« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

October 28, 2005

What Wilson didn't find in Africa

As Fitzgerald continues to investigate why Plame's identity was leaked by Libby and others, here is the original article written by Joseph Wilson as a reminder:

Joseph Wilson (July 6, 2003) Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 3:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Quote of the day

"Truth is the engine of our Justice system."
- Patrick Fitzgerald

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 3:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Grinches who stole Halloween

The Left is often criticized for being overly PC when it comes to matters of race, sexuality, and gender. While a certain amount of political correctness keeps bigotry in check, I agree that our PC-obsessed culture has gotten a bit out of control. But the problem comes from both liberals and conservatives, atheists and evangelicals. For example, from Boston.com:

NEWTON -- When students at Underwood Elementary School walk to their classrooms on Monday, there will be no witches, SpongeBob SquarePants, or Johnny Damons there to greet them. No skeleton paintings or Frankenstein tattoos, either.

The school's principal said yesterday he acceded to the complaints of a handful of parents who said that because the school's traditional Halloween celebrations offended their religious beliefs, they would not send their children to school if the revelry continued this year.

''Not everyone is going to agree with the decision, and I really understand that," said principal David Castelline, , who last year grew a beard and dressed up as Johnny Damon. ''But I felt the goal was really important to make it a respectful and open and welcoming place for all members of our community."

Instead of the traditional Halloween celebration with sacriligious devil and ghost costumes, the school plans to hold a ''celebration of fall". Later in the year, the school plans a costume celebration in which teachers and perhaps students will be encouraged to dress as their favorite literary characters.

I know this is sad for all the children who the sugar-rush that is Halloween. But there is good news. I just saved a bunch of money on car insurance by switching to Geico.

p.s. Speaking of Halloween, I told a group of friends that Boston is supposed to be an awesome place to celibrate Halloween. I know I heard that somewhere. But now they're coming to visit and I need to find something Halloweeny to do this weekend. Any suggestions?

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 27, 2005

Smell ya later

You know intellectual property laws are getting out of hand when companies begin trademarking smells. According to the BBC, a French company recently applied for trademark protection for the smell of fresh strawberries. The claim was denied, not because trademarking a natural smell is batshit insane, but because "smell experts found that instead of just one aroma, strawberries can in fact have up to five different, distinct scents."

But (there's always a 'But'). According to the Associated Press news agency, the EU did grant trademark protection for the smell of freshly cut grass. The smell was registered by a Dutch perfume company that uses it to give tennis balls their aroma.

I don't know a lot about property law, but I'd be interested to hear from a lawyer about what complications this might bring about when Google unveils its new Google Smell (beta) program down the road.

Hat tip: Kevin Drum

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What if...

Fox News had been around throughout history?

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 26, 2005

Optical illusion of the day

Indeed.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Death penalty do over

The House bill to reauthorize the Patriot Act includes provisions that would transform the rights a defendent has under the federal death penalty system. From the NYTimes via Majikthise:

If all 12 members of a jury in a capital case in federal court cannot agree on whether to impose the death penalty, a convicted defendant is automatically sentenced to life in prison.

But that may be about to change. A little-noticed provision in the House bill that reauthorized the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act would allow federal prosecutors further attempts at a death sentence if a capital jury deadlocks on the punishment. So long as at least one juror voted for death, prosecutors could empanel a new sentencing jury and argue again that execution was warranted.

You have the right to be judged by a jury of your peers, unless the government really wants to kill you, in which case you have the right to be tried by a jury of different, more bloodthirsty peers. And if the government can't find enough people to fry your ass, a jury of less than 12 jurors will do if the court finds "good cause."

The Washington Post has more:

Under the proposals, 41 crimes would be added to the 20 terrorism-related offenses now eligible for the federal death penalty. Prosecutors would also find it easier to impose a death sentence in cases in which the defendant did not have the intent to kill.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Miers dilema

Rumors are circulating that Miers is on the verge of withdrawing her nomination (or the White House is on the verge of withdrawing it for her). She is incompetent, a crony, and completely unqualified for the job. But I'm torn over her possible withdrawal.

It seems like the right thing to do. A seat on the Supreme Court is a lifetime position and should be filled by the brightest legal minds the country has to offer. I'm not accusing Miers of being unintelligent, but with no previous judicial experience, there are obviously several more qualified candidates.

But, do I want her to withdraw? Conservatives, particularly the religious right, are Miers' loudest detractors and the ones calling for her withdrawal. Why? Because they think Miers' isn't conservative enough. They want a conservative judicial activist who will work towards overturning Roe v. Wade and obviating legalized gay marrige.

I read a conservative blogger (sorry, don't remember which one) who hypothesized that Miers was an intentional diversion by Bush. The theory was, after Miers was rejected for being unqualified, Bush could nominate a rabid conservative, but a qualified rabid conservative, and the Senate would pass him/her.

