perfidy

A vigorous exchange on Winds of Change left me wondering...exactly how many insults were thrown in my direction? I should, of course, count the insults I hurled in return as well. I might have been pre-emptive once or twice as well. ;)

"full of 'understanding' for the suicide bombers"
"bleeding-heart liberal"
"an enabler" (for terrorism)
"I fear the evils of our Islamo-facist enemies less than I fear what fools like Ross may make both inevitable and necessary"
"People like Ross are delaying the American quest for victory"
"secular-left apologist of suicide bombing"
"completely disassociated"
"you are not a serious person"

And here are my uber-insults:

"sanctimonious ass"
"frothing extremists"
"two-tone mental stance"
"As for my conjuration of smart remarks: Someone has to, and you're not holding up your end."
"save your "9/11 means nothing" bullshit for a little rally of like-minded jackboot-steppers"
"Make sure nobody gives Telenko the controls for the spaceship"

Darn it, I don't come out looking too good in the insult count. I believe I have hurled more than I have received, and that is piss-poor news for my purported civility.

I feel bad about the "frothing extremist" thing. That was totally unnecessary. Sorry Mary! Heat of the moment, Lord of the Flies, and all that.

That's true, apparently, if you're Trent Telenko. I guess they're everywhere. Here is my rambling response...lunchtime is limited today, and therefore so is my ability to polish the words.

Dear Trent: Good Lord. Where do you get the balls to tell me that I pretend 9/11 didn't happen? I guess it's simple enough if you just enjoy making it up as you go. Find me anything I've ever written that implies that. I live in Washington DC. I was here on that day. I spent a good-sized part of it terrified because the person I cared about more than anything in the world was in a State Department building, and rumors were floating around about another plane, and that a car bomb had gone off, destroying the building, and I didn't know what had happened to her. So save your "9/11 means nothing" bullshit for a little rally of like-minded jackboot-steppers. It's not applicable to me, and frankly it's not generally applicable at all. You debase yourself every time you imply it about another person.

Ah, calm.

Perhaps you're referring to the fact that my _reaction_ to 9/11 is different from yours. Once again, I'm not sure how you know, exactly, what my reaction is.

I don't pretend that a death cult is not involved, because a death cult _is_ involved, plain as day. I don't write that Arab culture isn't sick, because I happen to think that in many ways, it is. Perhaps you are confusing what I have actually written with something else?

You and I differ on whether genocide and atrocities are necessary to remedy the situation. There is no simple outcome to this; there is no absolute "logical conclusion" to be had from the facts at hand (or at least those at my disposal). Good god, man, we're dealing with social sciences and human beings, here. Nothing is predictable; nothing is certain.

Which side of the February 26, 1993 divide are you on? THAT was the wake up call, and there may have been earlier ones. That was when Islamic terrorism crossed the line in clear effort. They've had the will to do this for a very long time now. 9/11 was the first operation that accomplished its goals at scale.

You miss the point of this discussion in a spectacular way. Iraq is not the issue, and never has been. The issue is resource allocation and effective means of defense against the super-empowered angry man, and states who defend him. If we set aside all other issues, I could certainly support military intervention in Iraq, for simple "it's the right thing to do" reasons.

We're in the middle of a spending several hundred billion dollars to effect change in Iraq. We don't really know how that's going to turn out -- it's a risk, right now. The benefits are highly nebulous and off in the future. Kay's testimony and report shows that the country did not have significant WMD (or any at all, for that matter). Alarmingly, though, he found that there are some pretty "smart" guys running around in the middle east who might be able to create certain kinds of WMD, whose talents are for sale. What could they build? Low-tech nuclear, possibly biological, certainly chemical. Where will they go now? They will go places where we do not have monitoring.

Each of these capabilities will, over the next century, become progressively more available to smaller and smaller groups. I conclude that we _will_ suffer from this form of terrorism; and there is no way to stop it.

We can delay, perhaps. A massive onslaught of violence and posturing against Middle Eastern culture will achieve some delay. Arab culture and radical Islam seem to be the primary generators of violence on the face of the planet, at the moment. Religious intolerance is stunning difficult to root out and eliminate. We must find a way to generate massive intolerance _within_ Arab culture to the cancer in its midst, to create the ultimate solution. That is an open problem.

The singular focal point of _secular_ Middle Eastern anger at America involves Israel. Given the resources we are expending and have expended on Iraq, can we find a better use? I believe we can. Invading Iraq to provide an example of how an Arab state _could_ be is POINTLESS without some benign resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. You can set up any democracy you want in Iraq, and anything you do of merit will be poisoned by that fundamental conflict. Note that I do NOT advocate a particular solution to that conflict, at this point -- I advocate a specific OUTCOME. Anything that achieves an outcome of stability, separation, and relative peace is acceptable.

