Thief's Den

Saaaaaaaadam was...Comfortably Numb

Inspired by this.

Saddam planned invasion 'on drugs'
From correspondents in Paris
13feb04

OUSTED Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was probably high on drugs when he decided to invade Kuwait in 1990, a former chief of protocol said in a radio interview yesterday.

Issam Rashid Walid, whose book In Saddam's Shadow is due to be released in French in the coming days, [said] "Saddam was heavily into drugs. He began in 1959, with cannabis, and then when he seized power (in 1979), he used heroin at times. He decided to invade Kuwait because he was probably not in his normal state. He was on drugs and drugs made him lose his mind," said Walid.

Comfortably Numb (Saddam Remix)
Original Music & Lyrics by Pink Floyd

Hello?
Is there anybody out there?
Hear me or I will kill you
Is there anyone home?
"Yes, O Leader.
I hear we're in a bind."
We need some money now
Let's invade Kuwait today.
"Relax.
I need some information first.
Just the basic facts,
Tell me, who do you want to hurt?"
There is no pain, we are retreating
The oil wells smoke on the horizon
Infidel missiles come in waves
George Bush talks, but I can't hear what he's sayin'
When I was a child I tried to shoot a general
Had to dig a bullet out of my leg.
Now I got that feeling once again.
I can't explain, you would not understand.
The new Saladin I am.
I have become comfortably numb.

"OK.
We've got Marines closing in [BANG!]
There's gonna be some ...AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
If we don't hightail it out of here
Take your "medicine"
I do believe it's working, sir.
That'll keep you going on the run
Come on, it's time to go."
There is no pain, you are retreating
"American troops are nowhere near Baghdad."
"Al-Qaeda is coming to our aid."
Osama's tapes play but I can't hear what he's sayin'.
When I ran away I lived in a taxi cab,
And grew my beard like ZZ Top
But those fucking infidels came
Though I hid like a little bitch
They found my hole, the dream is gone
I have become comfortably numb

(Thief's lesson for the day...never mix tyranny and prog rock.)

Blogroll Updating, Comment Boxes, Pseudonymity, Life, The Universe, and Everything

If you haven't noticed lately, my blogroll is getting a little bit out of date. (And they took down the Tard Blog! Why? WHY???) So, out with the old, in with the new.

Now, to the major announcement.

In case you haven't noticed, I've opened the comment boxes on Thief's Den.

I originally did not allow comments for three reasons.

Q: Why don’t your comment boxes work?
A: Because I don’t want them to. There are some sites where the comments are mostly intelligent and informed. But the majority of them are just random people saying either “I agree” or “you suck.” I don’t want that to be the case here. For comments, the model that I have come to respect is Steven Den Beste (who is, in the truest sense of the word, one of the main inspirations behind the Den.) Steve doesn’t have a comment bar on his site. You want to comment? You write him, and leave him what you want to say, or simply a link to your blog. Substance rules. It's going to work the same here. You want to comment, you write me. (That and the fact that you people may just blow my cover, and checking each post makes sure that doesn't happen.)

Q: That’s not fair!
A: Life is not fair. Cry me a river, build me a bridge, and get over it!

First, I did not want to have to deal with checking each comment for profanity, bad arguments, spam, spam, spam, spam, general idiocy, spam, spam, spam, and spam...

[MUSIC] Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam LOVELY SPAAAAAAM WONDERFUL SPAAAAAAAAAAM... {whack} [/MUSIC}

Ahem. As I was saying...I didn't want to deal with checking each comment.

The second reason is that most of the blogs that I respected (i.e. This guy, and this guy) did not bother with comment boxes. Of course, I later found out that this is because, to echo Vertical Horizon, "they are Gods and I am not." I've had a grand total of 3 comments. And one of them was mine. Pathetic, no?

Anyway, I figured that if I was going to make the Den the best blog it can be, then I need to let readers talk back to me, if only to challenge my ideas and give me feedback. And most of the comments I've seen on numerous blogs actually had something to say. So I was wrong, the readers were right.

But the third reason still stands. And it is the reason I must ask something out of anyone who wants to comment.

When I first started thinking about blogging, I was looking for a job. Some employers (like the one I have now), don't give a hoot about your politics, they just care that you do a good job. But remember, this is still Washington, DC. Everything is political here. When I started blogging, I kept thinking that having strong beliefs is fine, but what good are beliefs if you can't pay the rent? (Or for that matter, the kneecap-breakers?) Thus, when the Den started, I felt I needed to compartmentalize my blog identity and my real name. Enter "Thief." A Pseudonym.

In hindsight, this was an overreaction, at least as far as job searching goes. Everyone has their politics, and only a real asshole would use his own political beliefs as a basis to cut someone out of a job. At my place of work, I've started to let my politics hang out just a little bit, but never to the point where I force my politics in people's faces. But in the inner temples of the political realm, where the real power is, it's not like that.

Political types, myself included, tend to accept ad hominem fallacies at face value. An explanation:

Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)

Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example,the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

1. ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
2. ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
3. ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

Examples:
You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
We should discount what Premier Klein says about taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad hominem circumstantial)
We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem circumstantial)
You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.

It is precisely for this reason that I blog pseudonymously. I want my ideas to be judged on their own merits, not my merits as a person, and certainly not based on my race, my religion, my political affiliation, my ethnicity, or my past.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Steven Den Beste wrote this:

The other side of the coin is that Demosthenes has made no attempt whatever to prove that he is entitled to wield the moral authority he presumes to, by attempting to advise us as to what we should do. If he is so certain of his position, and if he wants the rest of us to act on what he says, then why does he himself not demonstrate the courage of his own conviction and himself act on what he says? Why does he ask us all to publicly embrace his opinions when he won't do so, and ask us to accept the social consequences he is trying to avoid?

And why should anyone listen to him if he won't?