This theory is illogical, considering most of Miers opposition has come from conservatives. But it raises an interesting point about the following nominee. Odds are, the followup nominee will be much more socially conservative than Miers. Bush will have to appease the religious right, and there is a strong chance the followup nominee will be more conservative (and more of a judicial activist) than Miers or Roberts.

But in the choice between incompetence and fanatacism, I think I must go with incompetence. Because anyone can learn a new job if its guaranteed for life.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 25, 2005

Tuesday Numbers

"Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are liberals (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).

White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form."

Source: CBS

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Ok, maybe a little torture

Remember the Senate bill that would bar "cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody" that passed 90-9 a few weeks ago? Cheney wants an exemption for the CIA. The wording sounds fine, exempting "such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack." But then we're back with an ambiguous definition that can be interpreted in multiple ways.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:59 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 24, 2005

Niger documents forged

Remember when Dan Rather reported on forged documents without verifying the facts? Bloggers jumped on the case, and it wasn't long until Rather was out of a job.

Well, the report about Iraq attempting to purchase yellow-cake uranium from Niger, which I thought was simple faulty intelligence, was actually a forgery. This may be old news, but I wasn't aware until now that the document that started the Plamegate affair was deliberately faked.


Fitzgerald's team has been given the full, and as yet unpublished report of the Italian parliamentary inquiry into the affair, which started when an Italian journalist obtained documents that appeared to show officials of the government of Niger helping to supply the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein with Yellowcake uranium. This claim, which made its way into President Bush's State of the Union address in January, 2003, was based on falsified documents from Niger and was later withdrawn by the White House.

So Bush, like Rather, used a forged document, and Bush, like Rather, failed to verify its authenticity. Where are the bloggers now who were chastizing Rathers for failing to do his homework? The consequences of Rather's mistake cost far fewer lives than Bush's.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

This post is officially endorsed by the President of the United States

From the NYTimes:
prezseal.gif

You might have thought that the White House had enough on its plate late last month, what with its search for a new Supreme Court nominee, the continuing war in Iraq and the C.I.A. leak investigation. But it found time to add another item to its agenda - stopping The Onion, the satirical newspaper, from using the presidential seal.

The newspaper regularly produces a parody of President Bush’s weekly radio address on its Web site, where it has a picture of President Bush and the official insignia.

“It has come to my attention that The Onion is using the presidential seal on its Web site,” Grant M. Dixton, associate counsel to the president, wrote to The Onion on Sept. 28. (At the time, Mr. Dixton’s office was also helping Mr. Bush find a Supreme Court nominee; days later his boss, Harriet E. Miers, was nominated.)

Citing the United States Code, Mr. Dixton wrote that the seal “is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement.” Exceptions may be made, he noted, but The Onion had never applied for such an exception. […]

“It is inconceivable that anyone would think that, by using the seal, The Onion intends to ‘convey… sponsorship or approval’ by the president,” wrote Rochelle H. Klaskin, the paper’s lawyer, who went on to note that a headline in the current issue made the point: “Bush to Appoint Someone to Be in Charge of Country.”

Moreover, she wrote, The Onion and its Web site are free, so the seal is not being used for commercial purposes. That said, The Onion asked that its letter be considered a formal application to use the seal.

No answer yet. But Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said that “you can’t pick and choose where you want to enforce the rules surrounding the use of official government insignia, whether it’s for humor or fraud.”

O.K. But just between us, Mr. Duffy, how did they find out about it? “Despite the seriousness of the Bush White House, more than one Bush staffer reads The Onion and enjoys it thoroughly,” he said. “We do have a sense of humor, believe it or not.”

Since The Onion is clearly satire, I would have thought that its use of the seal would be protected under the First Amendment. Or is the Second Amendment the only one that counts anymore?

RELATED: Pandagon, Poorman, Jesus' General, Three Bulls

Update: Apparently, the White House has had a similar problem.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Apple needs a good vlogging

When the rambucntious young Ipod was first introduced to a shy, reserved Internet radio, the two mingled under the watchful eye of a former MTV video jockey, and podcasting was born. The new medium, which merged a low production cost for producers with easy accessibility for consumers, did for audio communications what blogging did for the written word.

But will the same change follow Apple's latest video Ipod release? Wired seems to think so. Video blogging, or vlogging, has been around for a little while. And, like podcasting, you can download feeds and subscribe to your favorite programs. But is the video Ipod enough to give vlogging the momentum it needs to become mainstream?