Longer term, I view decentralization as the only defense against the progressive danger of WMD. I conclude that over the long run, free cities cannot be defended from the terrorism of the super-empowered angry man. We must study our infrastructure and create many points of strength, where we currently have single points of weakness. We must, by government intervention if necessary, decentralize our financial and political systems.

We live on a vast continent, and it's time we took advantage of that.

A couple of random notes:

WMD are either state-sponsored or not. Tens of thousands of Russian nuclear missiles aimed at the US are a civilization-ending threat (not to mention life-on-the-planet-ending). One nuclear weapon, detonated in a city, is an immeasurable tragedy and horror, but not a civilization ending event. Eliminating state-sponsored terrorism is a critical goal. Clearly, military operations in Afghanistan accomplished this goal. Just as clearly, the massive expenditures in Iraq are not justified with a corresponding reduction in terrorist capabilities or potential.

When I look at the list you use to "qualify" Iraq for invasion, what strikes me is how precisely Saudi Arabia maps into it. I find it very hard to believe that somewhere in SA, we would not find a rich man, funding a clever man, to build a horror. Certainly, SA is a primary source of funding for the "death cult" that is attempting to propagate itself around the globe.

The easiest form of terrorism is to simply fill a van with explosives, drive it next to a building, and detonate it. This technique could easily be used to kill tens of thousands of people in America. It wouldn't necessarily kill them all at once, but if a series of bombings were to take place, the effect might be even stronger. Why have we not seen this form of attack? Don't tell me it's because the INS is doing its job. That's a joke. I'm really not sure why we haven't see more domestic terrorism, but I think the answer is twofold: First, there just really aren't all that many of these suicidal nutjobs. Second, when said carefully trained nutjobs arrive in America, blend in, and possibly make friends, quite a large number of them realize that they've been living a lie, and fade away.

My basic, but uninformed solution for the Israeli/Palestinian crisis: Build the wall. Put it on the green line. Evict or imprison Arafat and his cronies. PAY for the relocation of Israeli settlers back into Israel proper. PAY to establish an economy in Palestine. With some meaningful self-direction, a decent economy, and secular causes _removed_, the radicals will find themselves on the receiving end of massive internal hostility. Inform Israel that their military aid is contingent upon acceptance (at no cost) of this offer. Inform the new Palestine (or whatever the hell they call themselves), that _any_ spending on a formal military will be met with an increase in military aid to Israel double the expenditure, and a cessation of any economic aid whatsoever. Create "truth" commissions on both sides, offering amnesty for detailed information, cessation of activites, and surrender of all war materiel. Place Jerusalem under UN authority, making it an independent "sub-state", with its own elected council, evenly divided along religious lines. The oath of office is a binding oath to preach non-violence and tolerance. Build desalination plants on the coast and convey the water to the new palestine. Create a UN-sponsored, secular education system in the new palestine. Fund it so no family will ever need to send a child to a religious school again. Do I want to reward terrorism by just _giving_ people all this? Hell, no. But I want more terrorism even less. And for my global strategy, I need Israel and suroundings to be peaceful and prosperous, on both sides.

I have been thinking about something that I know is controversial, and I struggle with it. It is a formal policy of assassination. Essentially, any _public_ religious figure who _publicly_ advocates "death to america (or another western country)" AND demonstrably and provably supports terrorism, through guidance or resources or some such, without repudiation of those statements, is subject to this policy. Anywhere in the world, any time. The uttering of "death to america" puts us on notice of intent to kill our citizens, from a particular individual. It may be necessary to generate an equal and opposite reaction.

I wouldn't even think of trying to compete in music writing with Johno, but as a long-time (suffering) fan of electronic music, I thought I might put together a list of notable stuff...you can't really go wrong with any of this.

1. Orbital - "Orbital 2". The "brown" CD. Classic mid-nineties, easily the most polished effort of its time, and therefore somewhat timeless. "there is a twist in space"

2. Tangerine Dream - "Poland". Get the import, 2 CD version. An absolute classic; a landmark political and musical event. One of the finest long-form electronic concerts ever.

3. Underworld - "dubnobasswithmyheadman". Spooky, weird, depressing, and brilliant. Later Underworld is more polished and even better, but this is a key recording and lead-in to what they became.

4. LFO - "Advance". Brilliant early, experimental recording. Ridiculously difficult to find, and proportionally fantastic. Found this when it was attached to the computer game "Hardwar"; it was one of the first games to have "serious" music with it.

5. Junkie XL - "Big Sounds of the Drags". One of the grooviest "dance" CDs ever. It's a bit of a bridge between listening music and dance, though -- tracks are danceable but just plain fantastic listening. Brilliant production.

6. Assemblage 23 - "Defiance". Good late-model melodic industrial...showing you where that genre has gone. Doesn't really stand up with the rest of this list, but is useful as a touchstone for this style.

7. Aphex Twin - "Selected Ambient Works 85-92". Xtal, oh xtal. Singular, beautiful, ethereal...and really the last thing by Richard James I actually liked. A landmark.