Demosthenes would, I suspect, respond to that: "Listen to the arguments, not to the arguer." But if the arguments are convincing, then why doesn't the voice who presents them act as if he believes them? If anyone should follow an advocated course of action, surely the person doing the advocating should be first.

In battle, a good officer leads from the front.

I'm not ashamed of what I write. Demosthenes confesses that he is, however, ashamed of what he writes and fears to let those around him know what he really thinks. This affects how readers interpret what each of us says, but not in the same way.

This is, to put it bluntly, wrong. Did Madison, Hamilton, and Jay not believe in what they wrote in the Federalist Papers, published under the pseudonym "Publius?" (In the same vein, did all the other writers on the subject of the proposed Constitution, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, not believe in what they wrote simply because they used pseudonyms as well?) Was George Kenan, a career foreign service diplomat serving in Moscow during the opening days of the Cold War, not "leading from the front" when his groundbreaking work on the new doctrine of containment was published, pseudonymously, in Foreign Affairs as the "X Article?" Were the Chinese democracy activists who posted pseudonymously on the "Democracy Wall" in 1979 ashamed of what they believed? Most certainly not.

The reason why all these authors wrote pseudonymously was that they believed their works were controversial enough already; leaving their real name would have meant that these valuable ideas might have been shot down on the basis of their author's failings (or in the last case, their authors would be silenced.) Though my works are certainly nowhere near as important as what all these people did, I have the same concerns, and others, too. I want my work judged on its own merit, not by my own personal foibles or errors.

One of the things this country needs right now are patriots. I mean, real, honest to goodness people who believe in this country and what it stands for, and who will fight like hell to defend it and the light it brings to the rest of the world. And I'm not just talking about soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines (though they are all important). I'm talking about police officers, sheriff's deputies, detectives Border Patrol agents, Customs inspectors, FBI agents, Coast Guardsmen, DEA agents, ATF agents, and Park Police officers to uphold the law. I'm talking about prosecutors and investigators who will pursue criminals and terrorists as far as the law allows until they all rot in jail. I'm talking about CIA case officers, NSA cryptography wizards, NGA imagery gurus, and of course, analysts, to find out what our enemies are thinking and give us warning enough to stop them. I'm talking about Foreign Service Officers to build up real and lasting alliances between the United States and other nations, not based on convenience or common enemies, but like minds and shared values, And, contrary to what the stereotypes may say, congressional and executive staffers and law clerks to lend their hands and their enthusiasm to our leaders, so they might look beyond the headlines and the polls and pursue wise and just policies. Someday, I hope to join the ranks of organizations like these.

But still, there are those who say that holding strong political views is incompatible with public service, that people with strong opinions are incapable of following the law without passion or prejudice. They may have a point, but more often than not, I believe that the powerful use these criteria to eliminate from consideration anyone but those who will follow orders blindly and always obey their superiors, even when the leaders have gone astray. This may ensure smooth sailing and uncontroversial tenures, but it also sucks the soul out of public service. A leader may be right 99 times out of 100, but is it really healthy for democracy to have that leader backed up by nothing but yes-men who will nod their heads and agree? I would much rather they have followers who will follow rightful orders and yet still posess the courage and strength of character to go before the leaders and tell them, "If this is your order, I will follow it, but I believe you are wrong, and here's why." I don't want the public servants of this nation to laud their leaders the 99 times they are right. I want public servants who will question their leaders the one time in 100 they are wrong.

I can already hear the Bronx cheers out there. "So you're afraid you won't get a job in government. Why should I take you seriously if you won't put your career on the line?"

Because I want you to be able to engage me in conversation, but at the same time I don't want to perpetuate the myth that people must choose between excercising their inalienable rights and serving their fellow man. Pseudonymity allows me to do both. If that means you won't take anything I say seriously, there is very little I can do to change your mind. But what I lose through pseudonymity, I will always try to compensate for with earnestness and sincerity. (Even when I'm being tongue-in-cheek.)

I've met more than a few of you, and every time I've always been impressed by the wit and wisdom you've freely offered me. It would be a most painful thing if I had to choose between my blogging and my quest to become one of this nation's servants. But you are all among the most honorable people I've known, and I trust that my confidence in you is not misplaced. I want you to be able to talk to me, and I want to make Thief's Den a place where reason rules the day, and I want to be left free to contribute more to the world than the occaional insight or joke. So I ask you not to let my secret out.

If The Shoe Fits...

So Education Secretary Rod Paige stirred up a hornet's nest the other day by labeling the National Education Association a "terrorist organization." Of course, the NEA is in high dudgeon, calling Secretary Paige's comments "morally repugnant."

Oh, really?

Terrorism: As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives".

This definition includes three elements:

(1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force.

The National Education Association concealed its use of millions of dollars in tax-exempt teachers' dues and fees for political activities, primarily for Democratic candidates and causes, according to a complaint filed yesterday by the Landmark Legal Foundation.

In its complaint to the Labor Department, the foundation claims the NEA - the country's largest labor union -- did not report to its 2.7 million members tax-exempt revenue it spent to recruit and support candidates running for local, state and federal elective office since at least 1994.

Most of the expenditures were coordinated with the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Party campaign organizations, the AFL-CIO and Emily's List, the nationwide network of political donors helping to elect Democratic pro-choice women, the complaint said.

"The NEA obviously doesn't want America's teachers, parents and taxpayers to know how it is using tax-exempt membership dues and fees," said Mark Levin, the foundation's president. "But federal labor reporting laws require the union to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about its political activities and expenditures."