It depends largely on the television and video industries. There will be popular vloggers who publish weekly recordings of their toddler learning to walk or their cat and dog fighting, but the production costs of producing quality material still seem too high for most aspiring journalists, actors, or comedians. But if this new technology is embraced by the relevant industries, particularly television, it could one of the biggest things to hit the Internets... at least this year. Seriously, imagine being able to watch last night's episode of The Daily Show on the commute to work (assuming you're not driving) or downloading daily news coverage during another Katrina-like crisis.

Not that there aren't a handful of artists who already produce original content that can be vlogged. Animated shorts - like HomestarRunner, RedvsBlue, or JibJab - would be wise to make their regular material available via vlog feeds. But much of the creative work done with video on the Internet involves altering previously copyrighted material, whether it's a voiceover of a movie scene or a clever video-collage.

If history is any indication, widespread vblogging will be followed by (or preceded by) copyright battles and lawsuits. Vlogging does have a bright future, but it lies at the end of a winding, rocky road. For now, the video Ipod's diet will consist of pirated material and porn. A lot of porn.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 23, 2005

Penguin followup

The creator of March of the Penguins, a documentary that many conservative groups have cited as support for everything from the value of monogamy to intelligent design, has struck back. In a recent Times article Luc Jacquet expressed his annoyance with the groups that are exploiting the documentary for political purposes:

“It does annoy me to a certain degree,” he said. “For me there is no doubt about evolution. I am a scientist. The intelligent design theory is a step back to the thinking of 300 years ago. My film is not supposed to be interpreted in this way. Some scientists I know find the film interesting because it can be a good argument against intelligent design. People should not jump on these bandwagons.”

“If you want an example of monogamy, penguins are not a good choice,” Luc Jacquet told The Times. “The divorce rate in emperor penguins is 80 to 90 per cent each year,” he said. “After they see the chick is OK, most of them divorce. They change every year.”

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 21, 2005

I'll sell it for $15,000 cash right now


My blog is worth $23,710.68.
How much is your blog worth?


Via Donklephant

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Brownie still on the payroll

Former FEMA Director Mike Brown is still receiving tax-payer dollars as a consultant for FEMA, according to the LA Times. Brown is working from home "pulling all the documentation together" for the investigations into Katrina response, and his original 30-day contract was recently extended for another 30 days.

This guy is a genius. Not only was he able to initially land a job that he was completely unqualified for, but after he completely drops the ball on one of the most important natural disaster recovery efforts in recent memory, he is still getting paid to find out what went wrong. This is like letting Ken Lay investigate the Enron scandal or assigning Karl Rove to find out who leaked Valerie Plame's identity. He is being paid to investigate his own incompetence.

RELATED: Crooks and Liars, Carpetbagger, FBIhop, Think Progress, Intelligent Discontent

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 3:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Optical illusion

Cool.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:55 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Tom Delay's mug shot

delaymugshot.gif

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 20, 2005

Senior stupid news correspondent

It's nice to see the mainstream media finally stepping up to the plate and asking the questions the crazy guy in the subway station will only schitzophrenically mumble, to paraphrase The Daily Show. MSNBC recently ran an article titled Apocalypse, Now? that, with a straight face, cites websites like RaptureReady.com as it questions whether recent natural disasters are evidence that the Judgment Day is nigh.

But MSNBC isn't the only news organization with an abundance of gravitas. CNN recently asked Jerry Falwell whether the End was near, assuming his self-proclaimed direct connection to God made him an expert. And to add a degree of professionalism, Jerry Falwell was countered with the new CNN faith and values correspondent.

Yes, that is her real title. Things like this are why Jon Stewart has a job.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Throwing the books at Google

Another lawsuit has been filed against Google, this time by the Association of American Publishers. The suit is similiar to the one filed a few weeks ago by the Authors' Guild, which claims Google Print's plans to scan and index books for the internet violates copyright laws.

I really don't understand how this could possibly hold up in court. Google Print does not allow you to read books for free online. When you search a phrase with Google Print, it retrieves relevant book pages and highlights the search phrase. But it only provides access to 3-4 pages of the print. I suppose someone could read three pages, do another search to get the next three, and keep doing this until they've pirated the entire book. But you would think publishers would be pleased with Google Print. It is essentially free advertising. Google not only connects readers with books they are interested in and gives them a preview, but it also provides links to Amazon and other sites where the book can be purchased.

This is really something that should be embraced by both authors and publishers, instead of selfishly resisted.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 19, 2005

But at least he didn't lie about a blowjob

An article in the NY Daily News has generated buzz for claiming that Rove confessed to Bush in 2003 that he was the leak in the Valerie Plame scandal. The article claims Bush rebuked Rove. "He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

The new information is seen as an attempt by Bush to distance himself from the scandal. Afterall, if he scolded Rove, it proves he is composed of strong moral fiber, even as everything surrounding him rots and decays. But instead of clearing Bush's name, the new comments may backfire, when the public takes a look back at the public statements Bush has made knowing that Rove was responsible.