8. Alpinestars - "B.A.S.I.C.". The best new "retro" electronic out there...along with its followup "White Noise". Brand new music that has groovy analog shit in it.

9. Sasha - "Airdrawndagger". Hated it the first time I heard it, as I was expecting something different. Picked it up again 6 months later because I couuld still remember some of it, and I've loved it ever since. This is one of my highest recommendations on the list, and the first "DJ" CD I've really respected. Unless you count Tom Holkenberg (Junkie XL) as a DJ.

10. Morel - "Queen of the Highway". Enveloping, dark, groovy, and local. Just what the doctor ordered. Morel worked with Deep Dish, and the searing, unstoppable beat of this CD smooths out the harshness (in meaning, not tone) of the lyrics.

That'll get you started. Every CD on this list is utterly different from the others; they are all good representatives of their sub-genres...so buy, damn you!

Gaze in wonder at the stupidest patent I have seen in quite a while. I've been with pair.com since '95 or so. From the beginning, they've offered "vanity domains" of the form vanity.pair.com. In addition you've been able to form domains such as whatever.soletta.com since the very beginning.

This is a patent for that naming strategy. It was filed in 1999, many, many years after this technique was first used, publicly. Even the slightest level of real patent examination or search would have revealed this. The patent's owners are now vigorously suing various entities. They were stupid, though -- they're apparently going after the big guys first. This patent will be invalidated, and their initial victims have the resources to ensure that it will happen.

They should have gone after the little guys first, 'cause they don't have the resources to fight. But...isn't the patent system supposed to be in place to protect those little guys? Not any more, it isn't. The patent system is a pseudo-monopolistic mechanism used by lawyers and large companies to bludgeon away competition from small companies, or to extort from their earnings.

Litigation around patents creates inefficiencies in our economy; these are growing rather exponentially. We are shooting ourselves in the foot with these stupid IP laws. It has to stop, or we're going to lose yet another competitive advantage...

A couple of notes on the Winds of Change comment thread:

1. Note to the Rest of the Planet: Make sure nobody gives Telenko the controls for the spaceship. He seems to think that letting your enemy know that you intend his annihilation and the death of his entire culture, is an excellent tactic in the era of the superempowered angry man. Yeah, right. What we exactly need, in these circumstances, is an open declaration of war against an entire people. Tactically, it's plain stupid. If you're going to kill somebody, you just do it. You don't let'em know it's coming.

2. Gabriel, my SUV comment was simply intended as an observation. I intend no disrespect or arrogance by it, although comments containing those words are often written with that intention. Rather, I simply seek to juxtapose our lifestyle with that of others around the world. Hell, I'm more or less in _favor_ of the nice suburban lifestyle, if that's your thing. It's not mine. I'd like to see the environmental impacts of it lessened, and I'd like to see those SUVs in the driveways be hybrids, but those are attribute problems, not fundamental disagreements with lifestyle. I go out to my suburban friends' houses, and I marvel. ;) My biggest beef with suburbs is, frankly the #$^@%$%@ traffic jams that get created because zoning commissions are bought and paid for by developers...but that's a whole different post. :)

3. Katzman and I have been down this path before (http://old.perfidy.org/comments.php?id=P1231_0_1_0_C), and somehow I suspect this sand will show footprints again.

4. Katzman points out that "We need to understand the agents and actors feeding the mindset", while in the sentences before, indicating that we do NOT need to gain knowledge of the bombers themselves. Give me a break. In any sufficiently complex system, there are relationships between all parts. The agents and actors in this case are both within and without the Palestinian society. It would not surprise me to learn that some of the bombers are not from the territories; that would fit the patterns we see there. Why would we artificially restrict ourselves in analyzing this problem? To formulate strategy against the masterminds, we must understand how their techniques of control apply to those who are vulnerable (bombers). We must understand the sources of that vulnerability. It is all of one system; the interior political, exterior political, interior psychological, and exterior psychological. The men who have most affected history, have effected change that has given us our peaceful lives and the opportunity to have an SUV in the driveway, have been those who were able to avoid conflicts, turn disadvantage to advantage, conduct the most difficult and unpopular diplomacies...and even then, war is at times a necessary failure. We all do well to remember that.

5. The viral, memetic capabilities of Islam's usurpation by power-hungry, theocratical apologists for tribalism have never really been deliberately confronted by an adequate opposing force. Our cultural memes dominate at the levels of personal desire and freedom, the commerce level, and on many others. Why, then, have they been so unsuccessful in defeating or subverting Manji's "Desert Islam" at the spiritual and populist level? Non-religious forces (economics, tradition, pride) are at work in a complex system, defeating our implicit attempts in this area. Social memes represent the _aggregate_ of what we all do, what we all think, all our contacts, formal and informal, with the opposing entity. Within such an intricately related system, butterflies matter...some of our butterflies better not have shiny red buttons. They'll make a mess of the roost.