Mr. Levin said the action violates a federal law that requires labor unions to report their revenues and expenditures annually to the Labor Department. Unions must report their financial activities in enough detail to accurately reflect the union's operations, they say. NEA officials called the complaint "completely baseless."-- Ellen Sorokin, "Complaint: NEA Misusing Funds," Washinton Times, 4 April 2003

...teachers who speak out against any part of the NEA's agenda often find themselves the targets of retaliation. For instance, Cindy Omlin was a speech pathologist at an elementary school in Spokane, Wash., who didn't like what she was reading in the journal of the Washington Education Association (WEA), the state affiliate of the NEA. "I saw what I considered to be an agenda or an ideology that was very much at odds with what I considered to be respectful of human life and human dignity, freedom and what was in the best interest of kids," Omlin recalls to Insight. "Their view of the family concerned me. The way they actively promoted homosexuality as equal to marriage. The way they pushed sexuality education - they tended to push a very broad, contraceptive-based, sexually open lifestyle for kids, and I thought that was harmful. ... I started speaking out against the harmful aspects of the union's agenda.

Omlin and Barbara Amidon, a middle-school counselor in Olympia, Wash., started a newsletter in 1995, the WEA Challenger Network News, which took the union to task for spending member dues on political or social issues. The union immediately subjected them to a grueling 17-month lawsuit on grounds of alleged trademark infringement for using the WEA's name, as well as alleged "tortious interference" with "business expectancy" and "unfair competition." Represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Omlin and Amidon agreed to drop the use of the WEA's name after the union dropped its other demands, Omlin recalls. "When they did originally agree to settle, they said, 'Okay, we'll settle if you take WEA out of your name, but you can't share any of this information about the lawsuit and the settlement with anybody, and you can't criticize the union from here on out,'" Omlin says. "And we said, 'We're sorry, but that basically guts our freedom of speech and our citizenship rights,' and we held out a while longer."

This assuredly is not the only instance in which teachers unions have used strong-arm tactics against dissenting teachers, Bailey says. When he held a town meeting in Florida in the mid-1990s about the alternative AAE, union officials filled the street entrances to the building. "Half an hour before the meeting started, these union leaders lined up out on the sidewalk and just kind of made a gauntlet that teachers would have to walk through," Bailey recalls. "I don't want to make it sound like they were linked in arms and forming a human chain, but people would literally have to face them and walk around them if they wanted to get in."-- John Berlau, "Teachers Discard the Union Label," Insight, 17 September 2003

(2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce.

But there is evidence to suggest that the unions' lobbying power relies more on coercion than on popular support. In 1992, after Washington state voters passed an initiative requiring annual written approval for the political use of dues, the number of teachers willing to contribute to their union's political agenda fell from 45,000 to just 8,000. In Michigan, Public Act 117's requirement that unions get annual consent from workers prior to taking political action committee (PAC) payroll deductions lowered the MEA's PAC contributions from over $2.5 million to $1.9 million in 1998.

Another problem with forced union membership is that it unequivocally denies workers' freedoms. "Nearly 80 percent of Americans understand that it's just plain wrong to force someone to pay tribute to an unwanted union in order to get or keep a job," says Larson. "[But] few understand the far-reaching consequences of government-authorized forced unionism." Unbelievably, the law contributes to the stronghold of the labor union machines by granting them the power to not only collect billions of dollars every year through forced dues or fees, but also to terminate workers who refuse to contribute to the unions' political agenda.

-- Mackinac Center for Public Policy, "Forced Unionization is Wrong For Teachers, 2001-2002 Michigan Education Report

(3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives.
Selected Resolutions Passed by the NEA's 2003 Annual Convention:

A-11. Use of Closed Public School Buildings. The Association believes that closed public school buildings should be sold or leased only to those organizations that do not provide direct educational services to students and/or are not in direct competition with public schools.

A-14. Financial Support of Public Education. Tax revision favorable to public education should be encouraged and continually reviewed at every governmental level. Funds must be provided for programs to alleviate race, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination and to eliminate portrayal of race, gender, and sexual orientation stereotypes in the public schools. The Association opposes providing any public revenues to sectarian pre-K through 12 schools.

A-24. Voucher Plans and Tuition Tax Credits. The National Education Association believes that voucher plans, tuition tax credits, or other funding arrangements that use tax monies to subsidize pre-K through 12 private school education can undermine public education, reduce the support needed to fund public education adequately, weaken the wall of separation between church and state, and cause racial, economic, and social segregation of students. The Association opposes voucher plans, tuition tax credits, or other such funding arrangements that pay for students to attend sectarian schools.

A-31. Federally or State-Mandated Choice/Parental Option Plans. The National Education Association believes that [these] plans compromise free, equitable, universal, and quality public education for every student. Therefore, the Association opposes such federally or state-mandated choice or parental option plans.

B-8. Racial Diversity Within Student Populations. The Association believes that to achieve or maintain racial diversity, it may be necessary for elementary/secondary schools, colleges, and universities to take race into account in making decisions as to student admissions, assignments, and/or transfers.

B-17. Education of Refugee Children and Children of Undocumented Immigrants. The National Education Association believes that, regardless of the immigration status of students or their parents, every student has the right to a free public education in an environment free from harassment.

B-31. Multicultural Education. The National Education Association believes that multiculturalism is the process of valuing differences and incorporating the values identified into behavior for the goal of achieving the common good. Multi-cultural education should promote the recognition of individual and group differences and similarities in order to reduce racism, homophobia, ethnic and all other forms of prejudice and to develop self-esteem as well as respect for others.

B-43. Environmental Education. The Association supports educational programs that promote -
-- An awareness of the effects of past, present, and future population growth patterns on world civilization, human survival, and the environment
--Solutions to such problems as pollution, global warming, ozone depletion, and acid precipitation and deposition
--The recognition of and participation in such activities as Earth Day

B-49. Education on Peace and International Understanding. The National Education Association believes that educational strategies for teaching peace and justice issues should include the role of individuals, social movements, international and nongovernmental organizations. The Association also believes that educational materials should include activities dealing with the effects of nuclear weaponry and other weapons of mass destruction, strategies for disarmament, and methods to achieve peace. Such materials should also cover major contributing factors to conflict, such as economic disparity, demographic variables, unequal political power and resource distribution, and the indebtedness of the developing world.