Bush - September 30, 2003: "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [26]

McClellan - October 7, 2003: "Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants." and "If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business." [27]

Bush - June 10, 2004: Responded to media question referring to "anybody who leaked the agent's [Valerie Plame's] name" and then asked the President "do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so," to which the President responded "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts." [28]

Bush - July 18, 2005: "If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Via Atrios.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 8:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Blogger's Annonymous

Concurring Opinions' A Day in the Life of a Blogger (via Ambivablog):

Wake up
Check email
Check blog – see if co-bloggers have posted anything and read comments to posts
Check site meter stats – see how many people visited and who’s linking to the blog
Check Technorati – see who’s linking to the blog
Check out blogs linking to the blog
Check The Truth Laid Bear – see the latest ranking of the blog
Check other blogs for ideas for blog posts
Check news sites for ideas for blog posts computer
Write blog post
Check email
Check blog
Check site meter

Repeat continuously and you have the vile thing known as blogging. You know what you've gotten yourself into when you stop writing based on your original interests and ideas and start writing based on getting hits. Typically, this involves throwing in random links to more evolved blogs in hopes of sucking a handful of visitors through the trackback.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 6:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Printer paranoia

From the Sydney Mornign Herald (via Crooks and Liars):

How creepy is this? Many colour laser printers spew out a matrix of tiny dots - invisible to the naked eye - which identify the serial number of the printer and the date and time the printing took place.

A research team led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which broke the code, says the dot code was embedded in a deal struck between the US Secret Service and selected printer manufacturers some years back.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 18, 2005

Ladies and gentlemen, Neil Boortz

From Media Matters (via Jesus' General) [AUDIO]:

BOORTZ: OK, I've got an insensitive thought, folks. There's a news story out there -- there's a news story out there that rich people got some sort of an email notification of the terrorist threat against the New York subway before poor people did. OK? They're making a big deal out of it. Let me see if I can find it on the Drudge Report here. Let's see. There's a guy strangling a goose. That's a pretty good -- that's a pretty impressive picture. It's something about bird flu. So he's got this goose and he's just wringing its neck. You can -- oh, who tipped off the big shots? OK, now here's the story. And it says, "The Homeland Security Department launched internal probes yesterday into whether its officials tipped off friends and relatives to a possible subway terror plot days before average New Yorkers were alerted." So the real gripe here is that it seems that some wealthy people got notified of the terror plot before the great unwashed, before the others. Now, the Daily News in New York has a headline: "Rich got terror tip." Rich got terror tip. OK, let's get logical about this, folks. Let's play logic with this. This is as it should be. OK? If we are faced with disaster in this country -- let me ask you this, OK? You just be logical. Get all of the emotion out of this. Get all of the emotion out of this. But if we are faced with a disaster in this country, which group do we want to save? The rich or the poor? Now, if you have time, save as many people as you can. But if you have to set some priorities, where do you go? The rich or the poor? OK? Who is a drag on society? The rich or the poor? Who provide the jobs out there? The rich or the poor? Who fuels -- you know, which group fuels our economy? Drives industry? The rich or the poor? Now if you -- all of a sudden, somebody walks up to you and says, "Hey, Boortz listener. You're gonna have a -- you have to make a choice. You're going to -- we're gonna move you to another country. And you're just gonna have to make your way in this other country. We have a choice of two countries for you. In this country, people achieve a lot and they are wealthy because of their hard work. In this country, people don't achieve squat. They sit around all the time waiting for somebody else to take care of them. They have children they can't afford. They're uneducated. They can barely read. And the high point of their day is Entertainment Tonight on TV. Which country do you want to live in? The country of the high achievers, or the country of sheep, the country of followers?" You know what you're gonna do. I don't see what the big problem is. I just don't. I mean, if you -- who do I want to save first? The rich. Save the poor first. Then, when everything's over, where are you gonna go for a job? OK, hey, if I get a tin cup, can I sit next to you and sell pencils too?

[...]

I'm serious about that, folks. You see, that's the kind of thing that's going to end up in news stories: "Neal Boortz said that in times of disaster we should save the rich people first." Well, hell, yes, we should save the rich people first. You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity. I mean, you go out there and you look at this vast sea of evacuees, OK? You want to get an economy going in some city? Well, who you gonna take back? The people who own businesses? Or the people that sit around waiting to get their minimum wage job, work 'til Friday, get a paycheck and then not show up again until the following Wednesday? Come on. Just put a little logical thought into this, folks.