Just when you think that the light of inquiry still exists in the world, and that rational, probing discussion still holds a place, Katzman at Winds of Blame steps out of his cave bearing his weighty log of truth via blunt force, grunts out dramatic oversimplifications, then shakes his log vigorously for good measure.

A procedural note: I'd appreciate it if you could make an effort to get the name of our blog right; the Ministry of Minor Perfidy is really Buckethead's and Johno's. I'm just an occasional writer. I promise to try and get "Winds Of Change" right from now on.

Where to start? The insults? Nope...I usually try to stay a little bit above that. Although, in the case of the comments on that particular thread, I did fire away at commenter Mary. My specific reason for doing so was in hope that she'd do exactly what she did do: Revert back to a factual discussion. She did so, laid out her position much more crisply, and provided references. "Ah!" I thought to myself, "this is exactly what I'd hoped for." I was not arguing a particular side...Mary's view and my own are actually very close. What I argue against is the ridiculous reductionism that applies to arguments rendered in heated, emotionally involved exchanges.

Katzman, apparently in search of non-existent support for his cowboy attitude, completely ignores the latter half of the comment thread, in which discussion resumed at an intelligible level. I am forced to wonder if he and I are from parellel universes, where dictionaries just don't have the same things written in them.

It has become distressingly apparent to me that I need to work through my meanings from first principles. I offer the following dictionary definitions; my use of the word "understanding" is a use of meaning one (1.), and not meaning four (4.).

con·done ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-dn) tr.v. con·doned, con·don·ing, con·dones

To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure. 

un·der·stand ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ndr-stnd) v. un·der·stood, (-std) un·der·stand·ing, un·der·stands v. tr. 

1. To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of; grasp. See Synonyms at apprehend. 

2. To know thoroughly by close contact or long experience with: That teacher understands children. 

3.1. To grasp or comprehend the meaning intended or expressed by (another): They have trouble with English, but I can understand them. 

3.2. To comprehend the language, sounds, form, or symbols of. 

4. To know and be tolerant or sympathetic toward: I can understand your point of view even though I disagree with it. 

5. To learn indirectly, as by hearsay: I understand his departure was unexpected. 

6. To infer: Am I to understand you are staying the night? 

7. To accept (something) as an agreed fact: It is understood that the fee will be 50 dollars. 

8. To supply or add (words or a meaning, for example) mentally.

When I said "I can objectively understand the factors that lead to an action I do not agree with", I hope my meaning is now less opaque.

Let me be crystal clear. I judge suicide bombers. Over and over you write that I do not judge, in defiance of the plain meaning of the English language. There is no moral ground here that you occupy, and I do not. But while I judge, I also try to gain understanding, meaning one. By understanding, I do not mean empathy. I am somewhat devoid of true empathy, being hundreds of steps removed from the subject, in cultural and economic circumstance.

The difference between us is this: unlike you, Joe, I seek answers that operate at a level deeper than "psychotic death cult", and "Arafat sucks". Those two answers may be entirely accurate, but they are incomplete. "Psychotic death cult" means what, exactly? What sociological causes and effects underlie it? Are there any means of preventing it? Who has done the good thinking on advancing those means? In the comment thread, Mary usefully provides some references informing us on the origins of terrorist thought.

But, you don't want to have that conversation, because your brain shuts off as soon as someone tries to discuss the psychological factors that contributed to terrorism. To engage in the scientific method we must create hypotheses, test them against the facts, then refine and repeat. Part of that process is confronting ugly realities, and either proving or disproving them.

It's a time-honored method that you don't seem to approve of. Perhaps commenter Mary has brought her freshly reasonable fact-based discourse to the wrong place.

I wrote: "So what could push you over the edge? What within your life could happen that would make you a little crazy, make you lose the civilized veneer? What if that happened; a son or daughter lost, and your anger became uncontrollable?"

Armed Liberal tells us, in the comment thread, that "Ross, if I was in that situation only one thing would occupy my thoughts...how do I win."

When I wrote that, was I referring to an Israeli or a Palestinian? AL thought I was writing from the perspective of an Israeli. Others may have thought the opposite.

An Israeli father, losing a daughter to a bomb in a restaurant, may feel (perhaps must feel) that anger...a Palestinian father, losing a son to the IDF response, will feel that same anger.

I think I know what it's about. You don't like all this mushy talk about feelings. I view the emotions in the situation as a barrier to successful resolution; as such, we must understand them and their effects and formulate solutions that deal with them.

There are two sides to every story. I seek an understanding of both sides of this one (once again, in the sense of meaning one, as I must make that clear). When we engage in angry rhetoric, we devalue the meaning of discourse, and make a solution harder. In short, fightin' words tend to make for more fightin' words, and just plain more fightin'.

Reasonable observers will agree that on both sides of this conflict, the last few years and seen substantial entrenchment, mutual dehumanization, and mutual demonization. This is clear deterioration. Ten and five years ago (in fact for as long as I can remember, before that), the Israeli government made a point of apologizing for accidental deaths in the terroritories. It does so no longer. I say this not in a judgmental sense, but simply to note a fundamental shift in viewpoint. Likewise, on the Palestinian side, a similar hardening has taken place, and has been sadly accompanied by increasing tolerance of the religious nutjobs who pretend to make a difference.