B-57. Standardized Testing of Students. The National Education Association believes that standardized tests should only be used to improve the quality of education and instruction for students. The Association opposes the use of standardized tests when —
--Used as the criterion for the reduction or withholding of any educational funding
--Results are used to compare students, teachers, programs, schools, communities, and states.

B-69. Home Schooling. The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience. When home schooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state requirements. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used. The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.

H-7. National Health Care Policy. The National Education Association believes that affordable, comprehensive health care, including prescription drug coverage, is the right of every resident. The Association supports the adoption of a single-payer health care plan for all residents of the United States, its territories, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
I-1. Peace and International Relations. The Association urges all nations to develop treaties and disarmament agreements that reduce the possibility of war. The Association also believes that such treaties and agreements should prevent the placement of weapons in outer space. The Association further believes that the United Nations (UN) furthers world peace and promotes the rights of all people by preventing war, racism, and genocide. The Association supports the U.S. Institute of Peace, which provides publications, information, programs, training, and research data in developing peacemaking and conflict resolution skills.

I-12. Family Planning. The National Education Association supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom. The Association also urges the implementation of community-operated, school-based family planning clinics that will provide intensive counseling by trained personnel.

I-26. Freedom of Religion. The Association opposes any federal legislation or mandate that would require school districts to schedule a moment of silence.

I-27. Gun-free Schools and the Regulation of Deadly Weapons. The Association believes that strict proscriptive regulations are necessary for the manufacture, importation, distribution, sale and resale of handguns and ammunition magazines. A mandatory background check and a mandatory waiting period should occur prior to the sale of all firearms.

I-47. English as the Official Language. The Association believes that efforts to legislate English as the official language disregard cultural pluralism; deprive those in need of education, social services, and employment; and must be challenged/

To the NEA, the teachers unions, and the assortment of moonbats, bureaucrats and thugs who are single-handedly turning American public education into a laughing stock (and would have done the same to my own education were it not for the dedication of my parents), I only have this to say:

IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT.

Uhhh... Senator? WTF?

OK...What is Senator Edwards doing?

A. Impression of a Spitting Cobra
B. Googly eyes at that lady's off-camera baby
C. Saying "SHIT! You're voting for Kerry?" (ThiefDad's suggestion. "He does look like he's saying the word 'shit.'")
D. Belching Contest

Further suggestions welcome...

(OK, that and...why couldn't I find this photo anywhere on WashingtonPost.com? Thankfully, for your viewing pleasure, the Newseum maintains an archive of 262 newspaper front pages.)

Sic Semper Tyrannis

One Hand Clapping found this beautiful gem about my (adopted) home state:

After his death, Osama bin Laden tried to enter heaven, but he was greeted at the gate by George Washington, who pummeled him across the face and yelled at him, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"

Patrick Henry approached and punched Osama in the nose and shouted,"You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."

James Madison entered, kicked Osama in the groin and said,"This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"

Thomas Jefferson came in and proceeded to beat Osama many times with a long cane and said, "It was evil men like you that provided me the inspiration to pen the Declaration of Independence!".

These beatings and thrashings continued as John Rudolph, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans came in and unleashed their anger on the Muslim terrorist leader.

As Osama lay bleeding and writhing in unbearable pain an Angel appeared. Bin Laden wept in pain and said to the Angel, "This is not what you promised me."

The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in heaven. What did you think I said?"

Between this joke, and the most kick-ass state flag in the country (Only state flag to show a murdered guy (a tyrant), and only one with a Goddess pulling a Janet Jackson), I must say that the Old Dominion, like Texas, is also not to be messed with.

Or you get stabbed in the heart by an angry goddess.

Goodbye Howard Dean

And so, it ends.

From BlackFive and Friends: (with a few changes by yours truly)

Goodbye Howard Dean
(Sung to the Tune of "Goodbye Norma Jean" by Elton John)
(Words by Blackfive, Matt-Bro, Klingon Scum, and Steven Macklin)
(Arranged by Thief)

Goodbye Howard Dean
Never winning a state at all
Screamed like you were on fire
Your campaign began to stall
That Iowa implosion
When it whispered into your brain
You thought it was inconceivable
That you'd lose a campaign

And it seems to me your campaign ran
Like a candle in the wind
Always changing the issue to cling to
When the polls came in
And I wouldn't vote for you even
Before you blew your lid
Your campaign burned out long before
Your "Yeeeeeeaagh!" ever did.

Humility was tough
The toughest role you ever played
Blogs made you a superstar
Your campaign was the price we paid
Even when you lied
Oh the press still fellated you
All the papers had to say
Was that your Scream was rude

And it seems to me you lived off strife
But you couldn't notch a win
Never knowing who to cling to
When the polls came in...
And I would've liked to have phoned you
And heard you end your bid...
Your campaign burned out long before
Your "Yeeeeeaaaagh!" ever did

Goodbye Howard Dean
We knew you too well after all
Goodbye Howard Dean
From a young man in the 22nd poll
Who sees you as something more than metrosexual
More than just a political whore

And it seems to me your campaign ran
Like a candle in the wind
Always changing the issue to cling to
When the polls came in
And I wouldn't vote for you even
Before you blew your lid
Your campaign burned out long before
Your "Yeeeaaaaaaagh!" ever did

Dean for Americans Version here...

There's a Moral to This Story...

From CNN, a case of fraud gone wrong.

The boy was 16 in early January when he ordered the 12-cylinder 2004 BMW 760Li with "black sapphire metallic" paint and a heated steering wheel and seats. He told Midwestern Auto Group that his bank would confirm the wire transfer, authorities said.