Neal Boortz: The reason The Colbert Report was created.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 8:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Colbert Report

Last night, Steven Colbert's new show, The Colbert Report made its much anticipated (by me) debut after The Daily Show. I had hoped this would essentially give me what I have wanted for so long: a full hour of The Daily Show. While I will miss Colbert's deadpan, verbose correspondant pieces, he definitely has the raw comedic talent to host.

But, as I was afraid I would be, I was dissapointed. Perhaps my expectations were so high that Colbert could never have met them on his first night, but the show has some serious flaws that need to be worked out.

1. A show of this sort needs more than one fake journalist. The Daily Show would not be successful if it featured nothing but Jon Stewart. While Stewart is the meaty bone in the stew that is The Daily Show, the correspondents are the nutritious vegetables, the celery and carrots, that transform it from a bowl of watery meat into a culinary delight.

2. Colbert is no Jon Stewart. His milieu is straight-faced, rehearsed correspondent pieces. He doesn't have the type of charisma Stewart uses to make even the most mundane interview entertaining. Stewart makes noises, jumps around, alters his voice. He can say something stupid and make it sound funny. Colbert has a different style, which is funny, but doesn't necessarily fit with the desk-host format.

3. Brilliant isn't always funny. I get what they were trying to do with the show. While TDS is a spoof of nightly news programs, TCR pokes fun at pundits like Bill O'Riely and Sean Hannity. That's why Colbert acts so pompous and arrogant. It's brilliant satire. It's just not funny to those millions of Americans who don't spend 30 hours a week watching political pundits.

I am optimistic though. Colbert is too funny for the show to suck for long. And if not, here's a suggestion: A 24-hour Daily Show news network.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 5:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday Numbers

From the Department of Energy:

Total Imports of Petroleum
Top 15 Countries
(Thousand Barrels per Day)

Country………YTD 2005
CANADA……….2,116
MEXICO……….1,657
SAUDI ARABIA *..1,594
VENEZUELA…….1,575
NIGERIA*………1,127
IRAQ *…………534
ALGERIA………..484
ANGOLA…………432
RUSSIA…………422
UNITED KINGDOM….384
VIRGIN ISLANDS….322
ECUADOR………..288
KUWAIT *……….208
COLOMBIA……….191
BRAZIL…………140

Total imports: 11,474

Total Arab (Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Iraq, and Libya): 2,820

Percent of Arab oil: 24.6%
Percent non-Arab: 75.4%

The obvious conclusion? Canada is soon to replace Iraq on the Axis of Evil.

RELATED: Donklephant, Dean's World, Larry Bernard

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:13 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 17, 2005

The genius of no talking good

Check out this fascinating, 100%-legitimate and real documentary on the genius of Bush's stupid speech.

"You're working hard to put food on your family."

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Don't be evil

It is hard to dislike a company whose motto is "Don't be evil." But Google is learning that Evil is a relative term, as its quest to make the world's information easily searchable draws criticism and lawsuits from some newly made enemies.

The battle, again, is over copyrights. Two of Google's latest projects, Google Video and Google Print, allow users to search video frames and book texts respectively. While these developments are lauded by many for offering unprecedented access to new forms of information, Hollywood and some authors are not happy. Earlier this month, the New York-based Author's Guild filed charges against Google, calling the company both "brazen" and a "massive copyright infringer."

The accusation that Google Print violates copyright law is tenuous, considering Google does not offer the entire book or article. The search engine only returns results. You can find books that discusses a certain topic or find a quote by a favorite author, but it is only a way to search books, not read them for free. Tim Wu, writing for Slate, offers a fitting analogy:

Just as maps do not compete with or replace property, neither do book searches replace books. Both are just tools for finding what is otherwise hard to find. And if we really want to have true, comprehensive book searches, we cannot require that every author's permission be individually sought out.

The battle between Napster and the recording industry did little to change the lens through which we view intellectual property. But whether production companies and publishers admit it or not, Internet-based technological developments have completely changed the way intellectual property is consumed and produced. Artists and producers can either continue to fight the change, clinging to a printing-press era of copyright profiteering, or they can embrace the change and adapt their business to the new form of communication, rather than forcing it to adapt to them.

RELATED: Infothought, TinkertyTonk, Sivacracy, Mudville Gazette

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 3:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 13, 2005

Thursday Numbers

Americans that approve of the job Bush is doing: 39%
Americans that disapprove of the job Bush is doing: 54%
Americans who prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress: 48%
Americans who prefer a Republican-controlled Congress: 39%
African-Americans who approve of the job Bush is doing: 2%
Bush's self-declared approval among deities: 100%

It has only been a year since the election, and Bush's numbers have never been outstanding. Either the majority of the country becomes brain-dead the minute they step into an voting booth, or this proves that the Democrats have yet to offer an enticing alternative DURING AN ELECTION YEAR.