When we, as third parties to the situation, fail to exercise ourselves in reasoned discourse and search for truth, we aggravate the situation. We fail in our role as arbitrators. The first rule of arbitration is to gain the confidence and acceptance of the parties involved. This does not mean neutrality, necessarily. It means legitimacy, as perceived by both sides.

With your "there is no truth except my truth, and I am the messenger of truth" rhetoric and insult of ensuing discussion, you need look no further than any brief history of Islam to understand what happens when periods of discussion are closed. This, in my mind, makes you the "enabler". A fair-sized chunk of the dehumanization and resulting violence in the middle east is due to people like you, who actively preach it.

Here's the short version of this whole post, if it all came out wrong:

1. You don't know a damn thing about me and how I view the world. You seem to have gone out of your way to misread and misrepresent what I've written.
2. Dictionaries are helpful.
3. People telling other people not to talk about something is one of my hot buttons.
4. Unlike Joe Katzman, I believe that there is still hope, and an endgame is possible that does not involve thousands more dead and permanent hatred. I think the Israelis and Palestinians are both people who are stuck in a shitty situation. I think the rest of us need to find a way for them to get out of it.
5. Unlike Katzman, I am not a spectator in a Roman Coliseum, cheering my chosen champion's bloody sword...

I trust my position is sufficiently reformulated. It might give you pause the next time you scream "terrorist" at the man next to you, in response to his wrinkled brow, or his expression of confusion about facts. Somehow, I think it will not.

[wik] Katzman comments, inexplicably repeating the misrepresentations of my viewpoint, ever so carefully expounded upon above...I guess that's life in blog-land.

Godless Capitalist slams the Canadian medical system again. That's just too many times today for me to stay quiet.

Dear Godless: Please familiarize yourself a little further with the Canadian health care system. A key statistic is per-capita spending which is around C$3200, or about US$2440. That's for universal health care, year 2000-2001.

In that same year the US health care system spent around $4600. At that figure around 84% of the population was covered (16% had no insurance). Medical insurance rates here have increased tremendously since then (I know; my company has been paying them).

The assertion that a private system _must_ be more efficient is simply erroneous. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

A 2003 study of costs indicated the following (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2DE1F30F932A1575BC0A9659C8B63):

"BOSTON, Aug. 20 -- A comparison of health care costs has found that 31 cents of every dollar spent on health care in the United States pays administrative costs, nearly double the rate in Canada.
Researchers who prepared the comparison said today that the United States wasted more money on health bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to the tens of millions of the uninsured. Americans spend $752 more per person per year than Canadians in administrative costs, investigators from Harvard and the Canadian Institute for Health Information found.
Published: 08 - 21 - 2003 , Late Edition - Final , Section A , Column 6 , Page 23"

Here's the point -- you simply cannot compare the two. They're apples and oranges. The Canadian system has very tight control on costs and yes, this leads to shortages at times. When the pain gets great enough, the population speaks and the purse strings come open.

Note that there are no significant differences between the US and Canada in any health metrics such as length of life and so forth. We're all basically equal.

Canada _could_ elect to dramatically increase its spending on health, by say 20% or 30%. This would still keep its total costs far below those of the US, per capita, but would substantially increase quality of care, and on the average could probably exceed levels of service in the US. Certainly, some might make the argument that there is a moral purpose to doing this.

Note that with health costs contained and handled by the government, Canadian businesses are free to concentrate on what they _should_ be concentrating on: Being efficient providers of services and goods. They don't have to babysit their employees and be "big brother" like US companies are _compelled_ to do.

There are no controls on medical spending in the US. The current system is utterly broken and spiralling out of control. I believe that there are private solutions that can work.

Walmart can help. Walmart can demand of its insurance providers that they agree to insure _anyone_ wherever Walmart has a store. Walmart doesn't pay the tab, of course -- the person getting the insurance does. But that individual is getting Walmart's negotiating power. And I don't mind seeing Walmart take a cut of that money.

Relatively inexpensive catastrophic coverage insurance is one possible solution...

Katzman really does, or doesn't really think about it.

Why is it that any attempt to understand the mindset of these people is automatically labelled pro-terrorist sympathizing? I don't know anything about this particular case, so I am generalizing somewhat.

The first order of business in defeating an enemy is understanding him, and understanding his motivations.

If a man is without hope, full of anger, fueled by religious fire, I can see where suicide bombing is something that would be a consideration. Right now I don't think it's something I could possibly ever do, personally, but I think I understand the objective factors that would lead to it.

