blanket approval for wiretapping, which would undermine the intent of the law, or whether the administration agreed to seek individual warrants.

I expect the NY Times will continue to dig for the details they lack, and will publish them as soon as they can, national security be damned.

1/19/06 0600: minor edit, emphasizing "seemed" in first blockquote and in commentary.

More Bad Economic News

For whom I'll leave to your imagination.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Labor Department reported Thursday that consumer prices rose by 2.5 percent in 2006, the best showing since prices had increased by just 1.9 percent in 2003. The improvement came in spite of the fact that consumer prices jumped 0.5 percent in December, as gasoline prices staged a momentary rebound.

In other economic news, the number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits fell to a seasonally adjusted 290,000 last week, the lowest level in 11 months and an indication that the labor market began the new year in good shape in spite of weakness in housing and auto manufacturing.

Meanwhile, the Commerce Department reported that construction of new homes rose by 4.5 percent in December to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.642 million units, raising hopes that the worst of the housing slowdown may be coming to an end.

The article continues, pointing out that oil prices are near a 19 month low.  So, let's total it up.  Good employment figures, low inflation, improving housing market (after a lull after a boom), and solid growth.  The Dow is at record levels.  There's only one thing to do now.

Raise taxes on oil companies, the costs of which will be passed on to the consumer as higher gas prices.

Power Is Restored

Of course, that depends on the meaning of the word 'is'.

We do have power now, though, and Comcast has restored service so the internet is once again accessible.  Apologies for the absence.  I'll have to have a chat with those PSNH guys.  Actually, they did a great job considering the 1/2 inch of glaze that has turned all of the trees into questionmarks.  Power actually returned by yesterday morning, but I was "unavoidably detained."

Scenes From An Ice Storm

Beautiful, if not entirely desirable.

That Was Outstanding

Outstanding, almost magical.  What, you say?  This.  Somehow, someway, they got it done.

LT was the best player on the field, far and away.  Philip Rivers was not the scared rookie.  The Charger defense was physical, and dominated the running efforts of the Patriots for the most part.  The Chargers won the field position game.  They covered the wideouts well.  They picked off three Brady passes, and got pressure on him with regularity.  Brady was off, throwing the ball before he wanted, or with nothing on it due to the rush.  When he had time he missed open receivers.

How could the team from New England have won?  One drive at the end of the first half.  One drive near the end of the fourth quarter, kept alive when Troy Brown forced a fumble after the third Brady interception.  Three field goals from a rookie kicker who replaced a legend.  And a defense that bent, but didn't break, and made big plays when it mattered.

It all adds up to a win, 24-21.  Pats and Colts, field goal battle winners over the Ravens, next weekend in Indy.  On the other side the Chicago Bears won in OT over the Seahawks on a 49 yard field goal, and the Saints kept marching on, to use the traditional cliche, with a three point win over the Eagles.   Those victors meet in Chicago next week.

Exposed: A Dirty Little Secret

There it is, out in the open now.  Pamela Hess, the UPI reporter for the Pentagon, discussed the topic that journalists seem to avoid like the plague.  What happens if Iraq becomes a loss?  I'm going to use the section from Glenn's post; the video is at Hot Air from Allahpundit.

KURTZ: Pam Hess, has the sending of 20,000 additional troops gotten a fair hearing in the media or has it gotten caught up in this wrenching, emotional debate about whether the war itself was a mistake?

PAM HESS: I think it's gotten caught up about it, and the debate about it is actually all wrong. What reporters know and what Martha says is that 20,000 really isn't that big -- isn't that big a jump. We're at 132,000 right now. It's going to put us even less that we had going in going across the line.

What we're not asking is actually the central question. We're getting distracted by the shiny political knife fight. What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose? And no one will answer that question. If we lose, how are we going to mitigate the consequences of this?

It's so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race.  It's on the cover of "The New York Times" today, what this means for the '08 election. But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water.  There are national security questions at stake, and we're ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.

From Jack Murtha to the NY Times, no politician that advocates any form of withdrawal from Iraq, and none of the reflexively Bush-opposed media who report those proposals seem to seriously consider that topic.  Their thoughts seem to stop at "Well, it couldn't be any worse than it already is."  That's a fallacy, though, because of course it could be worse.  Ms. Hess has seen it.  "But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water."  Why would that be the case, he wonders, knowing the answer.

The answer to the question is, and can only be, that losing would be a disaster for America and a huge boost to the extremist Islamic terrorists.  If you consider that question, and honestly give an answer to it, then such suggestions as immediate withdrawal to Okinawa or timetables not based upon circumstances in Iraq become transparent idiocy of the highest order.

If answering such a question, or as Ms. Hess terms it, "the central national security question" is seen as "carrying Bush's water," and is a problem for journalists, then it seems to provide an answer to the question of liberal bias.  It would also seem that our major media journalists are not as serious about their jobs as they ought to be.  One would have thought that journalistic integrity and seriousness would require that they would ask and answer such a question each and every time they consider policies and proposals on the course to be taken in Iraq, even if it leads them to conclusions they'd rather not draw.  That they don't would indicate that they are overburdened with neither integrity nor seriousness.

As Ms. Hess states, they're ignoring the national security issue, and the country is getting screwed.  We're getting screwed because there's a large chunk of the population who doesn't think you have to consider those matters when you think about Iraq.  The story is that it's just Bush's ill-advised war, he lied us into it, it's going badly and is either already lost or has no chance of success, and getting out will set things right.  It's not a national security problem, and losing has no national security ramifications.  Any story counter to that presentation must be squashed, or else you're "carrying Bush's water."

It's A Patriots' Sunday

At 4:30 PM EST today the New England Patriots and San Diego Chargers will clash in a conference semifinal matchup to see who will have a shot at Peyton Manning's Indianapolis Colts next week.  I plan to park myself in front of the TV, because this will be a great game to watch regardless of the outcome.