I'll hold off on being optimistic until November 2006 rolls around.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 6:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Democratic Brand

I was reading this article at the Mighty Middle about political party branding, and I was amazed that Michael Reynolds identified the exact same four characteristics of the Republican party that I did in a previous post: "Low taxes, small government, strong defense, old time morality."

The Republicans are so efficient at "catapulting the propaganda" that their claimed attributes are universally known. It doesn't matter that this characterization doesn't reflect reality: Government is bigger than ever; their morals are questionable and oppressive; the war is a mess; and low taxes help no one but the wealthy. Despite reality, people still think of the Republican party in those four terms.

But what about Democrats? Ask 20 people to characterize the Democratic party, and you will receive 20 different answers. And if you did find a common perception, the party would likely be too timid to actually stand behind it. Take civil rights. That may be one characteristic of the Democratic "brand". But when it comes to gay marriage, the Democratic pitch is to "leave it to the states." They are afraid to stand up for one of the only identifiable Democratic values. They are too worried about looking extreme or out-of-touch, but they just come across as weak and uncertain. Whereas Republicans will unite behind any cause, no matter how radical or out of the mainstream it is, like teaching intelligent design in science classrooms.

Forget that Democrats are polling nine points ahead of Republicans in recent polls. Elections are about perceptions, and if Democrats can't develop a clear message, they won't make significant gains in 2006 or 2008.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:11 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Religion caused by... evolution?

From the Guardian:

While nobody has identified any gene for religion, there are certainly some candidate genes that may influence human personality and confer a tendency to religious feelings. Some of the genes likely to be involved are those which control levels of different chemicals called neurotransmitters in the brain. Dopamine is one neurotransmitter which we know plays a powerful role in our feelings of well-being; it may also be involved in the sense of peace that humans feel during some spiritual experiences. One particular gene involved in dopamine action – incidentally, by no means the only one that has been studied in this way – is the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4). In some people, because of slight changes in spelling of the DNA sequences (a so-called polymorphism) making up this gene, the gene may be more biologically active, and this could be partly responsible for a religious bent.

While I do think having some sort of lens with which to collectively explain the world is wired into the brain, I still believe religion is inherently social, not genetic. As Chris Bertram points out at Crooked Timber, there is too much variation in religiosity over a short period of time for genetics to play a large factor:

The Irish and Italians, two name but two, don’t seem especially religious at the moment, but go back a generation or three …. I doubt very much that their genetic stock has changed that much.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 3:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 12, 2005

Special-interest groups OR Why Africa will continue to stagnate and starve.

From the NYTimes:

It seemed like a no-brainer: changing the law to allow the federal government to buy food in Africa for Africans facing starvation instead of paying enormous sums to ship it from the American heartland, halfway around the world. Not only would the food get to the hungry in weeks instead of months, the government would save money and help African farmers at the same time.

The new approach had an impeccable sponsor in Republican-dominated Washington. The Bush administration, famous for its go-it-alone style, was trying to move the United States - by far the world's biggest food donor - into the international mainstream with a proposal to take a step in just this direction. A lot of rich countries had already done so, most recently Canada.

So why is this seemingly sensible, cost-effective proposal near death in Congress?

Fundamentally, because the proposal challenges the political bargain that has formed the basis for food aid over the past half century: that American generosity must be good not just for the world's hungry but also for American agriculture. That is why current law stipulates that all food aid provided by the United States Agency for International Development be grown by American farmers and mostly shipped on United States-flag vessels. More practically, however, it is because the administration's proposal has run into opposition from three interests some critics call the Iron Triangle of food aid: agribusiness, the shipping industry and charitable organizations.

Just four companies and their subsidiaries, led by Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, sold more than half the $700 million in food commodities provided through the United States Agency for International Development's food aid program in 2004, government records show. Just five shipping companies received over half the more than $300 million spent to ship that food, records show.

Members of Congress often applaud the benefits of food aid for American farmers, but that is not really how it works, as Christopher B. Barrett, a Cornell University economist and co-author of "Food Aid After Fifty Years: Recasting its Role," noted. "It's the middlemen who enjoy most of the gains," he said, "not the farmers."....

Yes, the Bush administration does do a few good things once in a whlie. It is unfortunate that special-interest groups are killing this proposal.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 6:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More numbers

Value of Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock options: $9.2 million
Change in value of Cheney's Halliburton stock last year: + 3,280%
Deferred annual salary Cheney receives from Halliburton: $200 million (roughly)
Profit Halliburton has made on no-bid contracts from the administration: over $10 billion

A friend recently asked why there wasn't more public outcry about the no-bid contracts Halliburton has received to rebuild Iraq and Katrina. I wish I knew. Cheney isn't even the least bit sneaky about it. No money is exchanged under tables with a sly wink and a nudge. It happens in the open, on the record. Come on, does anyone remember the Clinton White Water scandal? That scandal didn't even make sense, it had something to do with a business the Clintons owned in the 70's, and they tried to bring the Clintons down over it.