Here's what really bothers me about such knee-jerk "you're a terrorist too" responses. We all sit here living with our shiny veneer of civilization, working hard at our information technology jobs, driving our SUVs, and cluck-clucking at the foibles of those crazy foreigners from the televised comfort of our suburban living rooms. If you're someone surrounded by that kind of comfort and you pass judgement on someone else because terrorism is "inconceivable", you're forgetting one thing:

You don't know what you'd do if you were in the same situation. We all want to believe that we wouldn't do it. It's inhuman, it's inconceivable, it's abhorrent. Not a chance.

So what could push you over the edge? What within your life could happen that would make you a little crazy, make you lose the civilized veneer? What if that happened; a son or daughter lost, and your anger became uncontrollable?

From my office, it could never go that far. I just don't think I have it in me. But I'm not going to pass judgement on those who try to understand, when doing so means pretending that I know my true self, when faced with the same situation.

It's not often that you end up calling a widow nasty names. Mel Carnahan was the governor, whose son, Randy Carnahan, was at the pilot in command of a small plan a few years ago that went down. When the accident happened, Carnahan was in the middle of thoroughly trouncing John Ashcroft in an election.

There's a little background on Aero-News Network, if you care to read more. You can also read the complete NTSB brief.

The bottom line is this: Parker-Hannifin makes vacuum pumps. Jean Carnahan sued them, claiming they were responsible for the accident. Her theory was that the vacuum pumps stopped. About a year ago the NTSB (the National Traffic Safety Board) finished its exhaustive review of the accident. Their conclusion? The pilot failed to control to airplane properly, even though he had functioning, backup equipment. Very specifically, they found that the vacuum pumps were operating normally at the time of impact. In other words, the vacuum pumps did not fail. The NTSB can make this determination because they are able to gauge the angular momentum that the pumps have (due to spinning action) at the time of impact. They are very experienced in making these kinds of judgements, and they're not wrong about it.

The funny thing about NTSB reports is that, while they're by far the most authoritative and scientific study of transporition accidents, they're not admissible in court. The jury doesn't get the hear the official scientific opinion of on what happened. They're allowed to hear the ramblings of a trial attorney, who's paid an enormous sum to mislead them. And yes, misleading is exactly what's happened in this case.

Jean Carnahan is fully aware that her son was at fault in the accident. She is also fully aware that Parker-Hannifin's vacuum pumps did not fail in the accident. She pursued the case anyway, and has won a $4 million settlement from the manufacturer, after suing for over $100 million.

Jean Carnahan, you are a bad person. A lot of people are going to lose their livelihoods; these aviation companies are small, and these kinds of things are really hurtful to the industry. But you don't seem to give a shit about them, and it strikes me as pathetic that you honor the memory of your dead husband and son by lying in court for money. You are an example of exactly what is wrong with ethics in this society.

You suck.

The spin the press is putting on the candidates is nothing short of breathtaking...

Edwards is something of a wildcard. Since nobody expected him to get anywhere, the press hasn't created his "alternate press world identity" yet. I am sure they are scrambling at this very minute to come up with the short list of three platitudes that they'll use to define everything about him.

Yeah, the news networks are looping that Dean bit over and over again. Nice. Maybe we can dig up a few of Bush's verbal faux-pas and do the same thing.

Oh, yeah. Not gonna happen, 'cause the press corps doesn't want to endanger their relationship with the White House. What a bunch of pussy-whipped wankers. And I mean that in the general, non-sexist sense. ;)

Dean is a pretty decent guy all around, very much a moderate, but somewhat excitable on the podium. I think his campaign felt that they would make the switch to positive after taking Iowa. Now that hasn't happened, and the situation is just bizarre, for them...on the plus side, they haven't had Gephardt pounding away at them in New Hampshire for the last month.

And all the talk of Dean being "unqualified" is just completely ridiculous. He's dramatically more qualified than Bush ever was (as are all the Democratic candidates), and more qualified than Bush is right now.

We have a good deal of insight into Bush's decision process right now. We used to think he looked like a monkey, and called him Incurious George. Now we know that he has an inner monkey too; the inner monkey lives in his brain, and has a dartboard with little pasted-on names of policies.

Where is the one, single, written piece of evidence of serious policy analysis and thinking, done by this man? Every modern President has an extensive written record...but this one doesn't...won't give interviews...never says _anything_, because if you don't say anything, it can't come back to haunt you.

Brad DeLong highlights a Tom Friedman column that advocates immediately moving into the Israeli-Palestinian situation and forcing Israel's withdrawl.

Let's put a few facts down: First, we spend around $200 Billion and 500 soldier's lives so we can capture Saddam Hussein (there doesn't seem to be any other reason for the war, that was given before the war, that's held up).

Second, we spend aroun $4 Billion a year on aid for Israel, mostly in the form of military aid.

Third, the burn rate for cash in Iraq is around $4 Billion a month.

Fourth, building a Palestinian economy from the ground up would probably cost less than $10 Billion, and it might be a lot less than that. And that's presuming we'd see no long term assets or returns.