After completing and returning paperwork that was mailed to his home, the teen called the dealership pretending to be a banker confirming the transfer, police said.

The car was delivered to him at Dickinson High School on January 27, two weeks after the boy turned 17, police said.

That same day, he ordered a second car. But when Midwestern Auto Group learned that the first payment was never made, the dealership contacted police.

The boy was arrested at his Jersey City home late last month.

Police said the teen was not hard to find. "He did use his correct name, as far as I know," Davis said.

The teen is charged with theft by deception and was no longer in custody, Sgt. Edgar Martinez said. Authorities did not release the boy's name because he is a juvenile.

Moral of the Story (credit to Aesop): When things are going well, don't spoil them by being greedy.

Kerry's Other "F-Bomb"

as in FONDA. Jane "Hanoi Jane" Fonda.

Snopes.com confirms that the photo is more than likely genuine..

Corbis Photo from the Washington Times. Photo w/ Arrow via Newsmax.com

So the Dems think that Kerry's Vietnam Service gives him an in over Bush's Guard Service (especially with the 'deserter' meme floating around the Internet)? Once the buzz about this photo, not to mention things like Kerry's testimony before the Foriegn Relations Committee in 1970, the "Winter Soldier Investigation," his false accustations of drug abuse, rape, murder, and wanton destruction leveled at his fellow veterans without a shred of evidence, and of course, the infamous medal incident, shows up in the mainstream media, Kerry's supposed advantage over Bush in terms of war experience will dissapear faster than Dean's front-runner status. Because the only thing a Vietnam veteran hates more than someone who tried to avoid Vietnam... is Jane Fonda.

Believe me. My Dad's a Vietnam veteran. He sung me a "Fuck You Jane Fonda" song when I was 12. (I have since forgotten the words... but it was the most profanity I've ever heard packed into one sentence.) One of his bosses in the Air Force, a 2-Star General, was a former guest at the "Hanoi Hilton." The contempt in his voice, and among all of his military friends of that era, is incredibly thick. And I know they are not the only ones.

This is going to be one of those little things, like Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond, or Howell Raines and the Fall of the New York Times, that is going to take a while to grow. But it will grow, slowly but surely, until it grows so large the media cannot help reporting on it. The blogosphere will see to it. Call it a "memetic time bomb."

As I said with Gen. Clark: Welcome to the campaign trail, Sen. Kerry. Incoming fire has the right of way.

UPDATE: Best of the Web Today put it thusly:

So in 1971 Kerry's view was that American servicemen in Vietnam were murderers. In 1992, they were no better or worse than anyone else. Today he proudly claims the mantle of war hero.

Kerry was only 27 when he testified before the Foreign Relations Committee, but he was already active in politics, having waged an unsuccessful campaign for Congress. His views might well have changed in the intervening years as he matured. But at the very least, someone who wishes to be commander in chief in a time of war owes the country an explanation of how and why his views have changed.

Harvard Likes Pr0n!

Check this:

After flipping through the pages of Squirm, a Vassar College erotica magazine, the Committee on College Life (CCL) voted to approve a student-run magazine that will feature nude pictures of Harvard undergraduates and articles about sexual issues at its meeting yesterday. Fourteen members of the CCL approved H Bomb -- a magazine that will be similar to the Vassar publication -- as an official Harvard publication. Two members abstained.

In early December, Katharina C. Baldegg '06 and Camilla A. Hrdy '05, the two students who proposed the magazine, met with McLoughlin to begin the approval process for H Bomb.

Baldegg said that she did not think the process was especially difficult. CCL, which is composed of students, faculty and administrators, approves the creation of all new student groups, including publications.

"I don't think we faced any opposition. People have been very open about it," she said.

Hrdy said that "initially there was some concern about the nudity aspect," but that CCL members eventually "got past the fear of porn."

Baldegg added that she does not object to H Bomb being called porn.

"It's a sex magazine that will hopefully be run by students of all sexual orientations and backgrounds," Baldegg said. Baldegg said she expected the magazine, which will also include art and fiction articles, to garner a lot of attention.

"I guess student porn is sort of an underground thing," she said.

Only students of the College will be posing for the magazine's photographs and they will all be 18 or older, Baldegg said.

Given the snobbery, self-centeredness, rampant political correctness, and the general state of academic cranio-rectal inversion of Harvard students, might I suggest an, ahem...alternate title?

How about...

HARVARD CAN FUCK ITSELF.

Reactions to George Tenet's Speech on WMD's

(All quotes are from my hastily scribbled real-time notes or from memory.) [UPDATE: All quotes have now been checked and corrected against the CNN transcript..]

1. I picked up on something in Tenet's tone of voice; I don't know if it was anger or frustration or exasperation. But he clearly sounded as though he was fed up with something. He made several disparaging references to pundits and how "they don't know what they're talking about," both with regards to knowing about Iraq's WMD's and with regard to our human intelligence capabilities.

2. Tenet also made it very clear what intelligence is and isn't; in his words, "Intelligence deals with the unclear, the unknown, the deliberately hidden." In his view, the point of collecting intelligence about Iraq was not to prove an imminent threat, for in intelligence one is "neither completely right nor completely wrong." The point of collecting intelligence on Iraq was to eliminate the risk of surprise. "Did the strands of information weave into a perfect picture? Could they answer every question? No, far from it. But taken together, this information provided a solid basis on which to estimate whether Iraq did or did not have weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. It is important to underline the word estimate because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof. (Recall that the origins of the CIA and the Intelligence community lay in the intelligence failure that led to Pearl Harbor in 1941, a textbook case of strategic surprise.) Tenet seemed to imply that this overreaction was acceptable given our rude awakening about the state of Iraqi WMD in 1991 after the First Gulf War.

3. Tenet made frequent mention of debates that occurred during the analysis process among the 14 different agencies that make up the intelligence community. Some analysts saw things different from others, which is only natural. All of these debates and positions were included in the analysis products, including the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. "Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the estimate. They never said there was an imminent threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to decieve and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. No one told us what to say or when to say it."

4. Another point Tenet hammered home repeatedly was that the intelligence community and its analysts would have to have been ignorant in order to believe that Iraq did not have or was not seeking WMD. "To conclude before the war that Saddam had no interest in rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction programs, we would have had to ignore his long and brutat history of using them... To conclude before the war that Saddaam had destroyed his existing weapons, we would have had to ignore what the United Nations and allied intelligence said they could not verify... And to come to conclusions before the war other than those we reached, we would have had to ignore all the intelligence gathered from multiple sources after 1998." Tenet even said that the UN inspection work was the "baseline" for most of the CIA's work, despite Saddam's known "cheat and retreat" tactics),

5. Tenet also discussed human intelligence, something which he said was being unfairly criticized. "The blatant indictment of our human intelligence is dead wrong." Tenet said that he has been intimately involved in rebuilding our clandestine service over the last five years, and that the Clandestine Service academy is now graduating more recruits than ever before. Although Tenet said the process would take another five years, he pointed to the successes of human sources in the captures of Al-Qaeda terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Nashiri, the Al Qaeda operative who planned the bombing of the USS Cole, and Hanbali, the mastermind of the Bali bombing in Indonesia.

6. There was also reference to two other U.S. intelligence successes. With regards to Libya, Tenet noted that "only through intelligence did we know each of the major programs Libya had going. Only through intelligence did we knww when Libya started its first nuclear weapons programs and then put it on the back burner for years. Only through intelligence did we know when the nuclear program took off again. We knew because we had penetrated Libya's foriegn supplier network. And through intelligence lat fall, when Libya was to recieve a supply of centrifuge parts, we worked with the foriegn partners to locate and stop that shipment. Intelligence also knew that Libya was working with North Korea to get longer-range ballistic missiles." Libya actually went to the CIA and the British MI6 to open negotiations, according to Tenet, "because they knew we could keep a secret;" Tenet even noted that for a long while several CIA officers conducting these negotiations were the only American presence in Libya. Tenet even recounted that "when the Libyans said they would show us their SCUD-Bs [missiles], we said, Fine. We want to exame your longer range SCUD-C's." (One word: OWNED.) The other major success Tenet cited was a major blow to a "private proliferation" network he informed Congress about a year ago; essentially, freelance "nuclear brokers" selling nuclear technology and know-how to the highest bidder. It turns out that the leader of this ring was none other but Abdul Qadeer Khan, the former chief of Pakistan's nuclear program. Thanks to our intelligence, Tenet noted, "Khan and his network have been dealt a crushing blow and several of his senior officers are now in custody. Malaysian authorities have shut down one of the network's largest plants...we pieced together the picture of the network, revealing its subsidiaries, its scientists, its finances and manufacturing plants on three continents." Tenet also cited successes in Iran and North Korea, but did not go into great detail.

7. A few Georgetown students asked rather tendentious questions. Mr. Tenet promptly schooled them. One asked why other foreign intelligence services "were not able to reflect the same judgement call and make similar decisions?." "Well, I'd say you're incorrect about that, because none of the countries and allied services we were working with in the time saw this any differently," said Tenet, citing intelligence from British, European, and Middle Eastern intelligence services. Tenet also made a very salient point: "Just as we build military coalitions and diplomatic coalitions, there is a coaltion of intelligence services with like-minded intersts around the world who are tying to get to the truth." Reminded me of one of Rumsfeld's best quotes, "If you're looking at the same sheet of music, you tend to sing the same tune."

8. Another student referred to Mr. Tenet's role a few years ago under Clinton in negotiation an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, and asked if our efforts to isolate Arafat had really solved the problem and made us safer. Tenet said "First, I'm glad I'm no longer involved in this issue and I'm never really excited to speak about policy." (Go back and re-read that. That statement alone single-handedly boosted Mr. Tenet's credibility with me enormously. Why? Intelligence is intelligence, and policy is policy, "and never the twain shall meet." The fact that Tenet did not like doing policy stuff is a good sign.) Tenet said that in order for there to be negotiations, people had to come together with common objectives, otherwise it's not going to work. "Unless we get a commitment to stop terrorism and to seriously talk about not just the aspirations of the Palestinian people, but the security of the Israeli people in a way where we have two parties firmly committed to a common objective, we're not going to get anywhere."

9. One especially smug student, quoting a Mother Jones article, gave a song and dance about the Office of Special Programs (a unit in the Pentagon created before the Iraq war), called it a group of "Prominent neoconservatives with direct ties to Dick Cheney and members of the adminstration," which had "a clear political agenda, to have influenced people in the intelligence community, and defintely used 'gross intelligence' to promote their cause." He asked, "Can you confirm or deny the esitence of such a Pentagon group? And if so, how can we prevent small ideological groups from influencing intelligence estimates?" Tenet's response, (and it was good): "I haven't read Mother Jones in a while. But I will say this. I'm the Director of Central Intelligence. The President of the United States sees me six days a week, every day. I tell him what the American Intelligence community believes... I can tell you with certainty that the President of the United States gets his intelligence from one person and one community: me. And he has told me firmly and directly that he's wanted it straight and he's wanted it honest and he's never wanted the facts shaded/ And that's what we do every day. The rest of it, I don't know.. (Applause.)

10. Best line of the speech: Question from a Georgetown student about Malaysian involvement with Dr. Khan. Answer: "I said in my statement that the Malaysian government has closed the facility. That's about as far as I can go here today in the open. You want to take another question? You might get a better answer." Guy asks another question about the involvement of Dr. Tabhir, whoever he is. [Transcript says "Dr. Todd here," but I know what I heard.] Tenet's response: "See, you're 0 for 2 and a walk. Let's go."

11. Finally, Tenet went to great lengths to defend the integrity of the U.S. intelligence community. Quotes:
On Intel in general: "We will always call it as we see it. Our professional ethic demands no less...We fear no fact or finding, whether it bears us out or not."
On the current intelligence inquiries: "When the truth emerges, we will report it to the American people, no matter what."
On responding to the critics: "We have a record and a story to tell, and we want to tell it to those who are willing to listen."
On the Intelligence Community's job: "Our analysts, at the end of the day, have a duty to inform and warn, and they did so honestly and with integrity when making judgements about the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein."
And most important, his closing line: "At no time will we allow our willingness to make tough calls to be questioned."

Bottom Line: The CIA is an independent agency that tells policymakers the best truth possible in an unclear and uncertain world, without bias or prejudice, without ever minimizing or dismissing any point of debate. We did this with respect to Iraq. The critics are full of it.

P.S. I overheard that some students were going to try to heckle Tenet as he gave his speech. Fortunately, these moonbats had also heckled Wolfowitz some months before, and so Georgetown's police made sure they didn't get the chance (i.e. did not allow them into the auditorium.) Nice try, dumbasses.

Comments now open. And pictures will follow shortly.

UPDATE 2-5-03 2:15 PM: Picture is finally here. (For all you intel people, this is called a 'bona fide.')

I also repent of my earlier criticism of Mr. Tenet. He may be a Clinton appointee, but if what he said about Human Intelligence reform, the difference between intelligence and policy, and the absolute need for integrity in the Intelligence Community is really true, then maybe he does deserve the job after all.

UPDATE 2-5-03 4:00 PM: Winds of Change got the full transcript. I will be redoing his quotes from the transcript shortly.

UPDATE 2-5-03 7:00 PM. Post checked and corrected against transcript.

Front-Row seats.

George Tenet will speak tomorrow on Intelligence, WMDs, the war on Iraq, and many other topics.

And I managed to get a ticket. (I know a dude who knows a dude. That's all I can say.)

I plan to take notes during the speech, and I will blog my report as soon as it lets out.

The Illiberal 9th Circuit

A while ago, Steven Den Beste had this to say on a disturbing news item from Denmark:

Mrs Antonsen, a member of the Danish Parliament for the ruling Liberal party, argues that representative democracy is just as democratic as referenda. "Referenda are in fact pure gambling. There is no guarantee of a positive outcome, unfortunately".

Think about what she's saying here. These questions are far too important to trust to the voters to decide. We cannot do what we need if we consult them in order to find out what they really want.
"There's no guarantee of a positive outcome." You should never hold a referendum unless you can be sure ahead of time that it will result in approval.
You should not consult the people and actually let them decide because they might choose the wrong answer. The purpose of elections is to permit the people to rubber-stamp what their rulers have already decided, thus making the people feel as if they participated in the decision – even though they didn't really.

Ms. Antonsen is referred to as a "Liberal", but her opinion sharply diverges from what has traditionally been known as "liberal democracy". It is yet another demonstration of the way that modern "Liberals" are deeply illiberal.

Only in Europe, you say? Hardly. Howard Bashman at How Appealing recently conducted his "20 Questions" interview with Judge Steven Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Reinhardt is universally recognized as the most "liberal" judge on the very liberal 9th Circuit. Not only did he participate in the infamous Newdow case holding the Pledge of Allegiance's reference to God unconstitutional, he holds the record for having the most reversals by per curiam decisions of the Supreme Court of any Circuit Judge.

But get a load of this. I've put the good part of the answer in bold.

11. Should federal judges ever consider the likely public reaction to their rulings when determining what decision to render in a case?

It is plainly not the job of a federal judge to consider the likely public reactions to his decisions. We are required to resolve cases and controversies properly brought before us in accordance with the Constitution, relevant statutes, and precedents. We are often called upon to defend rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution, and to provide protection against public passion or popular will, particularly when those rights are being exercised by unpopular individuals or groups. Indeed, the Bill of Rights was designed to protect unpopular minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Allowing ourselves to be influenced by what an unhappy majority might say would constitute a violation of our duties as federal judges. I would exclude from this, of course, those cases in which we are required as a matter of law to examine public attitudes. The Eighth Amendment cases provide one example. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 312-14 (2002).

(A bit of legal backstory: Atkins v. Virginia was the Supreme Court case holding that the mentally retarded cannot be put to death for murder, citing a "consensus" against the practice established on a very thin reed: a few amicus briefs (including one by the European Union!) and some polls.)

Listen to what Reinhardt is really saying. We cannot, as a matter of law, care what the majority thinks of our decisions, and we won't take it into consideration. Unless the majority agrees with us. In which case, we'll be happy to care.

Or as Moshe Dayan said: "Whenever you accept our views, we shall be in full agreement with you."

Let's not even deal with the question of what constitutes a "majority" in terms of public opinion. (I think Den Beste nailed that one, too.) Judge Reinhardt, like Ms. Antonsen, fundamentally distrusts majority rule. And there is good reason for that; majority rule has led to numerous abuses in the past, I will grant that. But if the unwashed masses happen to hold the same opinions as these elites do, then they're happy to invoke the principle of majority rule, and all is forgiven.

And invoking a rule only when it fits your pre-conceived notion or personal bias is not called the rule of law. It is called hypocrisy.

WarGames

No, not the classic 1983 movie with Matthew Broderick and Allie Sheedy...

This is what's been keeping me up all day.

It's called President Forever. It's an election simulator. And it's very detailed, and very realistic. I'm talking barnstorming, spinning news story, policy speeches, recruiting footsoldiers, advertising, endorsements, the works. If you're a politics junkie like me, the hell with WarCraft and Everquest and Grand Theft Auto. You're playing this. (It does cost $12, but it is well worth the price!)

And so, I've been wargaming the upcoming election using its extremely customizeable interface. (I've had to make some modifications, though, such as increasing George Bush's campaign chest to $200 million, and upping his debating skill...I mean, he did trounce Gore in all three debates in 2000. Likewise, I've made similar changes on the Democratic side, such as giving them boosts in Charisma and upping their warchest to between $150 and $180 million, which in reality will depend on how vicious the primary fight gets and how quickly the DNC can start fundraising after the nomination is locked up. No matter how much they try, though, they will not reach parity with the DNC. )

So after a few games of trying to figure out the interface, I've done five simulations between a relatively even Bush/Cheney ticket for the Republicans, and two different Democratic tickets: Kerry/Edwards and Kerry/Dean (Edwards will be Kerry's preferred VP, as he can get him inroads in the south and give him a much needed boost of Charisma. If the primary season drags out, and Dean is still able to keep drawing delegates away from Kerry by strong 2nd place finishes, though, Dean will get the VP slot as the Dems will figure it's the quickest way to heal the split within the party.)

Out of the five simulations, Bush/Cheney won all five. (Three vs. Kerry/Edwards (KE) and two vs. Kerry/Dean (KD).)

Here's the result breakdowns, in order from closest to most lopsided.

1. Vs. KE - 277/538 electoral votes, 46% of vote
2. Vs. KE - 289/538, 47%
3. Vs. KD - 294/538, 48%
4. Vs. KD - 392/538, 51%
5. Vs. KE - 413/538, 54%

Based on my limited data sets, there are two things Bush must do in order to keep things from being close (or even losing).

1. He MUST win a majority of the debates, if not all of them. Winning debates gives you incredible national momentum. Gaffes in debates are bad news.

2. He MUST be competive, or preferably win, in California. If he wins, the 55 electoral votes will provide enough of a cushion to assure him victory. But if he can keep the vote within 5%, he can force the Dems to expend resources in CA to keep from getting ahead elsewhere. (Yes, I know what George Will had to say on the subject.) But if Bush's amnesty proposal attracts a good chunk of the Hispanic vote, and if Schwarzenegger keeps kicking ass in Sacramento and solving the budget mess, it could be done. (On this last point, I write this as I watch Conan the Barbarian on TNT.) Failing in California, Bush must win at least three of the following states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michigan.

Bottom line (A.K.A. "The Brutal B:") Things are looking up for Bush, but it's going to be a hard fight. If he opens up with both barrels like he did for Congressional Republicans in 2002, he will win. How much he will win will depend on how many mistakes Kerry et. al. makes. As Sun Tzu says, "Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in one's opponent."

I'm even going to break my own rule and allow y'alls to post comments on this thread. Let me know what modifications you make to make things more realistic, what simulations you run, what your results are, and most importantly, what works and does not work for each ticket.

UPDATE 2/3/02 1:00 PM: Just ran another vs. Kerry/Dean. Added in a Nader Green Party ticket for giggles. Results: 387/538 Electoral votes, 53% of popular vote.
Let me add a state-by-state breakdown of this sim:
Bush: NH, RI, PA, WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL,AL, MS, LA, AR, MO, KY, IN, MI, WI, MN, IA, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, NM, AZ, UT, CO, WY, MT, ID, WA, NV, CA, AK
Kerry: ME, VT, MA, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, DC, OH, TN, IL, OR, HI.

Dumping a good chunk of my resources in California probably cost me Ohio and Tenessee. But 55 is still more than 31 (55 for California, versus 20 for Ohio plus 11 for Tennesee), so I still came up ahead. Add to that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Washington state, and it was no contest. (Also, Nader ended up with 14% of the popular vote in Ohio. Don't ask me how.)

I'm going to start wargaming playing as Kerry next. We'll see what happens.

UPDATE 2-3-02 6:30 PM. Well, as it turns out, my first time playing as Kerry/Dean against Bush/Cheney did not turn out so well. Result: Kerry Loss (Bush 368/570 electoral votes, Kerry 170/570.)
State by State:
Kerry: VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, PA, FL, OR, CA.
Bush: Everything else.

Problems:
1. Kerry had a debating skill of 4, even with Bush's. Problem is, I let Kerry's debate skills slide (too much campaigning). Bush trounced me in all three debates. Bye Bye Momentum.

2. Dean added nothing to the ticket except a bit of a leadership boost. If Kerry wants to go beyond his Northeast/Rust Belt/West Coast base, he will need to get Edwards.

3. I figured if Bush/Cheney could pull a California gambit, I could try a Southern gambit (i.e. FL, AR, VA). Big mistake. Won Florida. Lost everything else, plus what should be solidly Democratic territory (NJ, MD, IL, and HI.) Maybe it would have worked if Edwards was the running mate. I'll try that next.

4. Since I wanted to simulate the palpable hatred the Democrats have for Bush, all my ads were attack ads. Horrible, horrible mistake. 2/3 of them backfired and got me negative press. I also played the ads too conservatively, concentrating only on the marginal states to pick up votes, neglecting my base states. I had about 1/3 of my warchest left over at the end.

Lessons:
1. Do not underestimate Bush in debates.
2. Dean is bad news.
3. Stay the hell out of the South. (Maybe Edwards can go where Kerry can't.)
4. Negative ads = DOOM!!! (Did you hear that, Moveon.org? Or shall I turn it up for you?)

Of course, not like the Dems don't know these things already (though I do not discount the possibility of willful ignorance). I'll see how the next one goes.

UPDATE 2-4-03 2:00 AM: Tried Kerry/Edwards against Bush/Cheney. Still lost (248/538 votes) but getting better. Stayed positive, even won a debate. But, close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons. Southern strategy fared better (Edwards?). Managed to hold on to West Virginia, Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the West Coast. If only Bush hadn't gotten to Ohio and Pennsylvania first. Closed the window before I could do the state-by-state, though. I guess that means it's bedtime.