I guess the difference is that Cheney just doesn't give a damn. When the Clintons deny connections to a scandal that happened 30 years, it gives journalists and prosecutors something to work with. If you tried to accuse Cheney of anything because of his ongoing connection with Halliburton, he'd just look at you, smirk, and say, "Yeah, so?"

Then he'd bite a kitten's head off.

UPDATE: Btw, RawStory is reporting that Halliburton just received another $33 million Katrina contract.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 3:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 11, 2005

Numbers

Pledged U.S. aid to victims of South Asian earthquake: $50 million
Cost of one day of the war in Iraq (based on total budget): $197.3 million
Innocent civillians killed by earthquake: 42,000
Innocent civillians killed in Iraq: 25,000-30,000 (estimated)

In an interview on The Daily Show, Kurt Vonnegut said, "We're terrible animals. I think that the Earth's immune system is trying to get rid of us, as well it should." Well, that explains the suffering caused by natural disasters, but what about all the suffering we cause ourselves?

Just as Bush squandered resources on the war that could have been used to aid the victims of hurricane Katrina, the terrorists and terrorist-supporting-regimes have wasted valuable money and human resources that could be used right now to aid and rebuild a region devastated by another natural disaster.

Maybe one day we'll collectively realize that we're all humans, and after that we'll figure out whether that's a good or bad thing.

BTW: Kung Fu Monkey is matching donations to earthquake relief efforts.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 5:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The study of poo

Harriet Miers is so much more than a crony. While Mike Brown landed a job simply because he knew a guy who knew the President, Harriet has had a long and personal relationship, as evidenced by this exchange when Bush was governor of Texas:


"You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect!" she wrote in 1997, in a belated birthday note that was typical of the tone she used in her correspondence with then-Gov. Bush.

The letter was one of a handful of personal notes included in more than 2,000 pages of documents released Monday by the Texas State Library - most of them routine legal memos, press releases and transcripts. The letters offer a rare glimpse into the mutual admiration that sprung up between Miers and Bush after they began working together on Bush's first campaign for Texas governor in 1994.

Bush responded to her birthday wish in kind, and included a humorous, if baffling, postscript.

"I appreciate your friendship and candor. Never hold back your sage advice," he wrote. "P.S. No more public scatology." Whether Bush was referring to Miers' rough-and-tumble time as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission or something else isn't clear. Scatology refers to "the study of or preoccupation with excrement or obscenity," according to Webster's dictionary.

I did notice that during the press conference the other day Miers was looking a little flushed.

But at least she's a perfect match for a president so full of BS.

With opposition from both conservatives and liberals, you could say this was the crappiest nomination ever...

I've got nothin.

RELATED: Phronesisaical, Raw Story

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 10, 2005

Cronyjobs.com

I now realize the reason I've had so much trouble finding a job is that I've been looking in the wrong places. Thanks to Phronesisaical, I now know about CronyJobs.

It's helped Michael Brown and Harriet Miers land sweet jobs.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 7:33 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Sad

The deathtoll for the South Asian earthquake, which was felt from Afghanistan to Pakistan and Bangladesh, is over 30,000. As horrifying as Katrina was, her damage was mild compared to this. First the tsunami, then Katrina, now this. I would imagine most relief organizations are stretched pretty thin by now.

As one commenter on Fark put it, "2005 has sucked. 2005 has sucked big balls."

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 5:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The War of Ideas

In an October 6 article titled Three Men and a Party, Bruce Reed of Slate Magazine saw a ray of hope for the Democratic party. The Democrats are finally moving in the right direction, Reed argued, not by jumping on Republican scandals like the Tom DeLay indictment but by presenting concrete ideas about what Democrats can do for America. What are these Democratic ideas that we've been waiting six years to hear? According to Illinois congressman Rahm Emanuel: "Making college universal, demanding a budget summit, cutting energy dependence in half with a hybrid economy, creating a science and technology institute to rival NIH, and making health care universal over the next 10 years."

While the five items on Emanuel's list are steps in the right direction, they are projects and not ideas. I feel like I'm back in 2004 listening to John Kerry recite statistics on the number of cargo holds coming into our ports that aren't being searched. Democrats have always had projects, but they have trouble articulating the ideas about why these projects are essential to the health of the country. Republicans, on the other hand, sell their ideas first and make up projects after they win office. Recently, the make-it-up-as-you-go strategy has been vastly more successful.