Fifth, the primary reason that Palestinians object to the fence is that their economy would be destroyed.

Sixth, the single most significant justification given for Islamic hatred of the US is its support of Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people.

If you add all that up, you realize that instead of throwing all that cash away in Iraq blowing shit up so we can have a theocracy there, we could have forced the creation of the wall between Palestine and Israel, made our aid to Israel contingent on acceptance of our designation of the line's path, and then rebuilt the Palestinian economy by investing an amount equal to the Israeli aid directly behind the wall.

Taking a page from Irshad Manji, we could have used micro-loans to jumpstart the businesses, and we could have specified that fully 50% of those loans must be made to women.

What does all this achieve? It puts significant economic power in the hands of women, which directly counters the stupidest and most pathetically mysoginistic parts of what purports to be Islam in the Palestinian territorires. It gives both sides peace and security. It gives the Palestinians something to do, and a way to feed their families. It will also significantly improve America's standing around the globe, and particularly in Islamic countries.

It strikes me that Bush's Administration has done a magnificently bad job of managing government spending. Republicans can crow all they like about tax rates and so forth; yes, there are a few Americans who are paying significantly less federal tax under this President. Most people's tax burdens are pretty much unchanged. What has changed, dramatically, are the outlays.

Bush's war of choice in Iraq is costing every American taxpayer thousands of dollars, personally. That's right, boys and girls -- what does your chunk of $200 Billion come out to? With around 130 million taxpayers, that adds up to over $1500 each. So while Bush giveth a $300 tax cut to the common man (under duress -- Bush didn't want the $300 credit; he wanted a tax cut for the wealthy), he taketh $1500 for this stupid war. That's what you're going to be paying.

The winner of MoveOn's video contest shows children working in factories to pay off the deficit. It's dead on. Interest payments on the debt currently run around $175 Billion per year. That's going to escalate dramatically over the next ten years. While all this debt is accruing, interest rates are going to begin to rise, making that debt dramatically more expensive to service.

Compound interest is a wonderful thing if you're an investor. If you're a debtor, it really, really sucks.

Riverbend has some critical reading on the subject...what, exactly, does our New Iraq have in store for her?

Let's keep in mind that she's already lost her job because of fundamentalism. What freedom is she going to lose next?

It is not "OK" for the US to allow the religious nutjobs over there to set up any kind of stupid Sharia law system. It is utterly unacceptable to have these alternate, binding courts. Sure, apparently you can use this secondary court system only if there's agreement. Exactly how does that happen? There are all kinds of intimidation that can be brought to bear.

Irshad Manji's recent "The Trouble with Islam" delineates the treatment of Muslim women with distressing detail. Riverbend is becoming a casualty. What good have we done if we simply exchange one oppressor (Hussesin) for another (the anonymous mullah).

The wheels of American Justice, just turn and turn...assuming you can get a trial, of course (the SC has yet to weight in on the issue of whether the government really needs to give you a trial at all).

Somebody please explain to me how Andrew Fastow gets ten years for destroying the financial futures of tens of thousands of people by lying and stealing from the public, while a Young woman gets twelve years for being a "part" of a crime she didn't even know was taking place.

These people stole billions from unsuspecting investors. They lied about the state of their company. It's called fraud. Every single one of them should go to jail for the rest of their lives.

Except there's no room for them in jail: We have to continue to imprison people like this:

Date of birth: 1964
Federal sentence: Life plus 5 years
Offense: Conspiracy to distribute
crack cocaine
Prior convictions: None
Date of sentencing: 1992
Algernon Lundy, a Alabama businessman for 15 years and
a father, had never been in trouble with the law and maintains
his innocence. Prosecutors said his cleaning service business
was a cover for a massive crack distribution ring and that he
was the organizer and his friends Ronald and Alvin were his
deputies. No drugs or cash were found or seized, no specific
drug activity recorded, no controlled buys conducted and no
drug source or drug customers identified. Algernon was convicted
of an 18-month involvement in a crack conspiracy almost
entirely on the testimony of Ronald. The sentencing
judge indicated he was bound by mandatory laws to impose
the life sentence. After the trial, Ronald wrote the judge that
he had been threatened and manipulated into falsely testifying
against Algernon in exchange for a lower sentence. The
courts, however, have ruled that Algernon should remain in
prison for life. Ronald is serving a 20-year sentence; the third
co-defendant remains at large.

What the hell is that? No evidence of any actual drugs? Nothing? And the guy gets MORE time than Fastow? Amazing!

This is exactly what we need more of, Repulicans! A judicial system that makes damn sure a judge doesn't become all "activist" and sentence according to the specifics of a case.

Dean rants a bit about how the Left in this country wouldn't be satisfied if we found thousands of tons of Anthrax. Apparently the discovery of a few old shells with mustard gas in them satisfies him, in terms of "going to war 'cause of WMDs".

Do five seconds of research on the internet on Mustard Gas, and you discover that it isn't a weapon of mass destruction. With a lethality level of around 1% on the battlefield, it just doesn't fit the bill. Of course, if you're a Bush apologist who wants to make a little hay, you pretend it's a WMD.

Whatever.

If Bush had gone in and found those ten thousands tons, he'd have been vindicated. Most of the thinking left would have supported his action. But it didn't happen that way. Exactly where should the Buck Stop?

Daniel Gross covers ground that, I seem to recall, we've covered here before.

Old folks is gettin' older. Payroll taxes is risin'. Income taxes is goin' down.

Why, pray tell, did we give the richest 1% of this country a massive tax cut? Why, they were going to invest it, right?

But we gave them an income tax reduction. Not an investment tax reduction. If they invest the money, long term, they were already getting a different, lower tax rate.

So why did we give a tax break on income that doesn't go to investment?

Beats me.

WSJ responds to some of the Paul O'Neill information...by saying he's just a baby, a big fat ego-driven CEO...unlike the other ego-driven CEO types in the administration.

That was then and this is now. It now turns out Mr. O'Neill has talked nearly daily for the last year with Mr. Suskind, a former reporter for The Wall Street Journal, who has now written a new explosive book on President Bush's first term. Mr. O'Neill also turned over to Mr. Suskind a minute-by-minute accounting of his time in office along with CD-ROMs containing 19,000 pages of documents he took with him from Washington.

Mr. O'Neill may have been a team player during his time in the Nixon and Ford administrations, but his tenure as the successful head of Alcoa, the aluminum company, seems to have instilled in him "CEO disease," the inability for someone who runs a large enterprise to adapt and subordinate a large ego to the interests of a group.

Far from being a truth-teller, Mr. O'Neill comes across in Mr. Suskind's book as a vengeful Lone Ranger, someone bitter because his advice was spurned but who stubbornly chose to stay in the job anyway. "He could have resigned quietly on principle," one White House aide told me. "Instead we had to push him out."

Mr. O'Neill may like to see himself as a contemporary Cyrus Vance, who in 1980 left as Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State over principled disagreements on foreign policy. But instead he resembles Don Regan, the temperamental White House chief of staff who, after President Reagan fired him, went on to write a tell-all book embarrassing his old boss with revelations about Nancy Reagan's fondness for astrologers. The book made Mr. Regan look small and it didn't do much damage to Mr. Reagan's reputation. The same will be true of Mr. O'Neill's poison-pen recollections.

Not one word in their editorial about whether the circumstances he's describing are actually true or not. Dear WSJ: Is Paul lying? Do you care to address the accusations directly?

No, they don't. And neither will any other conservative commentator. Well, maybe Buckethead.

Time Magazine gives us a short look at Pulitzer winner Ron Suskind's upcoming book on the internals of the Bush adminstration. And it's just in time for the election. Paul O'Neill has worked for several Presidents and spent two years inside this one's office...should be worth a read.

He's got 19,000 pages of stuff he brought with him; a minute by minute account of what he did while he was there. I wonder how Bush and friends are going to bury this one...

The Bush economic juggernaut continues to roll right over everyone not directly connected to the GOP gravy train. See this WashPost article for reference.

So what happened last month? All the GDP growth produced...1000 jobs in December. Meanwhile, another 300,000 people stopped looking for work. So while the unemployment rate has "fallen", the far more important employment to population ratio is getting worse and worse.

We'll have to see what happens over the next few months.

Weak holiday hiring by retailers was to blame for holding back job gains. Analysts were surprised by the anemic job growth because they expecting companies to add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs to their payrolls last month. But the net gain was just 1,000 jobs -- which is "quite shocking," Cheney said. "I would certainly have not expected anything resembling that."

Cheney's shocked, huh? What the heck? Maybe the economy isn't quite as simple as tax cut in, standard of living up. Unless you're in that tip-top 1% or so, in which case you can't figure out which BMW or Mercedes you're going to spend your extra cash on (and it will take a lot of extra cash, 'cause the dollar has dropped by 25% versus the Euro).

There's a decided muting to the crowing of GOP cheerleaders...they're all happy about the GDP growth...but where are the jobs?

Oh yeah. They're overseas. And income mobility? Disappearing faster than Powell's "hard evidence" of WMD in Iraq. Raise taxes on the poor, decrease them on the wealthy...what's the effect of that? You prevent regular folks from ever saving up enough money to start their own businesses, and you lock into place the class hierarchy that's becoming increasingly evident in this society.

If you're in Bush's GOP elite, that's precisely what you want. And you're getting it, in spades.

The Terminator's Bond is bullshit. It's one of the most hypocritical things I've ever heard of. On one hand, he's saying low taxes are good and the big government is bad, and on other hand he's saying, fuck it! Let's just pass the problem to the future!

Deal with it now, asshole. Oh, the problem is harder than you thought? There are huge structural problems in California. More deficit financing isn't the answer. Either make the hard choices to cut services, or raise taxes. I don't give a crap about which way you go.