San Diego, playing at home, with a 10 game winning streak, having lost only two games by a total of six points, and with the incredibly dangerous and talented LaDainian Tomlinson at running back, will have the wind at their sails.  Home field in the NFL is a tremendous advantage, due in large part to the deafening sound that the road team's offense will encounter each and every time they get the ball, with the amplifier cranked to eleven on key plays.  Key plays like, oh, every third down, any play after a sack or a run stopped for a loss, and anything inside the red zone, if you can move the ball that far.

Tomlinson is worth the attention of eight of the eleven defenders all by himself.  He ran for 1815 yards, caught 56 passes (second most on the team) for 508 yards, and even threw for two touchdowns on halfback option plays.  He does it all, and the primary responsibility for narrowing the choices of the Charger offense will be given to Vince Wilfork, Richard Seymour and Ty Warren, the strong front three.  It would have helped for them to be backed up by the run-stopping prowess of Junior Seau, but he suffered a forearm fracture in mid-season, eliminating that support.  If the front 3 of the Patriots can neutralize the offensive line of the Chargers then they'll  make LT work for his yards, and there will be times when  Charger QB  Philip Rivers will face passing downs.  If not, it'll be a long afternoon.

The Patriots offense will have to deal with a similar run-stopper in the middle of the Charger front line, nose tackle Jamal Williams.  He's big, at 6'3" and 348 pounds, but quick and strong, and can play the two-gap nose position as well as anyone.   But the Patriots won't win this game running the ball.  If they're going to win it will be with the arm and mind of QB Tom Brady.  The Patriots are 11-1 in the playoffs since Brady became the starting quarterback, including three Super Bowl titles.  That, friends, is not an accident.  Brady seems to see the game slower and slower, become more precise with his throws, and pick out not only the most open receiver, but the most dangerous one in the biggest games.  And in these big games he seems to make very few mistakes.

The Patriots are hoping that the same cannot be said for Rivers, who is starting his first playoff game today.  His overall QB rating was 92 for the season, but against two playoff teams in his final three games, he was 8 for 23 for 97 yards against KC, with a rating of 12.4, and 10 for 30 for 181 yards with a rating of 77.2 against Seattle.  Pressure on him on passing downs and some confusing Bill Belichick coverages may make it a long afternoon.

This final game of the conference semifinal weekend should be a great one.

The Tale Of Sandy's Pants

The document thievery of former national security advisor Sandy 'Pants' Berger is the topic of a revealing OpinionJournal.com editorial this morning.  If what is revealed in the House report (pdf) and this editorial is true, then Mr. Berger's 3 year probation from government service is far too light a penalty.

The committee's 60-page report makes it clear that Mr. Berger knew exactly what he was doing and knew that what he was doing was wrong. According to interviews with National Archives staff, Mr. Berger repeatedly arranged to be left alone with highly classified documents by feigning the need to make personal phone calls, and he used those moments alone with the files to stuff them in his pockets and briefcase.

One incident is particularly suggestive. By his fourth and final visit to review documents and prepare for testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the Archives staff had grown suspicious of how Mr. Berger was handling the documents, so they numbered each one he was given in pencil on the back of the document. When one of them--No. 217--was apparently removed from the files by Mr. Berger, the staff reprinted a copy and replaced it for his review. According to the report, Mr. Berger then proceeded to slip the second copy "under his portfolio also." In other words, he stole the same document twice.

There can be only one reason why someone would take the same document twice, and that would be to permanently expunge the document from the record.  Even the action of needing to make private calls while in the presence of the documents - and thus needing to be left completely alone - is suspect.  Mr. Berger should have been taken to a separate private location, away from the documents, to make the calls, and the documents should have been guarded at all times.

Mr. Berger was acting for the Clinton administration as the equivalent of Harvey Keitel's character, Winston Wolfe, in Pulp Fiction.

The Wolf: You're... Jimmie, right? This is your house?
Jimmie: Sure is.
The Wolf: I'm Winston Wolfe. I solve problems.
Jimmie: Good, we got one.
The Wolf: So I heard. May I come in?
Jimmie: Uh, yeah, please do.

This story will be better understood thirty years from now, when the classified documents he removed are revealed, though apparently there are some that may have been uninventoried originals.

Another telling revelation concerns Mr. Berger's access to original, uncopied and uninventoried documents from the files of former NSC antiterror official Richard Clarke, among others. At the time Mr. Berger made his misdemeanor plea agreement, we were assured by then-federal prosecutor Noel Hillman that there was no evidence that Mr. Berger destroyed or intended to destroy any original documents. That was, strictly speaking, true. But during three of Mr. Berger's four visits to the Archives in 2002 and 2003, the former National Security Adviser did have access to original documents of which no adequate inventory existed or exists.

As the editorial points out, Mr. Berger's probation will be up just in time for what might be a Clinton administration redux.  If so, it would show a shocking lack of concern for propriety and American interests were he to be assigned a level of responsibility for national security a second time.

1/13/07 1018: See Power Line for Mark Steyn's Sandy Berger song parodies.  Outstanding.

1/15/07 0915: Jay Tea doesn't see the humor in Mr. Steyn's song parodies, since to him the antics of Sandy Berger are no laughing matter, and reiterates my thoughts on Mr. Berger's suitability for any future appointment.

I have no idea why Berger was treated with such kid gloves. I am a firm believer in the law, and in its rigorous enforcement. I bring up Libby's case merely as a point of contrast, not to be taken as a call for leniency in his behalf. (Although his attorney very well could make such a case based on Berger, and it could work.) I am disgusted and appalled with the way his high crimes were handled.

[...]

We must not allow ourselves to forget just what he did, and never again should this nation place any faith and trust in this despicable traitor. The only court left where we can seek justice against him is that of public opinion, and that is one fight we can not yield.

A Travesty Of A Farce

I haven't written on the Duke lacrosse rape 'case' to this point.  I read the reports as they came out last year, and made my assessment of the guilt/innocence of the various participants, and have been watching the developments to see if at the end it matched my assessment.  It looks as if I had it pegged just about right.  We were visiting friends in Pennsylvania this summer and I had the following conversation with my best friend's wife. (paraphrased)

AT: What do you think of the Duke rape thing?
Giacomo: They're innocent.
AT: (raising her voice slightly)  Those boys are not innocent.  They hired strippers to come to a party.
Giacomo: Well, they're not innocent in the sense of having the morals of a priest president  newborn baby.  They're a group of college guys, after all.  But they didn't do it.
AT: How can you be so sure?
Giacomo: Well, to start with, one of the guys she picked out of the improper photo lineup was getting cash from an ATM when she said he was part of the attack.

Which reminds me, I need to give her a call and ask what she thinks about the 'case' now.

Now Mike Nifong, the Durham prosecutor who tried and convicted the players before they had even been charged, has tried to recuse himself from the case.

Jan. 12, 2007— District Attorney Mike Nifong has requested that he have himself removed from prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse rape investigation, ABC News has learned.

A source close to the investigation said Nifong sent a letter to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper asking his office to assume responsibility of the case. Calls to the Attorney General's office and Mike Nifong's office were not yet returned.

Clown.  This guy should be forced to continue prosecuting this case for the duration.  It's his baby.  He created the mess, and should have to clean it up, and live with the professional consequences of his irresponsible actions.

It's very simple, Mr. Nifong.  You have all the information, including, oh, eight or nine iterations of the complainant's story, none of which are reconcilable with the other facts that you have at your disposal.  You have DNA results that came up positive for five or so men, none of whom are members of the Duke lacrosse team, let alone the accused.  You have your failure to provide those likely exculpatory DNA results to the defense.  Your complainant then created a new iteration of the story, and rape charges were dropped.  You have a timeline that puts one of the accused nowhere near the site of the 'attack.'  You have a revised timeline that puts that person on his cell phone with his girlfriend.  You have a photo lineup where no non-lacrosse team photos were used, and you actually indicted based, apparently solely, on that identification.

You stay with the case, sir, and either see the process fully through, if you still believe in your complainant, or you drop the charges and take your prosecutorial misconduct medicine like a man.  If your request for recusal is based on your early prejudicial statements to the press, well, who is to blame for that?

Meanwhile, the 88 members of the Duke faculty who had the accused trio of players convicted early should be ashamed of themselves.  There are facts in this 'case', and they were all to ready to accept accusation as fact and ignore the ones that didn't fit their preconceived assessment of the vile things that misogynistic athletes do when they gather in groups.  Certain media outlets should be similarly ashamed.

See also Ace of Spades, who gives a little more detail on one extreme member of that group of 88, as well as an examination of the pliability of the complainant's story.  The Durham In Wonderland blog of KC Johnson is the place to go for all things Duke 'rape.'  See this post on the Nifong recusal request, which is far more comprehensive than mine.  Here's a Yahoo! News/60 Minutes compilation with video.

1/13/07 1821: And now Mr. Nifong has been relieved of his responsibility.

RALEIGH, N.C. —  The state attorney general's office agreed Saturday to take over the sexual assault case against three white Duke University lacrosse players at the request of the embattled district attorney.

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, hamstrung by a flip-flopping witness — a black woman hired as a stripper — and dogged by allegations that he made inflammatory statements to the media, asked Attorney General Roy Cooper's office Friday to appoint a special prosecutor.

"Hamstrung?"  What hamstrung him was his eagerness to bring charges built upon a flimsy, shifting, and occasionally non-existent evidence.  I still think it would have been better, and certainly more enjoyable as spectator sport, for the AG's office to leave him captaining this Titanic of his own making.

Return To Form

Question:  What can you reliably, almost invariably, count on liberals to do each and every time they are in power?

Answer: Raise taxes, in some way, shape or form.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi floated the idea of raising taxes on the approximately 0.7% of Americans who make more than $500,000 annually [ed: updated based on this data] (a group of which I am unfortunately not a member), undoubtedly to "help the children."  This ploy is notably ineffective for raising revenue but very effective for class warfare.

That door was shut by Rep. Charlie Rangel, the new chairman of the House Ways and Means committee.

Rangel, who took over the powerful Ways and Means Committee after 36 years in Congress, smacked down the idea Pelosi raised on Sunday of repealing tax cuts for those earning more than $500,000 per year.

"We haven't gotten that far to be talking about tax increases," Rangel told The Post. "She hasn't discussed it with me . . . We haven't gotten into tax policy."

Don't you dare step on his turf, Ms. Speaker.  Note: a "repeal of tax cuts" is a tax hike - those affected will be paying higher tax rates after your action than before.  So lets just banish that phrase from journalistic lexicon, okay?

Pelosi had said nixing tax cuts for half-million-dollar earners "might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children."

See, it really is all about "the children."

1/12/07 1300: A flashback.  Remember the "millionaire tax" of Clinton/Gore, part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, the one that actually started at an income of $200,000?  Al Gore explained calling it a "millionaire tax" this way (paraphrasing, because I can't find the exact quote, but I remember it): "Well, if you make $200,000 for five years, that's a million dollars."

The Ink Isn't Even Dry Yet

Massachusetts passed a healthcare reform proposal last year under Governor Mitt Romney that was an earnest effort to try to cover the state's half million uninsured residents.  Now the proposal was certainly creative - use the state's uninsured care pool to fund subsidies, then require people to buy insurance but subsidize those at lower income levels.  Oh, and also add some tax dollars.  Meanwhile, new Governor Deval Patrick has restored $380 million in budget cuts that Mr. Romney approved before leaving, only to discover that the state faces - even before the health proposal takes effect - that the state is projecting a $1 billion dollar deficit this year.

The healthcare proposal has not taken effect yet, so we don't have any idea whether it will be effective and efficient.  We don't know whether the program's funding and cost projections will be accurate, or like most other government programs the costs will be far more than initial estimates and funding sources will be less than adequate.  We don't know whether this new insurance programs payment levels will allow physicians to stay in business taking care of those enrolled.  And we don't know whether the public will go for it as the planners envision, or whether they'll either underenroll leaving a large number still uninsured, or over-enroll dumping otherwise good but slightly costlier insurance for the big new government promise that costs less.

So there's a lot that we don't know.  And yet, despite all of these unknowns Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is ready to launch California down the same path, with 10 times the number of uninsured in his state.

NORTH COUNTY -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's sweeping proposal to require health insurance for all Californians got a strong thumbs up Tuesday from a top official with a group of clinics that provide health care services to poor local families.

The plan would see businesses, individuals, insurance companies, hospitals and doctors collaborating to reduce the costs of health care coverage.

Health officials said that while the governor focused mainly on children when announcing his plan earlier this week, the proposal would also expand health care coverage for a growing number of lower-income adults who aren't currently eligible for state-funded insurance.

That's not good enough for a died-in-the-wool single payor liberal like Sen. Ted Kennedy, so he's advocating this plan for the entire nation.

Senator Edward Kennedy called on the White House to follow the lead of state governors and move to extend healthcare coverage to the uninsured.          

Mr Kennedy will play a key role as chairman of a congressional committee on health in shaping a debate on broad US healthcare reform that is likely to coalesce around the 2008 presidential elections.

[...]

The call for the Bush administration to look to state governments for leadership follows a plan set out by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California, this week that would extend healthcare to 6.5m uninsured Californians.          

Mr Kennedy also cited bipartisan co-operation in his home state of Massachusetts, which is the first state to require all residents to have a health plan.

Under Governor Mitt Romney, a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, the state introduced a mix of subsidies and penalties to make the insurance more affordable and compel people to buy into plans.

NPR has an "All Things Considered" discussing the Massachusetts and California plans.  I'm just going to ask a simple question.  If you're doing an experiment, shouldn't you actually have to show that the experiment will be successful before you implement it as policy in other locations?  After all, it's not as if there isn't precedent that sometimes these things don't turn out exactly as planned.

Maine's community hospitals are reimbursed on a fixed-rate basis. The rate is considerably below actual costs. The state then pays hospitals on a prospective basis (Prospective Interim Payments - PIPs), multiplying that fixed rate by the number of Medicaid patients they estimate a hospital will care for over the course of a year and then dividing that into 52 weekly payments. The state is then obligated to settle-up with hospitals at the end of each hospital's fiscal year and pay for the actual number of Medicaid patients cared for during that year.

But here's where the state's obligation to settle up and the accuracy of their annual projections begins to fall short.

You'll need to read the entire thing to understand that great planning does not equal astounding success.

The End Of A Chain

I was 'tagged' by the ordinarily Sensible Mom with a chain blog post, (Top) Five Things You Don't Know About Me.  Number one on the list was easy.

• One thing you should know is that I don't propagate chain letters.  I find them a waste of time, and it pretty much doesn't matter how cute or fun they seem to others to be.  My daughters were sent a sticker chain letter a couple of years ago, where they were to add stickers to the envelope and put their name at the bottom of the list, and send the envelope to five friends, hoping to get back multiple letters and many times the number of stickers they sent out.  Fun for the youth.  Fun, that is, until mean Daddy put his foot down.

So this will be the last link on this branch.

The others in the list should be a little more fun, and make me seem a little less like Oscar the Grouch.

• My roommates in college hated that I could concentrate on my homework while the TV and stereo were blaring.  As a result, I seldom had to isolate myself in a library carrel to get my work done.
• I'm allergic to nuts - but only tree nuts, not peanuts.  Go figure.  Yet none of my children have these allergies.
• Unlike Sensible Mom, I love to shop, particularly for clothes for my wife.  It's rare that I get her something that she doesn't like or that she can't wear.  And I know her sizes.
• Just like many other guys I've essentially memorized the entire Monty Python's Holy Grail script, which frankly should be a requirement if you have a Y Chromosome, and can pull quotes from it pertinent to most any situation.  Also Arthur.  And Die Hard.  And A Night at the Opera.  And Casablanca.  And Good Will Hunting.  And Young Frankenstein.  And On The Waterfront. ...

Well, that was more enjoyable than I thought it would be.  But the chain still stops here.

The Power Of The Purse Exception ...

... to the Commander in Chief clause of the US Constitution.  Article Two of the Constitution clearly states that

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

It does not add the qualifier "subject to the approval of powerful Senators and Congressmen."  And yet, despite this, witness Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

She said Democrats are not interesting in cutting off money for troops already in Iraq — "We won't do that" — and that her party favors increased the overall size of the Army by 30,000 and Marines by 20,000 "to make sure we are able to protect the American people."

"That's different though, than adding troops to Iraq," Pelosi said.

The speaker stopped short of stating categorically that Democrats would block money for additional troops in Iraq. But she did say, "The burden is on the president to justify any additional resources. ... The president's going to have to engage with Congress in the justification for any additional troops."

And if you claim he didn't justify it to your satisfaction?  Further, Sen. Ted Kennedy:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Edward Kennedy launched a pre-emptive strike Tuesday against President Bush's anticipated plans to send more troops to Iraq.

The Massachusetts Democrat introduced legislation to require congressional approval before force levels can be increased.

[...]

Kennedy said he introduced the legislation "to reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people's right to a full voice in the president's plan to send more troops to Iraq."

He added that the bill says "that no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation unless and until Congress approves the president's plan."

If that's not unconstitutional, I don't know what is.  His fellow Senator, '08 presidential candidate Joe Biden, seems to understand the constitutional limits on Congress' role here:

Sen. Joe Biden, Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it would be a "tragic mistake" if Mr. Bush chooses to increase troops. But Biden said cutting off funds was not an option.

"As a practical matter there is no way to say this is going to be stopped," Biden said regarding a troop increase, unless enough congressional Republicans join Democrats in convincing Mr. Bush the strategy is wrong.

Biden added that it probably would be an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers if Democrats were to block Mr. Bush's efforts as commander in chief after Congress had voted to authorize going to war.

"It's unconstitutional to say, you can go, but we're going to micromanage," Biden said.

The American people voted in November, and Democrats were swept into power in the House and Senate, and are now in the majority.  But in doing so the people did not vote a Democrat as President, and until they do the job of Commander in Chief is taken.

Polling Madness

In what must be seen as an embarassment for the Gallup organization, they've actually gone out and polled the American public on war tactics in Iraq.  They've found, lo and behold that 61% of the plethora of military experts interspersed throughout the general American adult population don't think a troop surge is a good idea.

Going into the speech, however, it is known that the American public in general opposes the concept of an increase in troops in Iraq. A number of polls have shown that when given a choice between a set of alternative ways of handling the troop situation in Iraq, only about 10% of Americans opt for the alternative of increasing troops. The rest opt for withdrawal of troops either immediately, within a 12-month timeframe, or by taking as much time as needed.

At the same time, it would not be unusual to find that support for the president's probable call for more troops in Iraq -- once the proposed policy shift is made public -- will be higher than this baseline minimum. This assumption is based on the fact that the action will no longer be hypothetical, but will have the institutional weight of the presidency behind it after the Wednesday night speech. A surge will, in essence, have become the stated policy of the country. It is particularly likely that Republicans will increase their support for the policy after the president's announcement.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Jan. 5-7, 2007, provides support for this possibility. The poll finds that only 12% opt for a troop increase using the traditional four-alternatives question, little changed from past polling. But the poll included a separate question that summarized a possible "surge" announcement, and found that 36% support the idea of such an increase, while 61% oppose it.

I have not written a single post either denouncing or supporting a troop surge.  I'm not a military expert, a military historian, an expert on counterterrorism, a graduate of West Point, or even a veteran.  I strongly doubt that more than perhaps one or two of the people that Gallup polled is an expert in counterterrorism and military tactics.  And yet, they felt sufficiently unshackled from the limits of their own ignorance to advise the US military on this.  Go figure.

But, you say, all they're trying to do is get a handle on what the public thinks of the idea.  Why bother?  The public has no base of knowledge on which to build an informed decision, so why would you even ask?  They'll say no to a surge or to draw down the troops because they've been told - repeatedly, ad nauseum - by the dominant media, that Iraq is a disaster, and they've been told - repeatedly, ad nauseum - by Democrats opposed to Mr. Bush the war that we have to get out now! we have to set a timetable we have to have phased redeployment.

On the other hand, if this is the way these things are supposed to be decided, maybe I'll poll the public on whether to do resistive exercise in the early post-op phase after rotator cuff repair.  You never know, I could learn something.

1/10/07 2230: No sooner had I finished this post than I heard Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, running for President in '08, state on Fox News that the American people don't want a troop surge, and that the President should listen to them.  Sir, you have officially disqualified yourself for the job.  You might as well withdraw now, and save yourself the time, money, and embarrassment.

Joining The Struggle

First Ethiopia takes out the Islamic terrorists in Somalia (and the US administers the coup de grace to some of them), and now China reports that a raid on a western China terror cell reveals links to international terrorists.

Police said they raided a training camp run by the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, or ETIM, in the mountainous Xinjiang region on Friday, killing 18 suspects and arresting 17 others.

"There is a large amount of evidence that shows, including evidence we got from this raid, that the ETIM is associated with international terrorist forces," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao.

He also said that the group "planned, organized and carried out a series of violent terrorist activities in China."

Liu gave no specific details about the alleged evidence or attacks and did not say which overseas terror groups those arrested were linked to. China has said before that ETIM has links to al-Qaida.

China labels ETIM as a terrorist organization, as does the United States.

In the words of John McClane, "welcome to the party, pal."  You know, if we could just get everybody else on the same page ...

Liu said the 17 arrested suspects would be handled according to the law, but didn't say where they were being held or what charges they faced.

Careful.  Better not send them to Gitmo.

And in other news, a more aggressive tack in Baghdad pays some nice dividends.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. and Iraqi soldiers, backed by American warplanes, battled suspected insurgents for hours Tuesday on a central Baghdad street that been an insurgent hot spot for years, and 50 militants were killed,..

Al-Dabbagh said Iraqi forces had decided to wipe out "terrorist hide-outs" in the area once and for all. "God willing, Haifa Street will never threaten the Iraqi people again," he said.

Al-Dabbagh also said followers of Saddam Hussein to blame for the violence.

"This would never have happened were it not for some groups who provided safe havens for these terrorists. And as everyone knows, the former Baathists provided safe haven and logistics for them to destabilize Iraq," he said.

Haifa Street has long been Sunni insurgent territory and housed many senior Baath Party members and officials during Saddam's rule.

The National Championship Game ...

... hasn't been much of one to this point.  Right now OSU has the ball in Florida territory with about 5 minutes left in the third quarter, and a 20 point deficit is staring them in the face.  If they don't get points out of this possession you can turn the TV off, the game is over.

The Buckeyes are facing a very well-prepared Florida defense without their most dangerous weapon, wideout Ted Ginn, who showed just how dangerous he is by returning the opening kickoff for a touchdown, then injured his ankle on the first offensive series and hasn't returned.  He was last seen on crutches on the sideline...

...and now they've kicked on fourth and 12.  I'll watch a little bit longer, but Florida's defensive front is quick, strong and active, and the Heisman Trophy winner, Troy Smith, has had them in his face all game long.  I doubt that the Ohio State will be able to produce much without the aforementioned Mr. Ginn and needing to throw.

... It does not appear that OSU is prepared to cover the Florida passing game.  The Gators have had some guys open by 10 yards in all directions, who've not gotten the hit they expected after catching the ball.

She Waited A Long Time For 2004

I read this brief story on the Red Sox website, as long as we're talking sports this fine Sunday, and found it touching.

MIDDLEBOROUGH, Mass. -- Kathryn Gemme, a lifelong Red Sox fan who followed the team since the days of Babe Ruth, has died. She was 112.

Gemme died at the Nemasket Healthcare Center in Middleborough on Friday, according to the O'Neill Funeral Home.

As an 18-year-old, she attended her first game at Fenway Park in 1912 shortly after the ballpark opened. At 109, Gemme was greeted by catcher Jason Varitek and former player and coach Johnny Pesky during her last game in May 2004.

Team officials brought the 2004 World Series trophy to her 111th birthday party in November 2005.

She was 24 when Boston won their 1918 World Series, then waited 86 years for the next one in 2004.  Remarkable.  There were a lot of Red Sox fans during her years who never saw even one World Series championship win.

But Kathryn Gemme was blessed.  She got to witness two.

**Technically, she witnessed all of them - the first of their six titles was in 1903.

So Much For The Jets

No, not those jets, these Jets.  The New England Patriots dispensed with their New York/New Jersey AFC East rivals by 37-16 in the first round playoff matchup.  The score was not indicative of the competitiveness of the game, but it was indicative of who was in control throughout.  The Patriots ran the ball effectively, grinding out yard when they had to.  Tom Brady had open receivers and time to throw, unlike the teams' earlier meeting at The Razor.  This time he had it all the way.

After all, when it comes to rating current quarterbacks on pure physical ability, other names will always be mentioned before Brady whereas only one, Peyton Manning, might come up ahead of his when we're talking about the mental aspect of the position.

While the Jets did run up some yards they were stopped repeatedly in the red zone, settling for three field goals.  The lone Jets touchdown came on a 77 yard catch-and-run by Jerricho Cotchery, more of bad tackling and bad coverage than a great play.  Take away that play, and a useless 23 yard gain on the final play of the first half and the Jets were held to 247 yards of total offense.  Okay, I hear you.  "How can you just arbitrarily remove the yards from those plays?"  Doing so gives a better picture of the game's nature, that's how.

And what was that nature?  The Patriots put together a touchdown drive of 10 plays and 65 yards to start the game.  The second quarter saw a 10 play, 56 yard drive for a field goal, then a 15 play, 80 yard drive for a touchdown that used up all but 10 seconds of the second quarter.  The fourth quarter saw a clinching touchdown drive of 13 plays and 63 yards that took 6:32 and left only 5 minutes left for the Jets to try for two touchdowns to tie.  Thats four 10 play drives for scores, three of which were touchdowns.  The Jets had only one 10 play drive for the game, a 13 play drive that ended in a field goal starting off the third quarter.  They were 3 for 4 on third down in the second quarter, but did not convert on third down in the first quarter or the entire second half, 3 for 11 for the game.  The Patriots?  Eleven for 16, including 4 for 4 in the fourth quarter.

That was the game's nature - the Patriots in control, the Jets trying to step up their level, and never quite climbing as high as was necessary.

So it's on to San Diego for the second round, and an afternoon spent chasing the incomparable LaDainian Tomlinson.  They'll have their hands full dealing with him and with Shawn Merriman on defense.

Eh, no worries.  Bill Belichick and Tom Brady will figure out something.

1/7/06 1005: Allah at Hot Air has the video of those final two fateful plays for the Cowboys against the Seahawks.  For what it's worth, it looked to me like the officials got the spot right after Witten's catch in the review.  And it's been some rollercoaster for Tony Romo, hasn't it?

"Pay As You Go" Means "Keep Going, Keep Paying"

The Washington Post reports the "pay as you go" proposals passed by the House of Representatives for congressional spending and tax policy.

On its second day under Democratic management, the House yesterday overwhelmingly approved new rules aimed at reining in deficit spending and shedding more light on the murky world of special-interest projects known as earmarks.

Under the new provisions, the House will for the first time in years be required to pay for any proposal to cut taxes or increase spending on the most expensive federal programs by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. And lawmakers will be required to disclose the sponsors of earmarks, which are attached in virtual secrecy to legislation to direct money to favored interests or home-district projects.

Well, that's not exactly true.  Deficit spending - which we're already doing - will continue, and gosh, if the proposal is important enough, they'll push it through.

But even as they celebrated one of their first exercises of legislative power, key Democrats acknowledged that it will be difficult to abide by the new pay-as-you-go spending rules -- known on Capitol Hill as "pay-go" measures -- while keeping their promises to fund health-care, education and homeland-security initiatives.

[...]

Budget experts note that House rules are easily waived, and some predict that Democrats will be forced to abandon the new rules, at least for certain expenditures, to meet their campaign promises.

The main reason for this rule is to make any new tax cut virtually impossible, and, given that we're already deficit spending, making it impossible to extend the prior tax cuts passed with an expiration date.

The rule change also jeopardizes President Bush's efforts to extend his tax cuts, most of which will expire in 2010. And it will complicate Democratic efforts to repeal the alternative minimum tax, a set of provisions in the tax code that could force millions of households to pay more this year.

"Tax and spend" isn't just a label.  It's a way of life.

Is It Time To 'Win' In Iraq?

If you still want to "win" in Iraq (whatever you take that to mean), and if you still think that Iraq is "winnable," then this is an absolutely necessary step.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- In the opening battle of a major drive to tame the violent capital, the Iraqi army reported it killed 30 militants Saturday in a firefight in a Sunni insurgent stronghold just north of the heavily fortified Green Zone.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, speaking only hours earlier at a ceremony marking the 85th anniversary of the Iraqi army, announced his intention for the open-ended attempt to crush the militant fighters who have left Baghdad in the grip of sectarian violence.

Hassan al-Suneid, a key aide and member of al-Maliki's Dawa Party, said the Iraqi leader had committed 20,000 soldiers to the operation and would call upon American troops and airpower only when needed.

A stern al-Maliki told the nation the operation in Baghdad would continue ''until all goals are achieved and security is ensured for all citizens.

''We are fully aware that implementing the plan will lead to some harassment for all beloved Baghdad residents, but we are confident they fully understand the brutal terrorist assault we all face,'' he said.

20,000 additional Iraqi soldiers.  Good.  "Open-ended," "continue until all goals are achieved and security is ensured for all citizens."  Also good.  And if it includes both Sunni and Shia armed militants, as well as Al Qaeda foreign fighters, even better.

An Iraqi army general said commanders would operate independently, a sharp break with Iraqi military tradition of heavy central control, and would be held individually responsible for failure.

Any civilians carrying arms faced automatic detention, he said, and would be shot if they resisted, the general said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information.

Is this going to be bloody and difficult?  Yes, but it already has been bloody and difficult.  A single united Iraqi government, including Sunni, Shia and Kurd elements requires a single united Iraqi military.  Having rogue militias roaming the streets killing whomever they feel like is incompatible with a stable and secure Iraq, he writes, stating the obvious.  If Mr. al-Maliki is serious, and is willing to be consistent and determined, and "stay the course" in disarming the rogue elements, then this has a chance to succeed. 

The other thing that has to happen, and I hope this is part of Mr. Bush's change in strategy, is to put Iran on notice that they are being watched closely, and we cannot and will not allow further interference by Mr. Ahmadinejad in the events in Iraq.  If Iran continues to arm and train Shiite militias then the crackdown will ultimately fail, because the boat will be leaking faster than it is being bailed.

The New Democratic War Strategist

It's Cindy Sheehan!  Two days after disrupting Rahm Emanuel's press conference (and witnessed Mr. Emanuel withdrawing timidly from the protestors' ire) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cosign a letter calling for President Bush to forfeit Iraq to either Al Qaeda or Iran, take your pick.  This is exactly the "strategy" that Ms. Sheehan demanded with her protest groups chants of "De-escalate, Investigate, Troops Home Now!"

In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close.

Meanwhile, Martin Frost suggests the Democrats have set a timetable informally...

"The president has got about a six-month window here and if he doesn't figure this out, how to get us out or start to get us out in six months, then you'll actually see a vote to cut off funds," said Martin Frost, former Texas Democratic representative and a FOX News contributor.

...which Sen. Russ Feingold would like to make formal.

...Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who plans to re-introduce legislation Thursday to establish a timetable to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq.

One of the highest compliments you can pay an athlete or a team striving to achieve their goal is to say "there's no quit in them."  I am unable to pay these Democrats the same compliment.

As an aside, simply because it has to do with this same Congress, the (Democratic) Congressional Black Caucus, who cheered loudly for re-elected Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson yesterday, must be very proud of themselves and their charge today.

Jamil Hussein Lives! ... Maybe

The Associated Press' Stephen Hurst writes today that Capt. Jamil Hussein, the AP source on the highly doubtful "burning Sunnis" story, among others, exists, and may be subject to arrest in Iraq for his unauthorized talks to the press.  I've read the report, and frankly it's a little bizarre.  Rather than excerpt the entire story needlessly, I'll wait while you read it.  Come on back after, because I've got some questions.

Done?  Okay.  Let's start with the arrest.

[Ministry of Interior spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim] Khalaf said Thursday that with the arrest of Hussein for breaking police regulations against talking to reporters, the AP would be called to identify him in a lineup as the source of its story.

Should the AP decline to assist in the identification, Khalaf said, the case against Hussein would be dropped. He also said there were no plans to pursue action against the AP should it decline.

Let me see if I understand this.  The MOI says this is the guy, and the AP writes a story confirming that the man so named is their source.  If the AP declines to identify him in a lineup, then how can anyone be sure this is the guy?

• MOI: We've found Jamil Hussein.
• AP: See, told you.
• MOI: Is this the guy you've been talking to?
• AP: No comment.

You see the problem.  While perhaps unwilling to confirm him for the MOI the AP nonetheless vouches for their source's accuracy.

His first contacts with the AP were in 2004, when the current Interior Ministry and its press apparatus was still being formed out of the chaotic remains of the Saddam-era ministry.

The information he provided about various police incidents was never called into question until he became embroiled in the attempt to discredit the AP story about the Hurriyah mosque attack.

More accurately, the information was never called into question until he was quoted as a source for a highly questionable story.  That's a story that not only bloggers but the NY Times and Washington Post found doubtful.  Confederate Yankee has researched the stories in which Mr. Hussein is quoted, and has been unable to find second sourcing for many of them.  I understand Mr. Miniter's criticism of this research, but with Iraq being THE story and with news organizations crawling all over themselves to report the violence there you'd think that there'd be second sources for more than a small minority of them.

However, the AP claim that his information was "never called into question" until the "burning Sunnis" story might be because that was the first story that AP themselves backed away from slightly, when four burning mosques were found to be only one slightly burned mosque.

Finally, let's consider the AP here.  They've been relying on an Iraqi police captain as a source, and have been satisfied with the accuracy of the information.  Then comes the whopper, the one that no other organization can confirm.  They're standing by their guy when what they'll need to do is provide confirmation of the story's accuracy.  As Curt writes,

In regards to the actual burning of six Sunni's the only thing the AP has to prove that this incident happened are three unnamed witnesses, one Imam who quickly retracted the story, and one police officer named Jamil Hussein.

That's it. 

No names of the victims.  No family members of the victims have been identified.  No one know where the bodies are.  No photographic evidence of a burning.  Nothing other then the word of three unnamed witnesses and a police officer.  In fact other residents denied this happened.

So what's next?  If they want to be vindicated, the AP will need to identify Mr. Hussein for the MOI as their source, and they'll still need to confirm his tale.  And if that one turns out to be false, they'd best crawl into their archives and see if he's told them any other shaggy dog stories.

Others: Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Patterico, Riehl World View, Townhall/MKH

Another Stem Cell Success!!

Relax, they're not embryonic cells.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Using stem cells harvested from the extracted wisdom teeth of young adults, researchers have successfully generated tooth root and supporting tooth ligaments to support a crown restoration in experiments using miniature pigs.

The restored tooth mirrored the original tooth in function and strength, the research team reports in the December issue of the open access medical journal PLoS ONE. The technique holds promise for use in humans, the investigators say.

Stem cells are the master cells of the body that give rise to all the blood and tissue in the body.

So, once again a success in stem cell application is claimed by those upstart "adult" cells.  I believe I've written this before, but I'm frankly too lazy unable right now to cite the reference.  It  may well be that the huge potential of embryonic stem cells will be extraordinarily difficult to capture and control, like lightning in a bottle.  Why?

The most malignant cancers - least treatable, most aggressive in weakening the host, least responsive to efforts to kill them, most likely to metastasize, most likely to invade other tissues locally - are in general also the least differentiated, Well-differentiated cells in cancer are those that are morphologically and histologically most like normal tissues.  Poorly-differentiated cancers have cells with wild and unusual characteristics, often with little resemblance to the tissue of origin.

Embryonic stem cells are the poorly-differentiated cancers of stem cells.  Yes, they theoretically have the potential to become any tissue in the body.  They also seem to handle like Michael Schumacher's F-1 Ferrari with a broken steering column.  And given the lack of cell differentiation, that may always be the case.

In any event, add another hash mark in the adult stem cell column.

More Associated Press Nonsense

The Associated Press and/or the writers they hire for war reporting clearly have a preference.  They'd like to see all of the wars end, even if it means once again giving the Taliban free rein in Afghanistan to plan more attacks.  That may be unfair, but how else would one explain this report, from Jason Straziuso of the AP, that NATO says it "killed too many civilians."

KABUL, Afghanistan - NATO said Wednesday that it killed too many Afghan civilians during fighting last year against resurgent Taliban militants, but that the Western alliance was working to change that in 2007.

The acknowledgment came one day after President Hamid Karzai's latest plea for foreign forces to use maximum caution following the deaths of two civilians, reportedly involving NATO troops.

Except for several problems.  "Killed too many civilians" is not exactly what was said; the Taliban has killed far more civilians, and actively targets them; the Taliban further endangers civilians by using them as "human shields," fighting from within populated areas, much as Hezbollah did during the summer's Israel-Lebanon conflict.  Let's read on.

"The single thing that we have done wrong and we are striving extremely hard to improve on (in 2007) is killing innocent civilians," Brig. Richard E. Nugee, the chief spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, told a news conference.

Nugee said the alliance has been reviewing for several weeks measures to reduce the number of civilian casualties, without elaborating.

"Killing too many civilians" implies that the NATO spokesman would find a somewhat lower number acceptable, which is extraordinarily unlikely to be the case.  A far more fair - and accurate - headline would be "NATO hopes to reduce accidental civilian casualties."  Gen. Nugee's statement indicates remorse that any civilian deaths have occurred, and a desire to reduce them.  I'm quite sure that, had Mr. Straziuso asked, the General would have told him that no civilian death is acceptable.

By contrast, based on their targeting of civilians and hiding sans uniforms within the civil population, one could write that the "Taliban hopes to increase civilian casualties," and be entirely accurate.  As even Mr. Straziuso admits:

Still, Nugee said NATO forces had killed far fewer civilians than the Taliban, which launched a record number of roadside and suicide bombs last year.

"There is absolutely no comparison to be made," he said. "The Taliban are killing significant numbers of their own people and showing no remorse at all."

Indeed.  The headline is written to give the false impression that NATO intends to kill civilians, but just not that many.  Is it any wonder that people might get such an idea?  Although we know where the AP stands on the Iraq war, I would hope they could discern the good guys from the bad in Afghanistan.

Furtive Glances - "Ringing In '07" Edition

I've been less than faithful to blogging since approximately Christmas, so this is a look around at some of the interesting stories circulating today.

• President Gerald Ford's state funeral is today in Washington, and it's a national day of mourning officially.  RIP, Mr. Ford.  Hail to the victors, indeed.

• I'm a little upset that I missed this game.  You've got to love New Year's Day bowl game a last-minute comeback, featuring a trick play, by a little known underdog against a traditional football powerhouse.  You gotta like them Boise State Broncos.

• At this point it's becoming clear that when we see a story about Iraq, if it's written by the AP, we'll just agree to ignore it and move on.  Between the non-existent and/or falsely represented Iraqi police officials and the anti-American Iraqi stringers doing the primary reporting it's awfully difficult to draw a line between truth and fiction.  Kudos to Curt at Flopping Aces who continues to track down the misdirection plays run from the AP offices.  Power Line notes a story by Eason Jordan, of CNN in Baghdad and "targeting journalists" fame, that he has been unable to locate even the faintest trace of the AP 'Iraqi police' source Jamil Hussein.

Therefore, in the absence of clear and compelling evidence to corroborate the AP's exclusive story and Captain Hussein's existence, we must conclude for now that the AP's reporting in this case was flawed.

To make matters worse, Captain Jamil Hussein was a key named source in more than 60 AP stories on at least 25 supposed violent incidents over eight months.

Until this controversy is resolved, every one of those AP reports is tainted.

Those, and apparently many others as Curt has shown.

• More to come ...

1/4/07 1130: Okay, so Jamil Hussein lives.  That is one hurdle, and the AP has - perhaps - cleared it.  Next up - confirming the 'burning Sunnis' story given them by Hussein that started the whole ball rolling.

Ringing In 2007

The celebration, in Times Square...

 
Revelers celebrate the New Year in Times Square, New York. Hundreds of thousands of revellers packed into New York's Times Square to ring in 2007, braving heightened security to join in the traditional centrepiece of New Year (AFP Photo)

And the aftermath ...

 
A police officer walks over the confetti and trash left over from the New Year's Eve celebrations in Times Square in New York, Monday, Jan. 1, 2007. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Isn't that always the way?  Once all the fun is over you look around at the mess you've created and wonder, "was it worth it?"  We'll know 365 days from now.

1/1/07 1000: link added