Reed is correct to assume the future of the Democratic party hinges on developing and selling new ideas. But part of that campaign must involve an attack on Republicans, not on their latest scandals but on their record and their ideas. Mainstream Republican ideas are easy to identify - smaller government, an aggressive military, supply-side economics, "moral values" - and it should be easy for Democrats to argue that if Republican ideas have done nothing for America after six years of complete government control, they never will.

But it will take more than statistics and promises to sell a new Democratic vision. Democrats must explain to America why tax cuts for the wealthy are bad for the economy, why redistribution of wealth is necessary, and why it is wrong to write discrimination against homosexuals into the constitution.

The John Kerry approach to taking on Republicans was to shy away from anything liberal. On the deficit, he said Bush wasn't conservative enough (fiscally); on gay marriage he agreed with Bush that it was immoral but wanted to leave it to the States; on Iraq he marched virtually in-step with the President. When Democrats present liberal projects but back them up with a conservative-lite philosophy, voters see little difference between the parties. It is time for the Democratic party to embrace with word 'liberal', dust it off, and redefine it.

To win the next elections, Democrats need to win the War of Ideas, and what remains to be seen is whether Reed's big three - Andy Stern, Rahm Emanuel, and Barack Obama - are up to the task.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 9, 2005

New look, same great taste

I've redesigned Ablogistan a bit. Tell me what you think. Does it look better? Is the banner too small?

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 7, 2005

Asshole of the week: Wal-Mart

From the Progressive:

Selina Jarvis is the chair of the social studies department at Currituck County High School in North Carolina, and she is not used to having the Secret Service question her or one of her students.

But that’s what happened on September 20.

Jarvis had assigned her senior civics and economics class “to take photographs to illustrate their rights in the Bill of Rights,” she says. One student “had taken a photo of George Bush out of a magazine and tacked the picture to a wall with a red thumb tack through his head. Then he made a thumb’s down sign with his own hand next to the President’s picture, and he had a photo taken of that, and he pasted it on a poster.”

According to Jarvis, the student, who remains anonymous, was just doing his assignment, illustrating the right to dissent.

But over at the Kitty Hawk Wal-Mart, where the student took his film to be developed, this right is evidently suspect.

An employee in that Wal-Mart photo department called the Kitty Hawk police on the student. And the Kitty Hawk police turned the matter over to the Secret Service.

Good night, and good luck.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 3:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 6, 2005

90-9: No more torture

The Senate passed 90-9 John McCain's amendment to the military budget that prohibits the use of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of punishment" against anyone in U.S. government custody.

Here's McCain's statement:


Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don’t think I’m naïve about how severe are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant the service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades, but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.

I don’t mourn the loss of any terrorist’s life nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.

What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we -- the American serviceman and woman and the great nation they defend at the risk of their lives – what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence – we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength – that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea – not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion – but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn’t adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.

The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we’re better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others – even our enemies.

Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices – the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense – we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country’s honor to prevail; that they are always, always – through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss – they are always, always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us.

God bless them as he has blessed us with their service.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 5, 2005

Quote of the day

"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it."

- Terry Prachett, Monstrous Regiment

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 4, 2005

Harriet who?

Once again, I am not sure what to think about Bush's Supreme Court nominee. I had the same ambivalence when Roberts was initially nominated, and although I don't think he was ready to be Chief Justice, things could have been worse.

And now Harriet Miers has me more perplexed. On the one hand, conservatives seem to be upset about the nomination, because she apparently isn't conservative enough. She has contributed money to both parties, including Al Gore's 1988 presidential run.

On the other hand, she doesn't seem to be qualified for the job. She is the Mike Brown of the Supreme Court, nominated because of her close personal ties with Bush, who overlooked her lack of experience. I mean, she previously ran the Texas Lottery Commission. Both conservatives and liberals have shown outrage at this apparent cronyism.

There is a lot yet to be known about the latest Supreme Court nominee, but that she once referred to George W. Bush as "brilliant" says a lot.

RELATED:

Conservatives: Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Confirmthem.com, RedState, Vodka Pundit

Liberals: Kevin Drum, Crooks and Liars, Direland, Atrios, Majikthise

Plus, "Harriet Miers" has her own blog (yes, it's satire). Here's her latest post:


SOOOO HUNG OVER
Good morning blog-o-nauts!! Well, I hope its a good morning for you... because over here in the southwest corner of the West Wing, things aren't going so hot. Let me give youa tip: if your ever nominated to the supreme Court,, you don't have to accept every free drink on your first night... I think I need one of those "morning-after" pills!

Oh well... Im still the nominee and today is the SECOND DAY of the REST OF MY LIFE!! Go Supremes!!!

XOXOX

HARRIET

UPDATE: OMG not that kind of morning-after pill... I meant like a Tylenol. Okay. I'm going to shut up now. [BLUSHING!!]

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 3:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack