Punditeer

The Top 10 Spy News Stories of 2011

2011-12-22T18:59:00.000-05:00

The Killing of Osama Bin Laden
The top spy news story of 2011 was the discovery and killing of Osama bin Laden. Ten years of intelligence provided tantalizing clues that finally led to the city of Abbottabad, Pakistan. Bin Laden had apparently been living there for years, probably with the knowledge of some elements within Pakistan’s intelligence agency.

Several high-value terrorists had been waterboarded in the years after 9/11, resulting in the discovery of the name of a bin Laden courier. Later, the National Security Agency was made aware of a SIM card from a cell phone associated with the courier, which allowed it to monitor a conversation between the courier & an associate. His location was pinpointed and he was eventually tracked to bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan.

But more evidence was needed that bin Laden was actually living there, so the CIA concocted a phony vaccination program for locals in that area. The DNA of bin Laden’s children was thereby collected, and that provided enough evidence that the CIA had finally discovered bin Laden’s whereabouts. A Navy SEAL team swept in and ended bin Laden’s reign of terror on May 2.

Cyberespionage Rising
Cyberspying is the fastest growing type of espionage. Hackers are targeting military, government, business, educational, and personal computer systems. Often, they are acting on behalf of a foreign government. The Pentagon has taken notice and formulated policies for the first time in dealing with the threat. “Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace” is the first ever reports by the Pentagon to protect from potentially devastating attacks. The “Department of Defense Cyberspace Policy Report” includes guidelines for a military response to a cyberattack.

The Secret War on Iran’s Nuclear Program
In Iran, things fall apart—by way of unexplained explosions. Gas pipelines, oil installations, and military facilities have all suffered from this mysterious illness. Nuclear physicists have been assassinated and nuclear facilities sabotaged. Who knows why? Many speculate the Mossad, CIA, and other western intelligence services are engaged in a secret campaign to inhibit Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions, and all this chaos is the result.

The Raymond Davis Affair
Relations between Pakistan and the US became exceptionally strained during the Raymond Davis Affair. Davis was a CIA contractor working at the US consulate in Lahore, Pakistan. On January 27, he shot and killed two Pakistani men who had approached his vehicle while in traffic. Davis said they were trying to rob him. The Pakistani public was outraged, feeling that CIA agents were running around their country killing people with no accountability or respect for innocent lives. After two months of diplomatic negotiations, it was decided that the Islamic practice of accepting “blood money” by the victims’ relatives would solve the matter in a way acceptable to all parties, and Davis was released from jail and flown out of the country.

China is Crowned King of Cyberespionage
China has become “the bad guy” in terms of cyberespionage. Fair? All countries spy, all countries try to discover military and governmental secrets from both enemies and friends. But critics assert that China’s espionage has gone far beyond stealing those kinds of secrets, and it is waging a massive trade war by targeting private American companies. Most countries steal what they need, while China steals everything it can get its hands on, they say. The US doesn’t steal on behalf of private industry, but that isn’t a problem for China or other countries. We are playing by different rules. “Foreign Spies Stealing US Economic Secrets in Cyberspace” was issued by the National Counterintelligence Executive accusing China of being the most active perpetrator of economic espionage.

Iran Captures US Spy Drone
In early December, Iran somehow came into possession of an unmanned US spy plane, an RQ-170 Sentinel drone. It was apparently spying on Iran’s nuclear facilities. What caused the plane to fall out of the sky is disputed. The US believes it suffered a technical malfunction and crashed; Iran collected the pieces, then reassembled and painted them before placing the vehicle on display for the public. Iranian authorities, on the other hand, claim they jammed the plane’s navigation technology, allowing them to gain control and force it to land. This particular drone is considered highly advanced, but has no self-destruct mechanism. Prominent figures on the political right berated President Obama for not ordering a strike team to fly in and destroy the vehicle before it could be captured. Obama was left in the humiliating position of begging an adversarial foreign power to give it back, which Iran rejected. How much Iran can learn from the plane is debated as well, but it is feared Iran will allow China or Russia to see the drone and learn what they can from it.

The Lebanon Espionage War
In early December, the Hezbollah terrorist group in Lebanon revealed the names of the CIA station chief in Beirut as well as other CIA staffers, which seriously compromised the ability of the US to conduct intelligence operations. Hezbollah also announced it had arrested several Lebanese spies working for the CIA. The spy network was discovered with telephone data mining equipment originally provided to Lebanon by the US. Sloppy CIA tradecraft made the exposure easier. Alleged spies for Israel continue to be arrested. Hezbollah discovered an Israeli tapping device attached to a private fiber-optic communication network, which Lebanon then complained about to the UN. The Pentagon said Hezbollah receives millions in aid from Iran yearly.

Crackdown on Spies in Iran
Throughout the year, Iran claimed to have arrested dozens of CIA spies engaged in espionage and sabotage of their nuclear facilities. The spies were apparently Iranians persuaded to work for the US. Otherwise, Iran has provided few details on those arrested. But it is clear than an ongoing intelligence war is underway in Iran and the major players are Israel and the US. The point of all the espionage activity seems to be to avoid, if possible, airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, except as a last resort. In the absence of any successful diplomatic initiatives, the shadow war will continue unless it no longer shows results.

Zatuliveter Exonerated of Espionage Charge
Katia Zatuliveter, a Russian national who was also a researcher for UK MP Mike Hancock, was accused of spying for Russia, but in November was finally cleared of the accusations of espionage and is permitted to stay in the UK. MI5 and the British Home Office believed the young Russian woman had targeted the middle-aged Hancock due to his place on the Defence committee. There were “grounds for suspicion” but nothing concrete against her in terms of spying. She plans to write a book about the entire affair.

Looming Budget Cuts
The US intelligence and defense budgets are facing dramatic cuts of a magnitude not seen since the early 1990s, in the days after the fall of the Soviet Union. For the first time since 9/11, spending for non-military intelligence will decrease. Will our spying capabilities suffer, as they did 20 years ago, when many feel the deep cutbacks eventually resulted in 9/11, which no one foresaw. Any deep cuts are likely to increase security risks, making another 9/11 a greater possibility. The Pentagon and DNI are already issuing warnings that the risk of attacks will increase.

Didn’t Quite Make the Top 10

India’s Chewing Gum Spy Scandal
Wads of chewing gum were found placed strategically under the desks of the Prime Minister of India’s top staff members. The implication, in terms of espionage, was that the innocent-looking gum was used as an adhesive to hold electronic surveillance bugs in place and out of sight. The intelligence bureau decided nothing sinister was involved in Bubblegumgate, although nothing could be ruled out.

Top UK Minister Dumps Secret Papers in the Trash
Oliver Letwin, policy adviser to UK Prime Minister David Cameron, was observed and photographed dumping private government papers in trash cans in a public park where anyone could have retrieved them. A damage-control spokesman claimed none of the documents were of a sensitive nature.

German Spy HQ Blueprints Stolen
A new headquarters for Germany’s spy agency is being built in Berlin. The blueprints were stolen, which included sensitive information about the security of the building.

Saudis Arrest Israeli Spy Vulture
Saudi Arabian security services detained a vulture that had flown into their territory. Suspiciously, the bird carried a GPS transmitter from Tel Aviv University, prompting accusations of a Zionist plot. Israeli officials said the tracking device stored data about the bird’s travels, altitude, and speed to better understand its behavior.

See Also: The Best Spy Nonfiction of 2011

See Also: The Best Spy Fiction of 2011

CIA Contractor Raymond Davis Freed from Pakistani Jail

2011-03-16T09:22:00.000-04:00

Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor charged with murder in Pakistan, has been freed, according to news reports.

Families of the two Pakistanis he killed were given "blood money," who then forgave Davis, and the case was dropped, as is permitted by Pakistani law.

Davis is en route on a special flight to London.

John Le Carre Donates Archive to Oxford

2011-02-24T09:39:00.000-05:00

Legendary spy novelist John Le Carre has donated his personal archive to the Bodleian Library at Oxford University.

As a graduate of Oxford, it was unlikely Le Carre would place his papers anywhere else, although one British paper called it a "crushing blow to archive-hungry American universities.

The archive consists of over 85 boxes with multiple versions of some of his works. Several items will be included in the kickoff to World Book Day in 2 weeks.

The writings of Le Carre, 79, whose real name is David Corwell, are considered important to understanding the history of the Cold War, as well as the history and development of the spy novel.

Le Carre said Oxford is the spiritual home of himself as well as his famous character George Smiley.

The Best Spy Fiction of 2011

2011-02-22T14:34:00.015-05:00

Updated: 12/15/11

Do you agree with a book reviewer for the UK Spectator by the name of Lewis Jones that American spy novelists are "unreadable"?

The English fascination with spies is gloriously reflected in our literature, from Kim to A Question of Attribution, and while their Egyptian and Israeli counterparts remain untranslated, and the Americans unreadable, English spy novelists rule.

Here is a selection of noteworthy spy novels published in 2011:

Berquist, Drew. The Maverick Experiment. Author Berquist is a former spy. His hero Derek Stevens stalks the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Boyd, Noah. Agent X. Former FBI agent Boyd introduced his hero Steve Vail in last year’s crime thriller The Bricklayer. Now, Vail must find Russian moles feeding intelligence to Moscow. Reviews haven’t been kind, but the Amazonians generally like it.
Clancy, Tom with Peter Telep. Against All Enemies. Clancy/Telep introduce a new character, ex-Navy SEAL Max Moore. The Taliban and Mexican drug lords join forces.
Coonts, Stephen. Deep Black: Death Wave. Hero Charlie Dean heads up a National Security Agency team to foil a sinister terrorist plot hatched from the Canary Islands. This is the 3rd installment of the Deep Black series.
Cumming, Charles. The Trinity Six. The Cambridge 5 were Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt, John Cairncross, Guy Burgess, and Donald Maclean. But was there a sixth?
Deaver, Jeffery. Carte Blanche. US writer Deaver pens the latest James Bond spy thriller. Bond must stop a terrorist attack that could kill thousands.
Dunn, Matthew. Spycatcher. Superspy Will Cochrane chases a terrorist mastermind.
Finder, Joseph. Buried Secrets. Nick Heller must discover who kidnapped the daughter of a hedge fund titan. Early reviews are very positive.
Ignatius, David. Bloodmoney. Washington Post reporter Ignatius pens a story that asks who is killing the members of a CIA intelligence unit in Pakistan? The task of finding out what's going on falls on the heroine of this novel with the somewhat embarrassing name Sophie Marx.
Jacobson, Douglas W. The Katyn Order. Spy thriller about the 1940 Katyn forest massacre of 20,000 Polish officers by the Soviet NKVD.
Patterson, Richard North. The Devil's Light. Best-selling author Patterson crafts a timely story about CIA agent Brooke Chandler, who must stop an Al Qaeda nuclear plot.
Rimington, Stella. Rip Tide. MI5 officer Liz Carlyle investigates pirates off the Somalian coast. Author Rimington was Director General of MI5.
Silva, Daniel. Portrait of a Spy. Silva's superspy Gabriel Allon is faced with a series of bombings in Europe.
Thomson, Keith. Twice a Spy. Billed as a combination of humor and suspense. Terrorists and a nuclear bomb disguised as a washing machine. Old former CIA with Alzheimer's saves the day?
Thor, Brad. Full Black. Scot Harvath must save the United States from terrorists.

Also Noted:

Chadbourn, Mark. The Scar-Crow Men. Historical fantasy set in 16th Century England. Who is killing Queen Elizabeth I’s spies?
Willig, Lauren. The Orchid Affair. Historical romance set in Napoleonic France.

Read “The Best Spy Fiction of 2010”

Read "The Best Spy Nonfiction of 2011"

Japan Creates Foreign Intelligence Service

2011-02-20T12:01:00.000-05:00

Japan has decided to create a foreign intelligence service for the first time since World War II, according to news reports.

Lacking vital intelligence on the leaders of North Korea and China, Japan is in a vulnerable position. The new agency will be modeled on western services such as the CIA, MI6 and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service.

The new agency will keep an eye on regional adversaries and gather information to prevent terrorist attacks.

The existence of the agency was revealed by WikiLeaks, which published a secret US diplomatic cable discussing the new espionage initiative.

Japan has been reluctant to move quickly on foreign espionage for fear of alienating diplomatic relations with friendly countries, but the country needs important information the agency could provide.

Japan admitted their best information about North Korean leader Kim Jong-il came from the published memoir of his former sushi chef.

Nano Hummingbird to Hunt Bin Laden

2011-02-18T09:00:00.001-05:00

The Nano Hummingbird is a miniature drone designed by AeroVironment that could one day join the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

The bird-like nano air vehicle could provide covert surveillance and reconnaissance without alerting terrorists that they are being watched.

The hummingbird could be used to surreptitiously locate a target while an armed UAV is brought in for the kill.

Ideally, it would make sense for the hummingbird to come equipped with its own armament, but that seems further down the road.

As unmanned drones become smaller and smaller and can be made to mimic the look of birds or insects, the next step would seem to be a Nano Fly, which would be even smaller and less noticeable than the hummingbird.

Once these devices are integrated into the search for terrorists, it would appear Osama bin Laden's days are numbered, as it would be nearly impossible to keep a mini drone & its on-board camera out of any room anywhere in the world.

Panel Releases Report on Anthrax Letters Case

2011-02-16T09:47:00.001-05:00

A National Academy of Sciences panel released a report reviewing the scientific approaches and scientific conclusions reached by the FBI in their investigation of the anthrax letters case of 2001.

While faulting the FBI for overstating the strength of the genetic analysis linking the anthrax letters to a supply kept by Bruce Ivins, the panel's findings back up the previous conclusion that Ivins was the perpetrator of the anthrax crimes.

The evidence, the panel said, is consistent with and supports an association between the letters and Ivins' anthrax flask.

The FBI and Justice Department issued a joint statement responding to the committee's work and reiterating that Ivins was determined to be "the perpetrator of the deadly mailings."

Reports in the news media play up the critical aspects of the report, but nothing in the report absolves Ivins from guilt.

Algeria Is the New Egypt

2011-02-12T07:13:00.002-05:00

(LNS) Emboldened by events in Egypt, thousands of protesters gathered in Algiers, Algeria, demanding a change in government.

The gripes of Algerians are similar to those in Tunisia and Egypt: unemployment, high food prices, corruption, and weariness with a police state offering no real democracy.

A state of emergency has existed in Algeria for nearly two decades. Fearful of the wave of protests sweeping the Middle East, President Abdelaziz Bouteflika claimed he would soon lift the emergency measures.

Protests are officially banned in Algiers, and hundreds of riot police confronted protesters.

France was rocked this week by revelations that the government authorized a shipment of tear gas grenades to Tunisia in the days before President Zine el Abidine ben Ali was toppled from power. Last year, France trained the dreaded Egyptian police force in crowd control as well. France has a long historical relationship with Algeria.

The Best Spy Nonfiction of 2011

2011-02-09T16:10:00.009-05:00

Update 9/15/11: Just added: Warrick, Joby. The Triple Agent: The al-Qaeda Mole Who Infiltrated the CIA. (See listing below)

In the year 2011, we see intelligence and espionage dancing around on the world stage, captivating attention. Here are the latest nonfiction books on the intelligence world.

Baer, Robert and Dayna Baer. The Company We Keep: A Husband-and-Wife True Life Spy Story. Two CIA spies meet on a covert mission in Sarajevo and fall in love.
Collins, Catherine. Fallout: The True Story of the CIA’s Secret War on Nuclear Trafficking.
Conant, Jennet. A Covert Affair: Julia Child and Paul Child in the OSS. The spying background of the world-famous chef.
Eddington, Patrick G. Long Strange Journey: An Intelligence Memoir. Eddington was a CIA analyst from 1988-1996.
Held, E. B. A Spy’s Guide to Santa Fe and Albuquerque. Atomic espionage at Los Alamos and the assassination of Leon Trotsky.
Jacobsen, Annie. Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base.

The US Intelligence Community

Robenalt, James. The Harding Affair: Love and Espionage During the Great War. Warren Harding's affair with an alleged German spy.
Waller, Douglas. Wild Bill Donovan: The Spymaster Who Created the OSS and Modern American Espionage. A new biography of Donovan.
Warrick, Joby. The Triple Agent: The al-Qaeda Mole Who Infiltrated the CIA. The story of the CIA's biggest disaster since 9/11.
Wise, David. Tiger Trap: America's Secret Spy War with China. Timely book on China's espionage against the USA.

Obama's Blame Game on Middle East Intelligence

2011-02-09T09:47:00.000-05:00

With the 2012 presidential election season fast approaching, President Obama is playing the blame game on intelligence "failures" regarding the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

Obama said he was "disappointed with the intelligence community" in not predicting events in Tunisia, but does Obama really understand intelligence and what it can and can't do?

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden, with his usual tactfulness, doesn't come out and call Obama an ignoramus, but does contradict his assessment:

Suggestions of intelligence failure miss the mark and betray a lack of understanding of what intelligence can and cannot do.

Has Obama read Hayden's commentary? He needs it more than anyone.

Didn't Obama hire Leon Panetta to run the CIA, a guy with no intelligence experience? Didn't Obama just change horses in midstream by hiring a new Director of National Intelligence? Isn't Obama the guy who hired Janet Napolitano as DHS chief, though she has no national security background?

These facts betray a lack of seriousness on Obama's part with respect to intelligence, and now he wants to play the blame game, and it's a game he himself doesn't even comprehend!

House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers praised the intelligence community on its "impressive" work on the uprising in Egypt.

Democrat Dianne Feinstein of the Senate Intelligence Committee also directly contradicted Obama by saying "there was a good deal of intelligence about Tunisia," although she wants to argue about what was known about Egypt.

Everything indicates Obama is well behind the curve on intelligence, doesn't understand the issues, and is making public statements with an eye toward the next election.

HuffPost Deal: Drudge Next?

2011-02-08T08:50:00.001-05:00

The Huffington Post is now part of AOL's empire and two questions are paramount in the minds of pundits:

1. Was it a smart deal for AOL? Is Arianna Huffington and her website worth the $315 million investment or will it turn sour?

2. Will Arianna stay on the left side of the political aisle or turn centrist, as she claims has been her recent trend? What's best for business?

Our impression is that Arianna was never really a liberal or a conservative, she's an Arianna.

Could we see more acquisitions of independent media outlets? Is Matt Drudge ready to sell? His site these days provides links rather than any original breaking stories and steers discussion to favored topics. Would Rush Limbaugh want Drudge for his website, or would Fox News have an interest?

Is Rush looking at Drudge or Free Republic and its staunchly conservative audience, or will he continue to go his own way and develop his website without acquisitions? Are sites like these coveted by media empires?

The Taliban Versus Al Qaeda

2011-02-07T10:44:00.000-05:00

Substantial friction exists between the Taliban and al Qaeda, a new report asserts.

The Taliban could be persuaded to renounce al Qaeda by focusing on commonalities between them and the United States.

Under a new relationship, the Taliban could conduct counter-terrorism operations against al Qaeda with US Special Forces along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

It seems a bizarre possibility, but the report suggests the Taliban may be ready for a break with al Qaeda and might be interested in keeping the Afghan border terror-free.

Such agreements would necessitate looking at the Taliban in a different light than previously.

The New York University report is available at this website.

Why Hotties Never Shop at Victoria’s Secret

2011-02-04T14:59:00.001-05:00

Every large shopping mall in the country boasts one or both of the famous women’s lingerie stores Victoria’s Secret or Frederick’s of Hollywood.

Every time I walk by I say to myself, I wonder if there are any hotties in there right now? And after looking through the doorway and windows and passing by, the answer is invariably No. Not even close. It doesn’t matter what mall it is or where, attractive women are never to be seen shopping in one of these stores.

The only time you see pretty girls at these stores is when they are professional models paid to appear on their websites or in their catalogs. You too can look just like this! Just buy something and you’ll be hot, too!

Sometimes I’ll feel sorry for those I do see rummaging around in there and say to myself, not even Victoria’s Secret can help that poor girl. The stores clearly cater to those born without a heaping helping of natural beauty.

Why do the most attractive women seemingly avoid these stores as if they were a fashion plague—or as if wearing their apparel would produce the opposite of the intended effect? Because they only shop by mail order? It’s can’t be true that hotties use nothing but mail order and unattractive women take the trouble to physically trudge into the stores and perhaps solicit some much-needed advice from the clerks. That just can’t be.

Women such as Reese Witherspoon or Taylor Swift don’t need to wear sexy lingerie to accentuate their attractiveness. They would look good in a burlap sack.

Standard lingerie on attractive girls underscores their natural beauty. Expensive lingerie isn’t needed. Perhaps might even be counterproductive. They know they don’t need anything more than something plain without frills and can flaunt their lack of need for anything sensual. It’s like saying, It’s not the lingerie, it’s the girl!

Not needing sexy lingerie is proof that one is irresistible without it.

Women who aren’t hotties need all the help they can get. They are the customer base of lingerie shops. Without them, these stores couldn’t exist.

Lingerie boutiques make a profit by adorning average women with such enticing sensual lingerie that their men will drool at the very sight of them and find them irresistible. And if they weren’t wearing slinky panties, well, things might be different. If not, then why bother?

Next time you’re at the local mall, take a look inside and see if it isn’t true.

Obama Was Warned About Egypt, CIA Official Says

2011-02-03T16:26:00.001-05:00

A CIA official said today that the Obama Administration was warned in late 2010 about instability in Egypt.

Stephanie O'Sullivan, nominated to be deputy director of national intelligence, said the intelligence community didn't know exactly what might trigger the instability, but did warn about it.

The political stagnation in some Middle East countries is untenable in the long run, she said the intelligence community has warned for some time.

She made the comments at a hearing regarding her nomination.

It is unclear what use, if any, Obama made of the information, if any policy was changed, or if his administration discussed problems with Hosni Mubarak as a result.

Mice Sniff Out Explosives

2011-02-03T15:26:00.002-05:00

Tired of intrusive body pat-downs at airports? The solution could be mice.

A company in Israel, BioExplorers, believe trained mice can be useful for detecting explosives at airports and other places as well.

Mice have some drawbacks, but in their favor, the critters have a more acute sense of smell than dogs, which are commonly used to find explosives.

The company's recent field tests have been positive, however there is little scientific study on the use of rodents as detectors of explosives.

Dirty Bomb Fears Grow

2011-02-03T09:14:00.001-05:00

Scotland Yard and MI5 foiled an Al Qaeda plot in 2004, according to newly released documents.

Recent terrorist activities related to dirty bombs throughout the world have been listed in the media, and the verdict is that one will be detonated at some point in the foreseeable future, and such an event can't be stopped but only delayed.

Al Qaeda has the ability to build a dirty bomb and has been trying to recruit rogue scientists to assist them. But so far the logistics of emplacing it in the US and detonating it haven't been surmounted, otherwise it would already have happened.

European Leaders Call for Egyptian Transition

2011-02-03T08:57:00.001-05:00

The leaders of several western European countries issued a joint statement calling for an orderly transition of the Egyptian government to begin "now."

We have been calling for world leaders to issue such statements, but unfortunately, they have yet to address Hosni Mubarak specifically and demand that he himself step down "right now."

The death toll in Egypt is rising. One wonders how many more will die before world leaders understand their public appeal must mention Mubarak and the need for him to leave now, and not 6 months down the road.

The time for diplomat-speak is over.

Mubarak's First Bloody Day of Transition

2011-02-02T12:13:00.002-05:00

Hosni Mubarak told the Egyptian people he would begin the transition of power and not run for reelection in September.

Pro-Mubarak supporters suddenly appeared soon after his speech and clashed with opposition protesters in Tahrir Square with predictable bloodshed.

If Mubarak honestly intended to give up power, this would never have happened. A lot can happen when a dictator claims he will give up power 6 months into the future. People have a habit of changing their minds.

Today proved Mubarak and his supporters have no intention of giving up power, and Mubarak is willing to risk civil war to keep his job.

This is the result of the US never pushing Mubarak hard enough on establishing an honest democratic opposition. President Obama and world leaders must unite in demanding that Mubarak leave immediately.

Things will only get uglier until Mubarak leaves.

Anything can happen in such circumstances, and Mubarak's wish to die on Egyptian soil could end in a way he didn't quite imagine.

Mubarak Expected to Flee to Saudi Arabia

2011-02-01T10:15:00.002-05:00

Hosni Mubarak still clings to power in Egypt, but his exit from the country is considered a question of when, not if.

Cairo protesters expect him to go to Saudi Arabia. A CIA-sponsored think tank has echoed that belief as well.

Countries such as England, France and Germany were also considered as places he may go by the research institute's analysis, but rejected in favor of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis, of course, have voiced support for Mubarak, as that regime sees itself as in possibly a similar situation. Israel wants Mubarak to stay as well, fearful of what might come after, although no one expects him to go there in exile, except as a joke.

It seems unlikely to us that Mubarak would go to any of those western European countries, given the fact that France is known to have offered its support to tamp down the Tunisian riots in service of its dictator, creating its own problems for itself.

It wouldn't be politically possible for England or Germany to host him either, especially as Arabs across many countries blame the west for looking the other way when their dictators repressed them.

As for his health considerations, it is most likely he would live in an Arab country and simply travel west for any needed medical attention.

Mubarak, for his part, says he isn't going anywhere and will "die on Egyptian soil."

The US Needs to Abandon Mubarak

2011-01-30T17:00:00.001-05:00

President Obama needs to abandon Hosni Mubarak and speak 2 words to him privately: Game over.

Mohamed ElBaradei returned to Egypt for the purpose of taking Mubarak's job from him, and he may well get it. He has been campaigning for the Muslim Brotherhood's "vote," and he now has it.

The White House needs to play a one-on-one, mano-a-mano game with ElBaradei, as he is the one they need to keep an eye on to avoid a possible radical government.

Unfortunately, ElBaradei is beating up Obama and Hillary Clinton in the public relations game. The longer the US supports Mubarak, the more we lose the Egyptians in the street. They already equate the US with Mubarak's repressive regime, and ElBaradei plays on that.

It is counter-productive for Hillary to say that the US has been "helping" the Egyptian people for 30 years, when anyone in the streets of Cairo would feel anger at that assertion. The US never pushed very hard at all, and every Egyptian knows that.

Commentators on the left and right give high marks to Obama for his handling of the crisis so far, yet that is a preposterous assessment. Even the Republican Speaker of the House said Obama had it about right, but all Obama has done is display a lack of leadership and hesitated to make any commitment to anything until the light at the end of the tunnel is visible to all. The same goes for the cowardly politicians of all stripes in Washington.

Meanwhile, both sides talk of the "maturity" and the "deliberate, necessary, slow pace" of a reaction by Obama, but silly aphorisms of how diplomacy should be conducted avoid the issue of the lack of leadership and visionary qualities of Obama and the others.

We know the outcome we desire, and the US has $2 billion/year in aid to leverage. The desired outcome is western-style democracy with free elections. The US needs to take action to do everything it can to ensure that future for Egypt. That would eliminate the Muslim Brotherhood's style of radical politics that would merely enslave the Egyptians again.

Obama needs to indicate to Mubarak that's its support for him as Egypt's leader is over, and he needs to resign and leave the country.

Obama and the US need to regain the people of Egypt by making a clear break with Mubarak and keeping the promise to make sure they have the freedom and democracy they deserve. Outside observers need to be involved in the transition to democracy. We aren't helpless to "steer" events in Egypt. On the contrary, we have the ability and the obligation to do so.

Obama needs to organize with world leaders to act as guarantors of the governmental transition to an honest democracy.

Are Egyptians and Arabs ready for democracy? Recent events have proven that democracy is for everyone, let's stop denying it.

Leadership, anyone?

Time for Democracy in Egypt--Now

2011-01-29T08:01:00.001-05:00

The US should fear a continuation of Hosni Mubarak's rule in Egypt more than any regime change.

Aside from proving the truth that dictators bring neither stability nor freedom to the Middle East, Mubarak has been a lousy ally as well, backing the US only when it serves his interests. In return for $1.5 billion, we get air rights over Egypt and free access to the Suez Canal. Gosh, thanks.

In return, the US has propped up Mubarak while he destroys his own people, thwarting democratic opposition and scaring us with the prospect of the Muslim Brotherhood should he fall.

The streets of Cairo today are no different than the entire Arab world. Every country over there could be on fire tomorrow. The US has damaged the entire region with its short-sighted policies and now when their people look at their leaders, they see the US flag. Where's the democracy the US supposedly believes in? Where is the strong advocacy of it?

Many conservatives are confused about who to support. None are more confused than the scribes at National Review, a publication which has fallen precipitously since the exit of William F. Buckley. Their latest editorial: "Mubarak Should Go--But Not Yet"! Stanley Kurtz, writing on that site's blog, uttered the standard insult to those who want democracy over there--"naively optimistic." Sheer comedy.

What is naive is not the belief in democracy in the Middle East, but the belief that propping up dictators who hold none of our values serves our long-term interests in the Middle East, or anywhere else. We have lost the public as well. It is time for the naive scholars and diplomats to be swept aside.

Michael Rubin of Forbes.com, writing at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, is someone who finally gets it right. "The US Should Not Fear Egypt Regime Change" is a commentary all should read, especially those who write for National Review.

At the Heritage Foundation, James Phillips provides some guidelines for the way forward for the US and Egypt.

It is time for the US to not only prod the likes of Mubarak for democratic changes in the Middle East, but demand them. And the sooner the better--starting right now.

Where's the Egyptian Ayatollah Khomeini?

2011-01-27T13:18:00.002-05:00

Who, if anyone, is behind the protests in Egypt?

Protests are growing in the Arab world--Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen--as the public grows increasingly dissatisfied with the meager lives their leaders provide for them.

Richard Spencer, UK Telegraph correspondent, wonders where the Arab Nelson Mandela is.

More to the point, where is the Egyptian Ayatollah Khomeini?

The greatest fear in the western world is the emergence of radical Islamist governments replacing the current class of dictators who supposedly provide "stability" and some measure of friendship with the west, while keeping the radicals away from power.

It was in 2005 that George W. Bush's Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, called for democracy in the Middle East, and she said it was time to support that.

But the US and other allies haven't done any such thing. What we have done is support dictators loathed by their own people because we fear Islamists rising to power--the Muslim Brotherhood, for example.

We already know the common people in these countries hate the western world and our values. The murder of Christians throughout the Islamic world is one of the biggest under-reported stories of modern times. No matter who is in charge, there will always be a problem.

Isn't it time we started to believe in our own values? Isn't it time to stand up for democracy and believe in where it takes us, even if some radicals gain power in the short term?

There is no "Nelson Mandela" figure waiting behind the scenes to ascend any throne in Egypt or anywhere else in the Arab world. What we can expect to happen is some some of Ayatollah Khomeini replacing Hosni Mubarak, or any other leader whose government topples, and we in the west need to prepare for that.

It's time to believe in democracy in the Arab world, as well as everywhere else, and stop supporting dictators who have neither the skills nor the interest in improving the lives of their people.

Researcher: WikiLeaks Has Damaged American Power

2011-01-27T09:49:00.002-05:00

Professor Inderjeet Parmar of the University of Manchester delivered a paper recently that concluded the WikiLeaks exposure of secret diplomatic cables has damaged American power.

Parmar's paper, apparently the first academic study on the effects of the publication of the cables, contradicts some in the Obama Administration who have tried to downplay the effects of the information breach and said the cables do no serious or long-lasting harm.

President Obama has been weakened both domestically and internationally, Parmar said. It is now up to the Obama Administration to respond if it is believed his analysis or conclusions are in error.

MI6 Denies Hamas Role

2011-01-26T10:02:00.001-05:00

The British foreign intelligence agency MI6 has denied a new report from al-Jazeera that it "drew up plans to crush Hamas."

Some are questioning the legitimacy of the so-called "Palestine Papers" leaked to the Qatar-based news outlet.

MI6 called the allegations "ridiculous."

Supposing for a moment that MI6 did in fact assist in defeating Hamas, that would not be considered unusual. Hamas is recognized as a terrorist group by the UK, US, and the European Union.

It is the position of the United States to do everything it can to marginalize and defeat Hamas.

One would expect intelligence agencies around the world to join in and defeat all terrorist groups, such as those recognized by the EU, UK, and US.

Hamas is considered the major obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

Any serious peace proposal in the Middle East must include the destruction of Hamas.

New York Times to Solicit Classified Documents

2011-01-25T11:47:00.001-05:00

The New York Times is considering ways to solicit and make it easy for anyone with access to secret classified documents to submit them for possible publication.

The Times has a long history of publishing classified documents that have a deleterious effect on US national security, such as exposing the National Security Agency's "warrentless wiretapping" program a few years ago. The Times published the "Pentagon Papers" back in 1971 as well.

Envious of WikiLeaks' treasure-trove of secret diplomatic cables in its possession, the Times surely has been wondering why Julian Assange should be the recipient of such jewels instead of themselves, the leading liberal newspaper publisher in the United States.

Like Al Jazeera, the Times believes it should be a major player in the game of exposing national security secrets, especially considering its unparalleled history in this regard.

The Times may not crudely and baldly advertise for those who possess classified information to break the law, imperil national security, and possibly destroy their own lives and careers, but that is clearly the intent of this new initiative. Classified documents is where all the fun is, as well as the publicity and glory. Open source material, not so much.

Moscow Airport Bombing Could Happen in US Tomorrow

2011-01-24T20:48:00.002-05:00

The terrorist suicide bombing at the Domododevo Airport near Moscow could happen tomorrow at any major US airport.

Anyone can walk into an airport and stand in the pre-security screening areas where hundreds of people congregate and set off an explosive.

While TSA security at airports has focused on groping children and women unlikely to commit any act of sabotage, the real problems remain unaddressed. It is only sheer luck and the lack of effort that the Moscow attack hasn't already happened in Washington DC, New York, Chicago, or any other major city.

Jesse Ventura has now sued DHS and TSA over their pat-downs.

A significant impediment remains the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, a politician more concerned with political battles than national security.

As experts love to point out, there is no such thing as perfect security. But there is no excuse for the current absurd situation, either. Not only are we a long way from perfect, but we are far from implementing necessary precautions that would mitigate the chances of the Moscow attack happening over here.

The talk of TSA's behavioral observation at airports as some sort of answer is as ridiculous as their invasive personal searches on unlikely suspects at the security checkpoints.

News articles all indicate increased security checks at the world's major airports as a result of this terrorist attack, but that is another indication of how wrong things are. Seriousness after the crisis, rather than before.

Left Wing Groups Rally for Bradley Manning

2011-01-24T11:07:00.001-05:00

Amnesty International is the latest left-wing organization accusing US authorities of "inhumane treatment" of Bradley Manning, the Army Private sitting in a brig at Quantico for passing classified documents to WikiLeaks.

Supporters of Manning from the leftist website firedoglake tried to deliver a petition protesting the conditions under which Manning is held.

There is nothing wrong with the treatment Manning is receiving, but left-wing activists have turned him into a cause celebre and embraced him as one of their own, ignoring the damage he has caused, such as placing individuals in personal physical danger around the world.

Manning's lawyers approve of all the fuss on their client's behalf. Many left-wing media outlets have published news stories alleging mistreatment as well, including the Washington Post, and many lesser-known sites with a Socialist outlook.

A similar strategy has been used in portraying the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay as victims of inhumane treatment. Any prominent figure on the left can expect the same sort of help from the left-wing crowd if such a fate should befall him or her.

A roll call of leftist groups can be seen at work here, as it may not have been obvious that groups such as Amnesty International are not unbiased but have their own partisan political agenda.

AP on WikiLeaks Consequences

2011-01-23T10:43:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press published a story today on the effects of WikiLeaks so far, written by one Raphael G. Satter.

Satter attempts to provide some analysis but really has nothing new to say. The article starts off by reminding everyone yet again that only 1 percent of the 250,000 secret documents in the possession of WikiLeaks has been published. Clearly, Satter and the AP want to see more--soon.

Here is the level of Satter's analysis. What have we learned from the 2,600 cables published so far? "It's shown how leaders lie," Satter opines. And not only that, "It's lifted the veil on international relations."

Satter laments that even though a handful of newspapers have held all the secret documents "for weeks, if not months," there seems to be no rush to publish more, and wonders whether they have gone through all the documents yet. You get the message: what are you all waiting for? Publish everything!

But never fear, Satter says, because WikiLeaks is still sitting on a "a huge archive of leaked data from nearly every country in the world" and Julian Assange said more material could be online within weeks. You can almost see Satter drooling at the prospect.

Vein Analysis Fingered Daniel Pearl Killer

2011-01-20T09:59:00.002-05:00

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession that he beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was confirmed by a newly emergent biometric technology called “vein analysis,” “vein matching,” or “vascular biometrics.”

The vascular structure of the back of a hand is used to match a known person’s hand with that of an unknown person, to positively identify that individual.

This technology has potential to be superior to fingerprinting or iris scanners for identification purposes, as it has been pointed out that fingerprint recognition technology and iris scanners can be tricked.

Scientific papers are sparse. One recent study said “finger-vein based personal identification systems can be immune to counterfeit fingers and noninvasive to users” and the technique has some “excellent advantages” over traditional biometric characteristics, such as faces, irises, and fingerprints.

Vascular readers are used by some companies to identify employees, but are not widely used in North America. The technology is more popular in South Korea and Australia.

Mohammed is one of the terrorists currently incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Media Attacks on Sarah Palin Work

2011-01-19T09:07:00.001-05:00

A new CNN poll indicates more Americans have an unfavorable view of Sarah Palin than ever before.

This poll comes on the heels of attacks against her in the liberal mainstream media that reached unprecedented heights after the Tucson shootings. Some on the right dispute this survey, but I suspect it isn’t far from the truth.

Concerted, deliberate propaganda attacks by the mainstream media against Sarah Palin work, and this poll adds to the evidence.

This is the traditional, boiler-plate strategy of liberals against any political figure considered a danger to them. We’ve all seen it before when the media targeted Newt Gingrich, Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and many others. All too often, the media can cry “Mission accomplished!”

Far too many Americans are vulnerable to mass media propaganda. Their opinions on Palin are a direct reflection of what they see and hear in the media. Most would not know hardly anything about her otherwise. That explains Palin’s high negative numbers. Even prominent figures on the right are influenced, and talk about Palin’s “radioactivity,” which only results from media attacks without any corresponding counterattack.

Conservatives still lack a strategy for countering mainstream media hit jobs on their leaders. The result is a growing list of damaged figures that otherwise deserve a far better fate than being dismissed by their own party with the standard wisdom that anyone with high negatives is unelectable.

Liberal media outlets, as well as celebrities and others sympathetic to their cause, turn promising and “dangerous” conservatives into “radioactive” personalities with high negatives. All liberal media join the party.

It’s not about truth; it’s about creating an alternate reality designed to damage their political prospects. The truth is not considered a desirable goal; advocating the liberal party line has achieved primacy. A fantasy assessment of the conservative’s qualities has been substituted for the reality—the ultimate goal of the attack. The disparity can be seen when Democratic politicians such as Joe Biden and Barack Obama constantly utter gaffes, yet the media is largely silent.

Lessons can be learned from Ronald Reagan. The media hated him, called him a fool, and tried every stunt in the book to discredit him and his policies in the eyes of the public, yet he still overcame all that.

Palin and others on the right have their advocates, such as Rush Limbaugh and others, but sometimes it isn’t enough, and something else needs to be brought into play to effectively counter the propaganda directed at the American public. A counterstrategy is needed to protect outstanding political figures on the right against the mainstream media’s attacks.

This latest poll indicating Palin’s high negatives highlights the problem.

Obama’s China State Dinner

2011-01-18T12:17:00.002-05:00

President Obama will host his third official state dinner Wednesday when Chinese President Hu Jintao and friends assemble at the White House for fancy grub amid promises of closer ties between the two countries.

There is much tongue wagging over the possibility of Obama assailing China on such hot-button issues as North Korea, currency manipulation, human rights, and its challenges to American naval supremacy in the Pacific. He might also want to demand that the Chinese government stop hacking into US military computer systems if his country is to be considered anything but an enemy.

The truth is that Obama will get nothing Hu and the Chinese don’t want to give him. They have already decided on what that will be, and a “beggar’s banquet” is on the menu.

Will the news media, always overprotective of Obama as one of their own, take this opportunity to question the details or even the existence of Obama’s China strategy? Does he have one? And if so, does it involve anything more substantial than wondering if General Tso is a black belt at Chop Suey?

George W. Bush nixed a state dinner for China over their human rights record, but that is no impediment for Obama, who will honor Hu with a 21-gun salute.

The question foremost on the minds of many is whether Obama will bow again to Hu when they greet each other in front of cameras? Probably, because Hu represents the sort of government (Communist) that is very much in harmony with Obama’s personal beliefs and in direct opposition to the traditional values of Western Democracy. Obama has a sad history of bowing to people who don’t deserve it and Hu meets those qualifications.

Guests: Plenty of Democratic big-wigs and donors. The Salahis? Do they dare try? Security personnel no doubt have familiarized themselves with their photos. But the likelihood of someone or other without papers gaining entry past the borders of the Obamas’ imperial gate always seems possible.

Gifts: The Obamas are notorious for their ill-conceived gifts, such as giving the Queen of England an iPod with his speeches on it, and more of the same are expected to be presented to Hu. Here are the odds-on favorites:

1. An iPod with an MP3 file of the president playing “Chopsticks” on the piano with two fingers
2. That White House toilet paper they sell in the DC souvenir shops
3. Together We Thrive t-shirts

Jonathan Pollard Clemency Appeals Continue Unabated

2011-01-14T09:27:00.001-05:00

Clemency appeals for convicted spy Jonathan Pollard continue unabated and have been ongoing virtually non-stop since March 11, 1988. That was the day members of the Israeli parliament asked President Ronald Reagan to pardon him—a mere 1 year after Pollard was sentenced for his crimes on March 4, 1987!

Recently Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sent a letter to President Obama requesting yet again his release from prison. Democratic members of Congress piled on the pressure and sent a letter to Obama urging clemency as well. Rep. Barney Frank admitted he was behind the initiative. Republicans refused to sign it.

Frank has a longstanding, well-earned reputation as someone antithetical to the intelligence community, going back to the early 1990s when he consistently sought extremely deep cuts in its budget. His role as the initiator of this letter could not possibly help in gaining bipartisan support; on the contrary, Frank’s activism could only hurt the cause of freeing Pollard.

Should we be surprised no one mentions that the 23rd anniversary of clemency appeals will arrive within 2 months? Pollard apologists like to claim that the standard sentence for someone who spies for a friendly nation is 7 years (which doesn’t apply in Pollard’s case due to the enormity of his crimes). But Israel thought just 1 year was plenty enough!

There is nothing special about the “25th anniversary” of Pollard’s incarceration. Somehow, that number is posited as a convenient termination date for his jail sentence.

Obama is unlikely to give Pollard a get-out-of-jail pass. If he did so, he would be seen in Israel (and everywhere else) as a weak sucker, whereas his predecessors—Clinton and George W. Bush—weren’t. Obama’s growing international reputation as an easy mark in over his head would only be enhanced, and he surely must know it.

If I were the POTUS and Netanyahu asked me to free Pollard in exchange for extending a freeze on construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, as he did Obama, I would be insulted, because I would know he was playing me for a fool.

Pollard advocates say his has spent more time than others who committed similar crimes. The problem with this logic is that there are very few (if any!) who committed espionage on the scale of Pollard’s treachery. His “peers” in that regard would be the likes of Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, who spied for the Soviet Union.

What Pollard gave, and Israel freely and happily asked for and accepted, went far beyond what one would expect from a friendly country spying on another. The magnitude of the security breach is what one would expect only from an enemy. What other spy gave a friendly country highly classified material similar to the incredible number of documents Pollard handed Israel?

We don’t know if third countries—such as the Soviet Union—benefitted from Pollard’s thefts. Lawrence Korb keeps repeating that the Soviets never received information stolen by Pollard, but he is in no position to know that and neither is R. James Woolsey. Korb says the information the Soviet Union received “most likely” came from Ames and Hanssen. That is nothing more than idle speculation on his part.

Did Israel give some of Pollard’s documents to them in exchange for easing restrictions on Soviet Jews? Did other countries penetrate Israel without their knowledge? What about South Africa? Other countries? What happened to the documents once the US lost control of them? No one can be sure.

Our friend Israel refused to assist the US in recovering material passed on to them by Pollard. They didn’t admit he was working for them until long after his arrest when it was already common knowledge. They have badgered the US since Pollard was jailed for his release. Again, Israel behaved more like an enemy than a friend.

Korb claims Bill Clinton agreed to free Pollard in 1998, but Clinton has said no such deal was ever reached, although he was amenable to the idea. When Pollard had asked for clemency the previous time (yes, the appeals always keep coming), Clinton had noted that he had shown no remorse, his crimes were enormous, and he had caused significant damage to US security.

All reports of his behavior suggest Pollard is nothing but a scoundrel who doesn’t deserve a break. This is the character that is constantly upheld as worthy of our sorrow? Worthy of treatment like others who did a bit of lower-level espionage on behalf of our valued friends abroad? It is laughable to compare Pollard with anyone but the worst spies in our history.

At the time when Clinton was president, a number of former defense secretaries (from both Democratic and Republican administrations) joined the current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in signing a letter to Clinton urging him to keep Pollard behind bars. Recently in 2010, Clinton said he would support whatever decision Obama made on Pollard, and didn’t call for his release.

Korb has taken a special interest in this case for the past 20 years, although it’s not entirely clear why. It is fair to ask if he has received any indication from Israel, either directly or indirectly, of some sort of compensation for his services. If Korb is a leader of the Free Pollard movement, what will Israel give him in return if his work bears fruit? Or is he merely a concerned citizen expecting nothing?

The concept of releasing spies after short sentences because “they worked for friendly countries” is wrong-headed. It doesn’t matter who you spy for—friend or foe. Information is classified and kept from friends and foes alike for good reasons related to the national security of the United States. The policy of early releases in these cases should be completely overthrown. There is no reason to continue a wrong practice because that’s the way it was done before—and it shouldn’t apply in Pollard’s case, anyway.

The idea of Pollard or someone like WikiLeaks' Julian Assange deciding what US classified documents should be given to others is preposterous.

Pleas have been made to release Pollard since shortly after he was jailed. Even back in the early 1990s, his sentence was already considered excessive. That’s part of the problem—the lack of a true admission that what was done by both Pollard and Israel was wrong and never should have happened.

A square in Jerusalem has been named after this so-called “national hero.” The existence of the square seems a slap in the face to the United States. I wonder if the square includes a plaque citing the exact amount of money Israel paid him? Quotes from prosecutors on the damage he inflicted to the US? Is there true remorse here? I’m not seeing that. There is only remorse that he got caught.

Israel’s behavior from the moment Pollard was arrested has been inconsistent with the behavior of a friendly nation. The lesson to be learned is how to be a friendly nation—and why. It is still a lesson to be learned.

Pollard was described by his Israeli handlers as a “one-man intelligence agency” for Israel. "The breadth and volume of the US classified information sold by defendant to Israel was enormous, as great as in any reported case involving espionage on behalf of any foreign nation," federal prosecutors charged.

Ronald Olive, in his book Capturing Jonathan Pollard, assessed the damage: at least 360 cubic feet of classified documents and over one million pages—and probably much more than that. The amount of stolen material staggered investigators. He stole everything he could get his hands on. Was a document useful to Israel? He didn’t spend any time judging anything, he simply pilfered it all!

Treason on an unprecedented scale—that is Pollard’s claim to fame. Who else in the history of espionage could say he stole so much for a friend of the US? Or even for an enemy? And for this, Pollard’s sympathizers think a short 7-year prison term would have been adequate?

The Israeli “patriot” was paid for his treason as well. He didn’t do it out of a loyalist spirit for Israel, he did it for money. What other foreign countries was he willing to “do business with” as well? South Africa? Others?

Netanyahu’s harping on this sore issue can only damage the “special relationship” the US has with Israel, which already took a hit the day Obama was elected president. I’m not sure he’s really worried about that. But Netanyahu knows with Obama he has a chance of success, because anything is possible until Obama leaves.

Funny thing, the unsavory creatures people choose as their heroes.

CNN Portrays Loughner As a Sensitive Poet

2011-01-12T09:14:00.001-05:00

CNN has published 2 poems apparently written by Tucson shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner.

Some are questioning why CNN would give publicity to a murderer's schoolwork, but it fits in with the typical liberal approach for laying a foundation of compassion and forgiveness for criminals and terrorists.

The same poetry card was played with the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, as I wrote about here before. Lawyers have tried to portray those terrorists as sensitive poets who did no one any harm and are unjustifiably incarcerated without any proof against them, etc.

We know now that many of the Guantanamo terrorists who were released went back to their old ways.

CNN is playing the same game. Loughner is a poet! He is a sensitive person despite all evidence to the contrary. CNN's point? No death penalty. That's their goal.

Respected Journal to Publish Evidence of ESP

2011-01-06T13:00:00.004-05:00

The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a highly respected psychology journal, will soon publish a paper presenting strong evidence of ESP.

Many scientists are described as either amused or scornful.

This paper may or may not prove to be a landmark event in the history of psychology, but some type of ESP, albeit limited, seems possible. The problem is to figure out under what conditions ESP occurs and what can be divined with it.

The New York Times article poses questions that I think completely miss the point about the true nature of ESP:

[I]f ESP exists, why aren’t people getting rich by reliably predicting the movement of the stock market or the outcome of football games?

The answer, of course, is that ESP doesn’t allow for such detailed understandings of future events. The phenomenon of glimpsing the future may be far more fleeting and shadowy than that. Reading future numbers and scores, if theoretically possible, may require specific prerequisites currently unknown to us.

The fact that no one gets rich by seeing future lottery numbers says nothing pro or con about the possibility of ESP. The question simply misreads the ephemeral nature of the phenomenon, and reproduction of results may be incredibly problematic.

Studies are now underway to replicate the results.

Dead Birds & Fish Defy Scientific Explanation

2011-01-05T13:29:00.006-05:00

Massive numbers of dead birds & fish have now been found in many locations around the United States, Sweden, Brazil, Paraguay, New Zealand, Haiti, the UK, and Australia, with more countries likely to be added to the list.

The deaths defy scientific explanation. One theory bandied about is that the birds died as a result of the sound of loud new-year fireworks. But reports of dead birds haven’t been made in previous years around January. Why this year and not before?

The synchronization of so many bird and fish deaths suggests the intriguing possibility that a force unknown to science is at work.

Daphne Du Maurier wrote a short story called “The Birds” in 1952, in which birds deliberately attacked humans. The symbolism of the story suggested the birds represented communism attacking a democratic western world during the cold war after World War II. Alfred Hitchcock based his famous movie on this story (excising the cold-war symbolism).

In this current mystery we see the birds behaving in the opposite manner: instead of attacking us, they simply die, and we humans are mere spectators, not targets.

The second mystery, after the idea of an unseen and unknown force at work, is the possibility that the deaths portend some future event on a planetary scale, as the international nature of the problem suggests.

Many people see what they want to see here, and I find their theories less than compelling. The most prominent are pollution, global warming, the end times, and the like. The solution is elsewhere, and the scientific examination and testing of the bird corpses will not be fully enlightening.

Biologists claim mass die-offs happen almost every day and are unrelated. Only now with the internet do people pay attention, but clearly that doesn't explain why no one has noticed until just now.

Others say mass bird deaths are rare, and "science is struggling to explain these things."

The proffered explanations remain unconvincing.

Hundred Years Starship: Expect Countless Volunteers

2010-10-27T13:41:00.006-04:00

NASA has announced the Hundred Years Starship, a manned spacecraft mission to Mars that will leave the astronauts there for good to colonize the planet.

Leaving the Earth permanently I expect will draw countless volunteers for many plausible reasons, not the least of which is an eagerness to escape the failings of this planet, its leaders, and its inhabitants. If given the choice, many would leave. So far, there is no choice.

A mission to colonize Mars and ultimately the entire universe will appeal to many types of people. Wealthy thrill-seekers who can afford to pay their own way and enter the history books won't be hard to lure and will be demanding a seat on the next rocket. Those who feel Earth is a failure will see the mission as a new hope of a better life and future for their descendants, whereas a future here can leave one feeling like everything has been for naught.

It will eventually be a great challenge to weed out volunteers who would do the mission more harm than good: secret saboteurs, criminals, mental defectives, and those will might soon feel a sense of "volunteer remorse" and demand to be sent back!

Regardless of whether this particular mission succeeds or never gets off the ground, eventually the human race will need an exit strategy from Earth, either because we ourselves threaten to destroy it, or an asteroid in our path can't be stopped, or the sun stops shining billions of years from now. Earth has an expiration date, and that can't be ignored.

NPR Should Be Audited for Political Bias

2010-10-21T13:18:00.005-04:00

NPR recently fired Juan Williams for inoffensive comments he made about Muslims, and it proves how far afield publicly-funded media outlets like NPR have strayed.

Taxpayer-funded news media such as NPR should be regularly audited on their political content and slant, to determine if there is obvious bias in one direction or the other.

No one seriously questions that NPR has a liberal bias. But why should taxpayers fund them when they attempt to present themselves as objective?

Steps should be taken not only to determine NPR's slant, but to demand immediate steps to balance their coverage by hiring conservatives as reporters and editors.

When was the last time NPR was audited to determine its political stance? Calls are already being made to strip NPR of its government money, and that would be a good start toward righting this wrong that has been allowed to continue for too long.

Obama & Mao Think Alike

2010-09-23T15:45:00.005-04:00

Obama's shocking statement that "We can absorb a terrorist attack" has justifiably garnered condemnation and left his remaining supporters scrambling for some plausible explanation to toss out and hope the public buys.

It's striking that Obama is callous toward any victims and complacent in terms of national security, the same as Mao Zedong. In 1958, Soviet officials were considering whether to give China the nuclear bomb. Mao talked about a war with the United States and said he wasn't worried about retaliation against China, because his country could withstand the loss of 300 million people and still have plenty left!

Even given that Obama is an unqualified, neo-Socialist president, and the worst in modern times, somehow it it still shocking when someone--anyone--in his office makes such statements showing such a disconnect with reality.

I wrote earlier about Obama's psychological cross-circuits, as well as the fact that he is not anywhere near as intelligent as many claim him to be. Surely many in the media are afraid to call him unintelligent, or stupid, for fear of being branded as racists. But no one can seriously make the case anymore that Obama is a "genius" or has any sort of exceptional intelligence. The facts prove the reverse.

The Best Spy Fiction of 2010

2010-09-13T11:09:00.007-04:00

Update: Dec. 6, 2010

Introduction

The spy/espionage thriller was expected to die off in synchronization with the fall of the Soviet Union, but here in 2010 it is without question a thriving genre (and Soviet Russia seems undead as well).

Many heavy-hitters published this year: Clancy, Silva, Thor, Flynn, Le Carré, and Cussler. Best-selling thrillerists don’t get much bigger than that.

Russia remains a prominent setting, joined these days by the Arab world, which has dominated discussion in the public arena since 9/11, with its never-ending parade of extremists vowing to blow up as many Western innocents as possible, as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Readers expect a fair amount of realism and precision with strong echoes of current geopolitics and international intrigue—Tom Clancy still the reigning champ on those grounds; plots that might play themselves out in the real world; and since anything seems possible these days, it’s not that hard to craft something plausible. The trick is to go beyond what has happened and is happening in the real world and write something creative.

2010 could well be remembered as the Year of Secrets Revealed. International espionage accounted for several of the biggest news stories of the year. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange published thousands of classified documents stolen by a gay US Army soldier. The Anna Chapman Affair exposed a ring of deep undercover Russian spies operating in the US, and Chapman’s subsequent risqué photo shoots made her the world’s most famous female ex-spy. A Hamas official was assassinated in an Abu Dhabi hotel, with fingers pointed at Israel’s Mossad. Photos of the execution team members were splashed across TV screens and newspapers around the world.

Overly talkative former CIA agents such as Valerie Plame Wilson just won’t shut up. A movie was released based on her book, Fair Game. It seems the espionage business has never been so foremost in the news and in the minds of the public.

Surely book sales are reflecting the public’s thirst to know more. No doubt in addition to fiction reflecting recent events, we will soon see biographies of Chapman, and something on Assange.

This is an edited listing of prominent spy novels (and one short story collection) published in 2010. It isn’t always easy to categorize which books belong in the Spy category and which, for example, belong in Political Thrillers, or Military Fiction, or other pigeonholes.

• Baldacci, David. Hell's Corner. Grand Central Publishing, 2010.
• Berenson, Alex. The Midnight House. Putnam Adult, 2010.
• Clancy, Tom. Dead or Alive. Putnam Adult, 2010.
• Cussler, Clive, and Justin Scott. The Spy. Putnam Adult, 2010.
• Dryden, Alex. Moscow Sting: A Novel. Ecco, 2010.
• Eisler, Barry. Inside Out: A Novel. Ballantine Books, 2010.
• Flynn, Vince. American Assassin: A Thriller. Atria, 2010.
• Freemantle, Brian. Red Star Rising: A Thriller. Thomas Dunne Books, 2010.
• Furst, Alan. Spies of the Balkans: A Novel. Random House, 2010.
• Grant, Andrew. Die Twice. Minotaur Books, 2010.
• Hinshelwood, Tom. The Killer. Thomas Dunne Books, 2010.
• Lawson, Mike. House Justice: A Joe DeMarco Thriller. Atlantic Monthly Press, 2010.
• Le Gallo, Andre. The Caliphate. Leisure Books, 2010.
• Lustbader, Eric Van. Last Snow. Forge Books, 2010.
• Lynds, Gayle. The Book of Spies. St. Martin's Press, 2010.
• Neetz, Roger E. Embassy Intrigue. American Book Publishing, 2010.
• Penzler, Otto. Agents of Treachery. [Short stories.] Vintage, 2010.
• Reich, Christopher. Rules of Betrayal. Doubleday, 2010.
• Rimington, Stella. Dead Line. Knopf, 2010.
• Silva, Daniel. The Rembrandt Affair. Putnam Adult, 2010.
• Steiner, Peter. The Terrorist: A Thriller. Minotaur Books, 2010.
• Steinhauer, Olen. The Nearest Exit. Minotaur Books, 2010.
• Stone, David. The Skorpion Directive. Putnam Adult, 2010.
• Thomson, Keith. Once A Spy: A Novel. Doubleday, 2010.
• Thor, Brad. Foreign Influence: A Thriller. Atria Books, 2010.

Also Noted:

• Elliot, Jason. The Network: A Novel. Bloomsbury USA, 2010.
• Le Carré, John. Our Kind of Traitor: A Novel. Viking Adult, 2010. Not quite my idea of an “entertainment.” This is a terrible bore. Le Carré has admitted he thought of defecting to Russia; with his shouting at President Bush (a stand-in for shouting at Western democracy), his politics don’t seem that far removed from those of Kim Philby & the others. Drooling applause from unconvincing (but not unexpected) reviews in the New York Times & Washington Post.
• Maines, Bethany. Bulletproof Mascara. Atria, 2010. A Mary Kay lookalike company is also a spy agency.

Read "The Best Spy Fiction of 2011"

Read "The Best Spy Nonfiction of 2011"

Al Gore's Delayed Return

2010-02-28T12:19:00.005-05:00

Where is Al Gore? He is at the New York Times, the flagship newspaper of the liberal media, defending as best he can his discredited global warming hysterics.

Why did he delay so long in responding? While he hid, his reputation took hits from formerly friendly quarters who are now fearful of associating themselves with someone who is an international laughingstock.

He hesitated so long because he had to. And he responded with an essay because it saved him from having to answer in-person questions. Gore has an "expert staff" of global warming enthusiasts who supplied him with his latest talking points. He had no choice but to wait for them to deliver something to him before he could issue a written statement.

And the statement itself is pure Gore. The advocacy of unproven science that fits his own personal goals garnished with a huge dollop of emotional attacks against his political enemies. When he mentioned media "showmen" I wondered if he wasn't talking about MSNBC's band of clowns, such as Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews. But no, he made it clear that he didn't mean them, but anyone and everyone at Fox News.

And what about the "science"? His scaremongering about vanishing polar bears, himalayan mountains and the Amazon rainforest were a deliberate attempt to falsely claim the "science is settled" when in fact it never has been.

The United National Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave special prominence to those scenarios in their notorious 2007 report.

Gore now finds himself facing the Institute of Physics, which issued a statement condemning the unscientific research handed down to the entire world from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Perhaps the IOP aren't real scientists, Al?

The corrupt IPCC certainly has no intention of backing down and has issued a statement standing behind its conclusions while announcing an "independent" panel to review its own procedures. Any such panel would naturally return a heavy indictment against them.

Gore has no choice but to ride out his climate change horse wherever it may tread. It isn't as if he can just walk away from it as he is inextricably bound to it more than any other person in the entire world.

But is he having second thoughts? Surely there was a time he once didn't doubt man-made global warming but his delay this time and his deliberate avoidance of uncomfortable questions is indicative of a former believer who now privately entertains serious doubts about his religion. And that must be difficult when you are the messiah.

FBI Closes Anthrax Letters Case

2010-02-19T16:05:00.007-05:00

The FBI investigation into the 2001 anthrax letters case has been formally concluded, the Justice Department said today.

The investigation found that Bruce Ivins acted alone in planning and executing these attacks.

As written here earlier, there is no doubt that Ivins was responsible for the letters and the deaths resulting from them.

Unfortunately, some people have been suckered into believing otherwise (within the pages of the Wall Street Journal no less), promulgating some sort of conspiracy theory, Sen. Pat Leahy among them.

The report concluded that the anthrax was not weaponized as some have written. Here is the excerpt from the report:

Throughout the course of the investigation, repeated challenges have been raised to this finding that the spores were not weaponized. The challenges have their root in an initial finding by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (“AFIP”) that, upon gross examination, the spores exhibited a silicon and oxygen signal. However, subsequent analysis of the spores by Sandia National Laboratories, using a more sensitive technology called transmission electron microscopy (“TEM”) – which enabled material characterization experts to focus its probe of the spores to the nanometer scale – determined that the silica was localized to the spore coat within the exosporium, an area inside the spore. In other words, it was incorporated into the cell as a natural part of the cell formation process. “The spores we examined lacked that fuzzy outer coating that would indicate they’d been weaponized,” stated Dr. Paul Kotula of Sandia, who personally examined the spores from the 2001 attacks. When presented with these results, Dr. Peter Jahrling, a USAMRIID scientist who had reviewed the initial AFIP results and stated publicly in late 2001 that the spores had been weaponized, retracted his earlier statement, telling the Los Angeles Times on September 16, 2008, “I believe I made an honest mistake.”

The report at the Justice link above makes note of new information about Ivins' strange habits which is interesting reading for those who need more reassurance that he was the man.

I suppose some will continue believing Ivins wasn't the culprit, but it serves us no purpose to ignore the truth and invent alternate realities.

Tiger: Shut Up and Play

2010-02-18T08:37:00.005-05:00

Tiger Woods will speak publicly for the first time in 3 months tomorrow in front of millions watching on TV.

Apparently he has something to say about his marital infidelity, hi sexual issues, and perhaps his current preferences among his wife and various bimbos he has been associated with lately.

An apology will be offered--probably not to the aforementioned bimbos but to the fans, his publicist suggested.

Golf? Will he discuss golf? Unsure.

But why is Tiger saying anything at all? Does he really owe the fans an apology? Are the fans entitled to know anything about his personal life anyway?

Yes, Tiger is a hypocrite, playing the faithful family man to the adoring, gullible fans, but those of us in this modern world know that is usually a lie and not to be taken at face value. Phony marketing surrounds all celebrities.

Tiger should just shut up and play. No more about his bimbos. No more about his unquenchable sexual desires. Let the golf clubs do the talking.

He needs to play again so when other golfers win tournaments, there won't be an asterisk next to their name (*Tiger Woods didn't play!).

Tiger owes us, the fans, nothing but golf. Let's not allow the marketing vampires, the sponsors, the advertising schmucks, or Tiger himself lead us to believe anything else.

No Global Warming Since 1995

2010-02-14T14:38:00.005-05:00

Phil Jones, the professor at the center of the Climategate affair, has admitted that there has been no "statistically significant" global warming for the past 15 years.

The world may have been warmer during medieval times as well, he said.

Meanwhile, skeptics are outraged that President Obama plans to dramatically increase funding for global warming research despite all the scandals.

The science is not settled. Has anyone seen Al Gore lately?

The Greatest American Literary Generation

2010-02-11T11:32:00.005-05:00

Mark Lawson, an Englishman, has written with typical Brit incomprehension about American literature, claiming, absurdly, that the generation of writers represented by the recently deceased Norman Mailer, J. D. Salinger, and John Updike, may have been "the greatest literary generation the country has ever seen or ever will see."

Lawson wouldn't know it, but this generation always knowingly stood in the shadow of the previous generation represented by the likes of William Faulker, Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, John Steinbeck, Robert Frost, et cetera. That generation of writers towered above Mailer and his peers. It's not even close, and Mailer and the others knew it.

And then there are those 19th Century giants--Melville, Hawthorne, Poe, Whitman, Twain, and James. Is Lawson really so clueless that he thinks Mailer et al were a greater generation than them? And how does Salinger fit in, not having published anything in decades?

I've come to expect nonsense whenever Brits talk America, but this takes the chapbook. Apparently they need to live with their distorted dreams about our country as they still can't face reality. How else to understand so much misunderstanding?

Mailer's generation is the weakest and one must ask why that is, not pretend that it was the best! Can our giants from days gone by never be matched again? Is it all downhill from here?

Surely there are great writers today, but the emphasis creeps inexorably away from "serious" literature and toward the mass appeal "genre" stuff, primarily because economics dictates it, and economics is king of this world.

It's sad that the recently departed writers are no longer here, but let's dry the tears and properly understand their place in the American pantheon of letters.

E-Book Piracy to Follow MP3s

2010-02-11T08:30:00.008-05:00

With the cost of e-books rising from Amazon's former $9.99 standard, the only logical result will be a burgeoning and thriving piracy culture, the same that exists for music mp3s.

Some e-books are priced near $15 for the Kindle edition, and many people just won't pay that and will look for alternatives, either a pirated edition of the same book, a different but cheaper e-book, or no e-book at all.

A Wharton professor is quoted in a recent news article that "I would be scared to death about a culture of piracy taking hold. I wouldn't mess around with price increases."

But book publishers aren't listening, and from what I've seen at recent BookExpo America conferences, they aren't rational about the entire issue and are heading for a massive pushback that they will quickly regret.

Piracy is the biggest threat to the book publishing industry. What is being done to thwart it or even consider what might be done about it? And here it comes with those higher prices publishers are demanding without thought to the consequences.

The book publishing industry, with MP3s in mind, locked up the e-books with DRM. But that's like Prospero trying to lock his abbey from the Red Death.

Anyone can quickly and easily digitize a print book and make that file available on the internet. Happens all the time, and it's coming to a bestseller near you.

Liberal Media: Blizzards or Not Prove Global Warming

2010-02-11T07:34:00.004-05:00

It doesn't matter if there is less snow, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. predicted for Washington DC, or if there are historic blizzards of the kind visited upon the nation's capital this week.

It all equals global warming, and the liberal media and liberal scientists sing from the same climate change church hymn book. Their belief in the religion of global warming is as unshakable as Osama bin Laden's belief that God is a terrorist.

Time magazine, a true believer, tells us the freezing blizzards don't disprove global warming but are actually consistent with it.

With Al Gore hiding in his igloo until the snow melts, the New York Times exalts Jeff Masters, a meteorologist with a prominent blog, as their champion on the "science" of global warming. Quoting from his blog, the old Times notes that a recent government report (yes) concluded that in the coming years we will see more snow in the Northeast and less in the Southeast.

There you have it, from the leader of the old media, north is cold and south is hot, and the government, having spent your tax dollars, says so.

Where is Al Gore?

2010-02-09T20:47:00.009-05:00

Washington, DC and the East Coast are currently in the grip of an historic snowstorm, which seems to contradict Al Gore's global warming scaremongering.

Why isn't the mainstream media interviewing him, demanding that he explain the discrepancy? Why isn't he appearing on every nightly cable news show? Has anyone seen Al Gore?

His deafening silence suggests he has no answer to the freeze, and secretly knows he is perpetrating a scam. Otherwise he would be demanding airtime to calm his supporters and assure them that all is well and the cold weather means nothing in the greater scheme of things.

The entire concept of global warming has taken many hits lately as climate scientists admit they fudged their numbers. Researchers who previously believed the numbers proffered them in the scholarly journals now aren't so sure.

Gore picked global warming as an issue he could ride as the Earth's top guru and messiah. Leading a religion beats political office any day.

Are the news shows trying to reach Gore for some statements? Is he hiding in an igloo? Where is Al Gore? Come out, come out, wherever you are!

He is on the phone, at this moment, demanding from his "experts" rationales he can spout, not only explaining away the blizzards, but providing him with plausible-sounding reasons why the snowstorms are additional proofs of global warming!

Miss Me Yet? Bush & Obama

2010-02-09T12:56:00.008-05:00

George W. Bush left the White House as an unpopular president because hostilities in Iraq dragged on and on and our soldiers kept losing their lives to IEDs years after the Iraq army had been defeated.

If everything had been mopped up quickly, despite the lack of WMDs, Bush's popularity wouldn't have suffered as it did.

Obama is becoming more and more unpopular for different reasons. The economy is reaching historic lows and voters gradually understand that he isn't up to the job, which should have been clear to all before he was elected. Obama's ideas for improving things are misguided; he is a Socialist out of step with the vast majority of Americans.

More importantly, he killed a lot of people's dreams. They romanticized about him and vote for him based on those rosy reveries. Betray someone's dreams and you can expect retribution.

Many people who voted for Obama thought "no one could be worse than Bush." They know better by now, don't they? They miss Bush, not because Bush was a great president but because he was better than Obama.

Given the above, the billboard near Wyoming, Minnesota makes sense only as an indictment of Obama. If the country were traveling in the right direction and if Obama was hugely popular, then the billboard would rightly be viewed as an indictment of Bush (but why anyway at this point in time?).

The election of 2008 represented a breakdown of the entire process. Obama, unqualified and far too liberal, had no business being nominated by the Democrats. And John McCain was not even close to being the most desired candidate on the Republican side. Two mistakes vying for the most powerful office in the land.

The voters didn't do their job. The reason Congress has the lowest approval rating in history and the reason incompetent leaders rule over us is because the voters are incompetent as well. No one wants to talk about the role voters play in all this, but the horrific results of every election are their fault.

What we really "miss" are good citizens doing their job and electing quality politicians. We aren't there yet, "miles to go before we sleep." Change the system? Voter education? This won't be solved anytime soon. Enjoy the ride.

Update: As I said above, the billboard is pro-Bush. It's a conservative t-shirt.

Dubai Can't Keep Its Tower Up

2010-02-08T13:07:00.005-05:00

The world's tallest skyscraper in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, has closed only a month after it opened.

But even when it was open, the building was largely empty of tenants. Why was the tower built? Not for tenants and not for tourists.

Large skyscrapers and towers are often called "phallic symbols" because the underlying reasons for their construction are tied not to necessity or economics, but to salve psychological wounds and uplift sagging psyches.

Muslims have been busy lately spending oil revenue not on improving the lives of Muslims but instead erecting giant skyscrapers and mosques that look down on the smaller towers and churches of the Christian West. Not just in the United Arab Emirates, but increasingly in countries such as the UK and US.

Islamic culture has been outshone and surpassed by the West over the past millennium. Arab morale has taken a beating all these years and the oil reserves beneath their land, which need only to be brought to the surface, provide the means to enlift those ragged spirits. Giant edifices are a visual way to give the appearance of competing and besting the West at their own game. No matter that the large structures are a sham.

Hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world supported Osama bin Laden after 9/11. Finally they had won a battle against the dominant Crusaders!

And now an Islamic country builds the biggest skyscraper and, shazzam! Psychic rejuvenation for an entire culture. The submerged worry, of course, is that Muslims know they've already lost and it's all over.

But if oil fuels the worldwide Islamic ego, what happens when the wells run dry? Arab nations want to diversity their economies so they aren't so dependent on oil, but that goal remains to be attained. Can Islam sustain its place without oil? And if it can't, will Islam dry up as well? Will it shrink back to its former role before the West filled its coffers?

The Muslim skyscraper is empty and no one knows when it will open.

Christopher Hitchens, Ex-Dauphin

2010-02-06T20:51:00.005-05:00

Christopher Hitchens has written recently that he noticed a change in Gore Vidal after 9/11. The old subversive man of letters became a crackpot, having said that the terrorist attack was probably an inside job engineered by George W. Bush.

Vidal had anointed Hitchens as his dauphin, but without the same blood, it all trickled down the drain. Another literary marriage doomed to divorce.

The truth is that Hitchens had never acknowledged or understood that Vidal was a crackpot until after 9/11, either choosing to ignore the obvious or keeping those thoughts below the surface.

Vidal has always promoted bizarre ideas that suit whatever his current agenda might be. For example, back in the 1970s, in an essay for the New York Review of Books, he equated Norman Mailer with Charles Manson. Vidal doesn't choose to reprint that one much these days, if at all.

Hitchens has noted that Vidal doesn't reprint certain essays that he thinks might prove embarrassing, such as some of his 9/11 baloney, suggesting he may not really believe what he writes and is merely trying to goad the unwashed masses. It has always been Vidal's modus operandi to float dubious ideas as if they were settled truths that conservatives refuse to accept.

Vidal for his part, has in so many words withdrawn Hitchens' dauphincy, or un-dauphined him, claiming that Hitchens wanted to be his heir but became frustrated when Vidal chose not to expire in a timely manner.

DHS Releases Quadrennial Homeland Security Review

2010-02-02T15:02:00.003-05:00

The Department of Homeland Security released its first ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) today.

The purpose is to "outline a strategic framework to guide the activities of participants in homeland security toward a common end."

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (Democrat), praised the report, and James Carafano, a conservative with the Heritage Foundation, called it "an incredible achievement."

There is no mention of the words such as "Islam" or "Muslims" but instead "violent extremism" is used.

Some Highlights:

Threats & Hazards
• High-consequence weapons of mass destruction
• Al-Qaeda and global violent extremism
• High-consequence and/or wide-scale cyber attacks, intrusions, disruptions, and exploitations
• Pandemics, major accidents, and natural hazards
• Illicit trafficking and related transnational crime
• Smaller scale terrorism

Global Challenges & Trends

• Economic and financial instability
• Dependence on fossil fuels and the threats of global climate change
• Nations unwilling to abide by international norms
• Sophisticated and broadly available technology
• Other drivers of illicit, dangerous, or uncontrolled movement of people and goods

The 5 DHS Missions:

Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism & Enhancing Security
• Goal 1.1: Prevent Terrorist Attacks
• Goal 1.2: Prevent the Unauthorized Acquisition or Use of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Materials and Capabilities
• Goal 1.3: Manage Risks to Critical Infrastructure, Key Leadership, and Events

Mission 2: Securing & Managing Our Borders
• Goal 2.1: Effectively Control U.S. Air, Land, and Sea Borders
• Goal 2.2: Safeguard Lawful Trade and Travel
• Goal 2.3: Disrupt and Dismantle Transnational Criminal Organizations

Mission 3: Enforcing & Administering Our Immigration Laws
• Goal 3.1: Strengthen and Effectively Administer the Immigration System
• Goal 3.2: Prevent Unlawful Immigration

Mission 4: Safeguarding & Securing Cyberspace
• Goal 4.1: Create a Safe, Secure, and Resilient Cyber Environment
• Goal 4.2: Promote Cybersecurity Knowledge and Innovation

Mission 5:Ensuring Resilience to Disasters
• Goal 5.1: Mitigate Hazards
• Goal 5.2: Enhance Preparedness
• Goal 5.3: Ensure Effective Emergency Response
• Goal 5.4: Rapidly Recover

CIA Moonlighting Policy Under Scrutiny

2010-02-02T08:30:00.005-05:00

The CIA's policy of allowing employees to moonlight for private companies has been revealed in a new book, "Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy."

According to a Politico report, Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein wants answers, and CIA watchers were surprised to hear about it.

Each request is taken on a case-by-case basis, a CIA spokesman said. Other Intelligence Community agencies also allow outside employment with prior approval.

The policy allows employees to make extra money, prompting them to stay instead of leaving for more lucrative private jobs.

The Iron Staircase (Book Review)

2010-01-31T09:23:00.002-05:00

The Iron Staircase
Translation of: L’Escalier de Fer
By Georges Simenon
176 pp. Harvest/HBJ 1981

Etienne Lomel believes his wife Louise might be poisoning him. Although he is only 40, he is in terrible physical condition. He is breathless after walking up stairs, visibly losing weight, and always tired and apathetic.

After eating meals, he often feels a burning sensation in his throat, dizziness, and a pain in his chest. The doctors aren’t sure what the problem is and tell him to make a note of what happened just before each attack—what he ate, what he was doing.

Sometimes he feels ashamed of his “evil thoughts” that maybe Louise wants him dead. Perhaps it isn’t really true. After 15 years of marriage, he still loves her and wants to continue their relationship. But is she having an affair?

They live above a stationery shop. It is his wife’s business, having inherited it from her father. Everything belongs to her. Lomel owns nothing of his own and must ask her for money. He is totally dependent on her. She’s the boss. The iron staircase of the title leads from the first floor up directly to their bedroom and the other rooms where they live.

Lomel often stands at the top of the staircase listening to what is said downstairs at the shop. He wonders about the men Louise meets there every day—perhaps she is serious about one of them? He spends his days fretting and speculating about his wife while trying to recover from his illness.

We learn how Etienne and Louise first met 15 years ago. She was married to her first husband at the time. Etienne came to her shop on business and they soon began an affair. Louise’s callousness is seen when her sister-in-law died: all it meant to her was the chance for a long rendezvous with her lover, Etienne, since her husband had to go away for the funeral.

Etienne and Louise agree to marry, but what about her husband? During one of his visits, she tells Etienne that her husband has become seriously ill. After a few weeks, the husband dies. Etienne doesn’t question her about it.

He believes she poisoned her husband, as she might be poisoning him now, to get him out of the way and marry a younger man. Etienne has the same symptoms that her previous husband had immediately before he died: weight loss, tiredness, and heart trouble. For the 15 years of their marriage, he had never asked his wife how her former husband had died.

Part II opens with Etienne seeing a doctor and asking if it’s possible to determine if he is the victim of arsenic poisoning. At first, the doctor isn’t sure. Etienne resolves to stay with Louise in spite of her and not to die. He takes the blame for his poor attitude. He tells her and their friends that he is a new person.

Later he goes to the doctor again for more arsenic testing and the doctor finds positive results. Etienne finally has proof that Louise is trying to murder him. He tries to figure out what he will do. The doctor suggests he is obligated to go to the police but Etienne refuses to give him any information and leaves.

Etienne goes back home and acts naturally. Whenever he eats or drinks something he believes is spiked with poison, he leaves the house and throws it up. He decides to spy on his wife by following her and find out where she goes. Etienne sees her at the post office where she reads a letter that makes her very happy. He sees her receive additional letters in the following days, probably from the same person, her new lover.

Etienne follows his wife as she leaves the shop one day and sees her go to a restaurant. He waits and after an hour, he sees her leave arm-in-arm with a man. He sees them kiss as they part. He recognizes the man as Roger Cornu, son of a printer in their stationery shop.

Even now, knowing everything, Etienne still wants to keep Louise, and to keep living. He realizes he is as much to blame as his wife for the death of her former husband, since he agreed to marry her while she was still with him. Feelings of guilt over the death of the ex-husband often possess him. He wants their relationship to remain as it is, keeping to themselves with their silent secrets.

Etienne follows Cornu to his workplace and home, not finding him. But he is told the name of the restaurant where he usually hangs out. He then goes to a gun shop and buys a revolver. Afterward, Louise will understand, he believes, because he did the same thing she did before. He can’t afford to lose her because he is completely dependent on her.

He goes to Cornu’s favorite restaurant and sees him there, writing a letter, probably to Louise. Etienne then goes to Cornu’s home and lies in wait for him during the night. When Cornu arrives, he notices Etienne standing outside, and calls to him. Etienne is surprised Cornu recognizes him so easily, but shouldn’t have, since they are so similar, two steps on a staircase.

Simenon masterfully sets up the reader throughout the narrative for the strange, brutal resolution. Etienne hesitates to pull out his gun. He is unable to kill Cornu, as he is the same as himself and Louise’s ex-husband. Unable to change from the kind of person he is to someone like his wife, he can’t traverse the “iron staircase” that separates them. Cornu, knowing his own guilt, is stunned that Etienne doesn’t pull out a gun and shoot him. He bids him goodnight and goes inside. Half an hour later, sitting outside, Etienne shoots himself.

Long out-of-print in English, The Iron Staircase, with its psychological drama and pervading existentialist atmosphere, echoes Simenon’s French peers, such as Sartre and Camus. It is one of his finest efforts.

Top 10 Places to Move the KSM Trial

2010-01-30T05:54:00.004-05:00

The plans of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to hold the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) in Manhattan have gone awry.

Security and cost concerns have reached a fever pitch, not to mention the longstanding opposition to granting a terrorist at war with America a civilian trial instead of facing a military tribunal.

At the least, a new venue is needed and various sites are being proposed. Here is the list of the top 10 places to move the KSM trial:

10. Dearborn, Michigan. The Muslim capital of America and the home court in the "Great Satan" for KSM. Holder would select this locale if he wants to be sure KSM receives a trial decided by a jury of his peers.

9. Los Angeles. Holder would track down and recruit the same jurors from the OJ Simpson trial on the grounds that as long as Obama wants to do favors for terrorists, like giving them the same rights as all Americans, this is a good way to do it. Marsha Clark, Chirstopher Darden, and all those lovable defense lawyers would be asked to reprise their roles as well.

8. Austin, Texas. The home base of Alex Jones, leader of the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theory. Jones could be called in as an expert witness (and simulcast on his radio show) that KSM, Osama bin Laden, and al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11. It was a plot by George W. Bush. A plane never crashed into the Pentagon, no, it was a missile. Holder and Obama seem like the sort of folk who would be ripe for this explanation.

7. Las Vegas. Where does a show trial belong if not in the entertainment capital of the world? If you want a good show, you go to Vegas. Nevada Senator Harry Reid would be granted the right to give a campaign speech during the proceedings and distribute his campaign literature in the lobby. It's only fair since he's got a tough election coming up.

6. Washington, DC. Specifically, Rep. Barney Frank's apartment, the same one from which a male prostitution ring was run. Holder and Obama are prostituting the American justice system with this trial, so what better way to drive home the symbolism. And Barney won't mind, he can use the opportunity to expand his rolodex.

5. San Francisco/Berkeley. Ask the locals: Are you with us or against us? What do you suppose they would say? Holder would ask them all: We can release into your community KSM or George W. Bush; which one do you want? KSM, of course, playing the modern-day role of Barabbas.

4. Parmatown Mall, Parma, Ohio. The location of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's local office near Cleveland. Kucinich, one of Congress' most liberal members, has stated that KSM and Osama bin Laden deserve the same basic rights as all Americans, according to the Constitution. This civilian trial is a victory for him. Congrats. The trial participants can shop in the mall during downtime but be careful in the parking lot.

3. Governors Island, New York. This former royal hangout has been trumpeted as a great location by some, despite the lack of a jail, its proximity to NYC, and the security problems of transporting KSM there. But on the plus side, the Smothers Brothers were born there, and high comedy is expected.

2. Chicago. Obama's old stomping ground, not to mention Al Capone. You can get any kind of verdict you want in Chicago as long as you know how to play the game, and Obama may not have a clue how to govern in a democracy, as opposed to a socialist state, but he knows how to play a Chicago-style game.

1. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Forget the civilian trial. Judge KSM at a military tribunal, and then hang him. Everyone wins. Or hold him there until he croaks. Legal experts say, oh no, military tribunal judgments aren't as tough as those in civilian courts because the former wants to prove it's fair and the latter wants to prove it's not a pushover. But the experts forget the question here isn't about getting the right verdict, it's about the rights we should give to terrorists as war with America.

Bin Laden Joins Global Warming Scam

2010-01-29T08:04:00.007-05:00

It is a well-established fact that global warming hawkers, such as the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have used faulty and dishonest research and numbers in attempting to promulgate their agenda.

Many people are rejecting the idea of man-made global warming as they realize they have been had by unscientific research crafted to further the economic interests of its adherents.

Little surprise, I suppose, that Osama bin Laden has now entered the fray, blaming global warming on the United States and the Western world. He is looking for ways to injure the US economically, and prodding the world to reject US goods is seen by him as simply another weapon in his anti-US crusade. Whether he really believes in global warming or not is beside the point.

Bin Laden continues to struggle in maintaining his own relevance. Recently he took credit for the (failed) Christmas Day attack on an airliner bound for Detroit. Bin Laden has been running and hiding since 9/11, afraid to pop his head out of its hole for fear the US will blow it off. His personal survival is his priority.

President Obama recently said since 9/11, "we" have put in a series of measures that make us much safer now than before. "We?" It was the Bush Administration that gets the credit, not Obama. Thanks primarily to George W. Bush, bin Laden remains a peripheral figure, unable to do anything but take credit for failed attacks and issue ignorant statements about global warming.

O'Keefe: Right Idea, Wrong Approach

2010-01-28T18:25:00.008-05:00

Conservative activist James O'Keefe wanted to record embarrassing video of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu's office staff ignoring phone calls from constituents, according to his lawyer. He was arrested with others and charged with interfering with the phone system.

Landrieu's constituents have long been complaining that they can't get through to her office. She has become notorious for a special deal that gives Louisiana $300 million in Medicaid money in exchange for her health care bill vote.

Landrieu's shameful behavior, and the corrupt political system operating under the Democrat-controlled Senate and Obama's Administration, should be front-page news.

O'Keefe, unfortunately, seems to have taken the wrong approach. He should never have done anything illegal. And there is no need for that, since so much corruption and poor service to voters can easily be uncovered legally.

Update 012910: O'Keefe has posted a statement. It's up to the courts whether any laws were actually broken.

Why Aliens Ignore Us

2010-01-27T18:07:00.005-05:00

The Royal Society in London has been discussing the reasons why we haven't made contact with aliens from other planets.

We have been listening to radio waves from outer space and sending out our own for 50 years but still no contact. Why?

There are 3 reasonable explanations:

1. There are no aliens. There is no one out there to hear our signals, or see our TV images, or visit the Earth. We are alone. If that is the case, it suggests life on Earth is an experiment and that we really are the center of the universe, despite our position on the edge of the Milky Way galaxy. But why such a large universe for life on only one planet? What's the game?

2. Aliens are unable to contact us. They can't send signals that reach us, or that we understand. Perhaps they haven't sent a signal in our direction. There are technological hurdles that they haven't surmounted. They can't visit us in person, most likely because the distance is too great.

3. They refuse to contact us. Would advanced civilizations really want to contact us? Are we a desirable civilization? There are dangers. Whenever a more technologically advanced society on Earth interacted with a lesser society, the result was often tragic for the less developed people. Perhaps aliens fear us, and what we might do to them. It could be they are already aware that we have nothing that they want. We could be seen by aliens as galactic "trailer trash." Backward, ignorant, violent, and dangerous with nothing to offer them. They may well be "hiding" from us to delay any potential interaction.

If they were out there and amenable to communication, it seems we should have heard from them by now. There is some problem, without question, and the problem is one that we haven't really come to grips with yet. We don't want to believe the truth. We aren't ready for it.

Osama bin Laden Answers His Son Omar

2010-01-24T06:40:00.004-05:00

A few days ago, an interview with Omar bin Laden, one of Osama's sons, was published in Rolling Stone magazine. He was asked if his father was planning more attacks against the West. He answered:

"I don't think so," Omar says. "He doesn't need to. As soon as America went to Afghanistan, his plan worked. He has already won."

As if on cue, Osama has apparently released an audio message claiming responsibility for the Christmas day airline bombing attempt on a plane bound for Detroit. In addition, bin Laden, in a direct contradiction to the words of Omar, said he is planning more attacks as well.

In 2008, Michael Scheuer questioned whether Omar is an al Qaeda disinformation agent and merely pretending to be a messenger of peace.

Omar has his own twisted logic and conflicting emotions about his father and the West, but to view him as a willing agent for al Qaeda is absurd. He would never be accepted as such a person and it is obvious from his interviews that he is at war with himself in trying to come to terms with his family obligations, his father's legacy, and his own beliefs.

Could Omar turn to the dark side and unequivocally support his father? Yes, but that hasn't yet happened. And it may never happen. The uncertainty will always remain.

Massachusetts Done with Kennedys

2010-01-18T13:22:00.005-05:00

Debate "moderator" David Gergen asked Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown about blocking health care reform if he won "Ted Kennedy's seat" and Brown famously responded that it wasn't Kennedy's seat, it was the people's seat.

That's true, and it was a memorable line, but it also can't be denied that symbolically, the seat was Kennedy's and to continue the symbolism would be to elect Martha Coakley, a Democrat who would vote for Obama's health care plan.

But with the Republican Brown surging in the polls and seemingly poised for a historical upset, there may be more going on here than just a repudiation of ObamaCare and the scary governance of the Democrat-controlled Congress.

By electing Brown, Massachusetts is symbolically breaking with the Kennedys, and indicating that the Kennedy legacy has run its course and the people want to move forward, leaving the Kennedys behind. A big part of Brown's appeal may be a rejection of big government as championed by Ted Kennedy.

If Massachusetts rejects a continuation of the Kennedy legacy, what would that portend in the future? Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-1 in the state. Overturning that demographic won't happen overnight. But this is an opportunity for voters to indicate they've become weary and exhausted with the Ted Kennedy legacy and are looking for a new approach.

UPDATE: 01/19/10: Not only did Brown win, but a poll released today found that the vast majority of Massachusetts voters don't want a senator to carry on Ted Kennedy's legacy but want someone to "go in a new direction with fresh ideas."

To what extent were they all "going along" with Ted Kennedy's big government politics merely because he was a member of the American Monarchy--the Kennedy Family, and now that he is gone and no one to continue, will it all fall like a house of cards?

The Issue of Obama's Intelligence

2009-08-29T06:08:00.003-04:00

Is President Obama a smart guy? Any smarter than George W. Bush? Clinton? GHW Bush? Reagan?

If we are to believe the mainstream media, Obama is a genius whose intellect towers above all before him. Yet, the evidence to the contrary continues to mount.

His approval numbers continue to drop as voters realize he is not the great leader they thought (or hoped) they had elected. He continues to break campaign promises, betrays an inappropriate arrogant mentality, runs away from responsibility by claiming decisions are in the hands of others, chooses a clearly incapable vice president, undermines his own presidency by allowing such things as a probe of CIA interrogation methods of terrorists which can only backfire in the eyes of the public, holds a spellbound belief in the historically-discredited theory of socialism (not exactly the hallmark of a great mind, is it?), and already seems nothing more than a prisoner of his own psychological demons which are the source of his anger at traditional American values--capitalism, for one.

But look at these quotes from a new Washington Post story ostensibly written about a "new dynamic" between the White House and the Justice Department. The real point of the story in the liberal DC newspaper is to portray Obama as a great intellect. The authors quote members of Obama's staff and a Democratic Member of Congress, as if their opinion of Obama's intelligence is gospel:

official accounts did not mention Holder's conversations with the White House, nor Obama's deep, if cautious, engagement with the issues.

For his part, Obama appears determined to enter relationships with his Cabinet members as a strategic participant. People who brief him say he is able to game out scenarios before the experts in the room, even on foreign policy, national security and other issues in which he had relatively little expertise before running for president.

Obama is approaching the issues as a game of "three-dimensional chess," said John O. Brennan, an assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. "It's not kinetic checkers. And I think the approach in the past was kinetic checkers. There are moves that are made on the chess board that really have implications, so the president is always looking at those dimensions of it."

"The president is a very sophisticated thinker and understands the implications of these decisions and events, and wants to make sure that he is aware of what those repercussions might be on the workforce, and on the reputation and image of the United States," Brennan said in an interview.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said Obama has "put a lot of thought" into how to balance security and civil liberties.

"I think he is very much aware that this area has been something of a constitutional teeter-totter," said Wyden, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

You get the point. But as noted above and as I've written here before, Obama shows signs of troubling psychological weaknesses, both in his decision-making and in his public utterances. That does not bode well for the American people over the next several years. How bad is he? We're about to find out.

Hemingway's A Moveable Feast New Edition Book Review

2009-07-20T17:34:00.003-04:00

This book is Ernest Hemingway's reminisce about his life in Paris in the 1920s and the literary figures he knew, such as Gertrude Stein, Ford Maddox Ford, Ezra Pound, and F. Scott Fitzgerald. It was left unfinished at the time of Hemingway's death in 1961 and originally published in 1964, edited by his fourth and last wife, Mary. This new "restored" version presents the same book as re-edited by Hemingway's grandson Sean.

The original book is a highly-regarded literary work of art, leaving open the question of why the world needs a new version. The one and only advantage is the inclusion of new, previously unpublished chapters included after the main text, called "Additional Paris Sketches." Anything new written by Hemingway is always welcome.

The problem is Sean Hemingway's editing and the motivation behind it. In his Introduction, he would have us believe Mary somehow wrecked Hemingway's vision of the book and he has now reshuffled the chapters to reflect what his grandfather would have really wanted. Forty-five years after the original publication, Sean writes with what seems to me unusually strong venom at Mary and what he sees as her agenda in making her edits: "The extensive edits Mary Hemingway made to this text seem to have served her own personal relationship with the writer as his fourth and final wife, rather than the interests of the book, or of the author, who comes across in the posthumous first edition as something of an unknowing victim, which he clearly was not." Sean needed to provide some sort of rationale for the new edition, and this is what he would have us believe: the original book reflected Mary's wishes, not Ernest's.

But since the manuscript was left unfinished when Hemingway died, no one knows what he really would have wanted. There is no "definitive" edition and never can one be. Even worse, Sean can well be accused of the same sin as he asserts for Mary: his edits are designed specifically to paint his grandmother Pauline Pfeiffer, Hemingway's second wife and his own grandmother, in a far more favorable light. Readers and scholars can compare the two editions and judge for themselves: is Sean protecting his grandfather's true wishes--whatever they were--or is he doing a favor for his own grandmother at the expense of Hemingway's conception? Sean dug around in the archives and found some things that look good for his grandmother, included them, and rejiggered the original contents in her favor as well.

The good news surely must be that the various heirs of Hemingway can't destroy his work, no matter what their motivations. The text is still the work of one of the 20th century's greatest and most influential writers. Most readers won't need the new edition, as the original, as literature, hasn't really been improved upon. Scholars and Hemingway fans will want to see the new sketches. Probably 45 years into the future, a "scholar's" edition will be published, sans any input from the various heirs of Hemingway, in an attempt to "set the record straight."

The Clockmaker by Georges Simenon (Review)

2009-07-03T20:32:00.003-04:00

Dave Galloway is a watch repairman in the mythical city of Everton, New York. His life is one of familiar routine—he goes through the same motions every day at work and at home. But this comfortable existence is unexpectedly thrown into chaos when Dave’s 16-year-old son Ben runs away from home. We learn that Ben has left with 15-year-old Lillian Hawkins and they plan to get married in Illinois, which recognizes marriage between young teenagers.

While Dave reflects that Ben has abandoned him, we learn that Dave’s wife had abandoned him as well, when Ben was just one year old. The story takes an uglier turn when police break the news that Ben has shot and killed someone and taken his car. While the police chase Ben, the news media interview Dave and he agrees to pose for pictures and answer all their prying questions.

Soon, Ben is captured by the police after a shootout and is taken to Indianapolis. Dave travels there only to suffer more embarrassment when Ben refuses to see him and the police tell him they are moving Ben back to New York and he traveled to Indiana for nothing.

Dave hires an expensive lawyer for Ben, who since his capture has expressed no remorse for his crime, seems proud of what he has done, and acts as if he wants to sit in the electric chair. A psychiatrist evaluates Ben and determines he is sane and can stand trial.

While these events transpire, Dave examines his own mind to try to discover some sense to Ben’s crime, which seems completely pointless and unnecessary. Much of the novel has Dave retracing the signal nerve points of his own life in an attempt to extract meaning from Ben’s actions—his own father’s one night of cheating on his mother; his own decision to marry the cheapest woman in town who had already slept with all his friends; and now Ben’s murder of a stranger for his car and a few dollars. All three of these events were solitary acts of “rebellion” by three men of the same genetic line who otherwise spent all their lives getting ”whipped” in life. Unsatisfied, they needed to temporarily revolt against their own nature. The question is left at the end whether this cycle would turn in the other direction in the future.

The Clockmaker, also published in English as The Watchmaker (first published as L’horloger d’Everton in French in 1954), is a psychological thriller written without Simenon’s most famous character, Inspector Maigret. Only 124 pages, it can be read in a few sittings. Simenon forces the reader to consider if Ben’s actions were already somehow foreordained; the culpability, if any, of his father; and if the similar psychology of Dave, his father, and his son, will change or remain the same in future generations. The New York Review of Books has reissued a number of Simenon’s novels in recent years and this would make a fine addition.

My Twitter Account

2009-07-02T07:33:00.001-04:00

Here is my Twitter account.
http://twitter.com/stephenleary

Kreskin Confidential (Book Review)

2009-06-27T15:08:00.003-04:00

The chance to meet Kreskin recently came up and we spoke for a minute or two. I recounted my story of first seeing his TV show on visits to Toronto in the early 1970s when I was a kid. He inscribed a copy of his book to me and gave me his business card. He's a friendly man and it was a delight to meet him in person.

Kreskin's narrative takes us back to his childhood when he was inspired to a career in mentalism by the Mandrake the Magician comic books. He somehow found a hidden penny as a kid without help, and performed several times for his classmates.

Houdini, Kreskin tells us, was the greatest escape artist, but merely a second- or third-rate magician. Magic as seen on TV nowadays is mostly illegitimate, as it involves scripting, editing, trick photography, and paid or volunteer "people on the street" who have been coached by the producers how to act for best effect. This is more theater than magic, and is dishonest with the viewers.

His first late night TV appearance was on the Steve Allen Show, March 30, 1964 (billed as "George Kreskin"). As Kreskin tells it, this is the show where he stumbled during his entrance because he was blinded by the studio lights. He claims this inspired Johnny Carson to create the "Carnac the Magnificent" character (who always stumbles upon his entrance) from seeing him on the Allen show.

A severe chapter on Orson Welles recounts his blundering attempts at mentalism on Johnny Carson's show. He exposes some chicanery surrounding Jean Dixon's "predictions" as well.

There is no such thing as a hypnotic trance, he reminds us again, and Kreskin offers a reward for anyone who can contradict him. Hypnotism involves the power of suggestion, not an altered state.

Kreskin's trademark stunt is finding his own paycheck hidden by the audience. Over his career, he has failed to find it 9 times, and if he fails again, he will retire that part of his show. Considering how many times he has searched for his check, it seems remarkable he has failed (whether legitimately or didn't want to find it) only 9 times--especially when one realizes he isn't cheating.

A major point of the book is to drive home Kreskin's belief that there is a legitimate way to perform mentalism and an illegitimate method. The dishonest way involves the use of audience plants or secret electronic devices and other types of chicanery. Legitimate mentalism uses only those techniques and skills possessed by the performer himself, along with his props. Kreskin isn't talking about psychic mind reading, as if a person could really tune into the thought broadcasts of another person like turning on a radio, but rather the traditional performing skills related to stage magic. Playing "fair" with the audience using these guidelines means a lot to him and I can't see him violating this code of trust.

Kreskin has always said he uses no electronic devices or confederates in his show, and like the great pioneering mentalist Joseph Dunninger (1892-1975) before him, offers large rewards for anyone who can prove that he does. It's wonderful marketing and no one has any hope of collecting.

After explaining several mentalism stunts the reader can perform on his own, Kreskin then tells the story of meeting the respected magician Dr. Stanley Jaks (1903-1960) and unexpectedly receiving his library after his death. He is now interested in selling those books, listing the sales price at no less than $4 million, after turning down an offer of over $1 million. Kreskin issues a startling threat: if he doesn't find a buyer who will pay the price and properly care for the books, he may well burn them.

He mentions some problems at the Library of Congress, where Houdini's library and other valuable collections were mishandled. As someone who once worked there, I think there would be quite a number of reasons for that. And as someone who worked in an academic library special collections department, I think it would be imperative for a valuable collection to be placed where the staff and institution have a long-term interest in the person or subject matter, as well as the desire and ability to maintain the books and papers. How often is that the case? It makes me wonder what Kreskin's plans are for his own extensive library and manuscripts.

Kreskin has managed to keep himself in the public eye for over 40 years. In the 1960s, he marketed an ESP game that eventually morphed into an aid to accessing the subconscious called "Kreskin's Krystal & Pendulum." He hosted his own TV show in the 1970s and has made hundreds of guest appearances on popular talk shows over the years, such as Merv Griffin, Tom Snyder, Mike Douglas, and the Tonight Show. Kreskin challenged chess champions Anatoly Karpov, Victor Korchnoi, and Bobby Fischer, although they didn't respond. He makes annual predictions and claims he predicted 9/11 (the transcript from CNN, January 1, 2001, begins: "by September or October there will be two major plane crashes....") He backtracked after that, insisting he didn't really mean airplane crashes, but forgetting what he said later, it's a noteworthy prediction if you stop there. Kreskin still keeps a heavy personal appearance schedule.

From what I've seen, most professional mentalists like and respect Kreskin but there are some that don't, and they charge him with not coming entirely clean with the fact that his act is a variant of stage magic and he has no psychic or legitimate mind-reading abilities. But I keep reading statements by Kreskin, in this book and elsewhere, that he claims no special skills, and his abilities are "perceiving and influencing people's thoughts, both mentally and through suggestion." That is not uncommon for anyone inside or outside this profession.

Professional mentalists are in a position where "having it both ways" is good for business. Apparently Dunninger thought so. While professing no special skills for himself, he also wrote books like What's on Your Mind? and The Art of Thought Reading--the sole apparent point of which was to impress upon the American public that he possessed nothing less than genuine psychic thought-reading abilities.

Critics have cited the first edition of the book The Psychology of the Psychic (1980) in which Kreskin was lumped in with the likes of Uri Geller as someone claiming paranormal powers. However, in the second edition published in 2000, the authors removed the chapters on Kreskin, as they admitted he makes no claims to unusual abilities and therefore he didn't belong in their book.

Kreskin Confidential provides a good overview of the professional life of Kreskin from his beginnings up to recent days. He mentions the movie The Great Buck Howard (2008, based on his own life) a number of times. It's not anything approaching a thorough autobiography and can be read in a few sittings. For anyone wanting to know what Kreskin is all about, including his recent activities as well, this book is probably as good as any available right now.

Obama, Biden Served Undercooked Ratburgers at Ray's Hell-Burger?

2009-05-05T18:39:00.003-04:00

President Obama and veep Joe Biden strolled over to Arlington for lunch at Ray's Hell-Burger today. It's likely their staffs didn't vet the place, given its latest restaurant inspection report by the Arlington Health District (listed under "Butcher Burger" which is apparently the true name of the joint).

Among the violations listed in the most recent inspection (dated Dec. 18, 2008):

1. Insect, rodent, and/or other pest harborage conditions exist on the premises [mouse droppings were observed on the floor of the storage room].

2. CRITICAL: The food establishment serves hamburgers [cooked-to-order] undercooked without informing consumers of the significantly increased risk consuming such food by way of a disclosure and reminder using brochures, deli case or menu advisories, label statements, table tents, placards, or other effective written means.

So we have the President of the United States and the Vice President tagging along for a meal at an establishment where mouse droppings were seen during the latest inspection, and the joint serves up hamburgers that are "undercooked without informing consumers of the...risk."

Well, I have to wonder if any employees at Ray's informed Obama, Biden or their security details about any of this. Have the problems been corrected or not? I would have wanted to know. And I wouldn't knowingly eat at a place with a report like that.

We'll have to watch Obama and Biden carefully over the next several days to see if they suffer any ill effects. Is it wise for people in important positions to just go and eat anywhere without checking? What else are they doing without proper forethought? Rhetorical question, of course.

Shootdown of a North Korean Missile

2009-03-08T11:56:00.008-04:00

North Korea's expected launch of a missile or satellite has drawn comments from various quarters about the possibility of shooting it down, if it should pose a threat to the US or Japan.

Since the US says it wants "dialog" with North Korea, the terms under which we would shoot down their missile should be made clear to them, either publicly or privately. But "dialog" has been ongoing for years. Kim Jong Il lied to Madeleine Albright about their nukes and missiles in 2000. And if anyone is going to get out-talked in any discussions, I think I know who that would be. Dialog is a two-edged sword and doesn't necessarily help your own cause. And as John Bolton has pointed out, North Korea will not be talked out of its nuclear program. And beware of "North Korea experts" bearing appeasement.

Hillary Clinton wants dialog with the North. Stephen Bosworth, special rep to North Korea says he wants to do some talking as well, yet he has no current plans to travel to North Korea. Some other time, perhaps. Hillary said he "wasn't invited," raising the question of how you dialog when all you have is a monologue.

North Korea's nukes are for deterrence, international prestige and coercive diplomacy rather than for warfighting--so says Clinton and the latest annual threat assessment of the intelligence community. So then why is Japan so fearful of the impending missile launch? Why are we threatening to shoot it down?

Meanwhile, North Korea counseled against anyone invading "even 0.001mm into our territory" lest they face retaliation. Perhaps this leaves an opening for dialog: can someone invade 0.0001 of their territory with impunity?

The North Koreans view Obama as an "articulate Jimmy Carter," which must be the most terrible insult to be hurled at any president. Pleas for "dialog" and responding to the North's belligerent rhetoric with the use of the laconic mantra "unhelpful" can't possibly change that assessment in their minds.

Barnes & Noble Can't Escape the Ebook Revolution

2009-03-08T11:06:00.008-04:00

Barnes & Noble has entered the ebook market once again, joining Amazon and Sony. Ebook sales have jumped recently while print book sales are flat. Apparently B&N will offer its own reader, just as Amazon and Sony have their own. Kindle sales have been on fire lately, even with a steep price tag.

It still boggles how so many librarians, in particular, are naysayers to the ebook future, and American Libraries, the flagship publication of the American Library Association, promotes and fuels this attitude.

Surely it should be clear to all by now that ebooks aren't going away and some of its detractors (not to mention any names) should be publicly eating their words.

Push the Reset Button on the State Department

2009-03-07T08:20:00.005-05:00

Hillary Clinton's short tenure as Secretary of State has been remarkable for its uninterrupted string of gaffes--the latest is the mistranslation of the word "reset" into Russian--and Romanized Russian at that. Luckily whoever made that reset button didn't attempt to print the word in the Cyrillic alphabet or we'd probably be exchanging nukes with Russia right now.

Every interaction with a foreign government reveals the lack of thought and seriousness of the policies of this administration.

Hillary's "reset" button is really a "panic" button, but it won't remove her or us from the problems we face with Putin and the Russians.

Wouldn't it be lovely if we could just press a button and erase all our problems? Would the American public like to use such a button right now?

Obama's Psychological Demons

2009-03-07T07:59:00.006-05:00

President Obama this week finally had something to say about the stock market that has been crashing since he was sworn into office. He gave the country an investment tip: now is the time to buy stocks, since they have become so cheap lately.

Already, just one month into his presidency, it is painfully clear that Obama knows little about the market and doesn't like the people of Wall Street. He seems completely detached from the economic crisis around him, refusing, or unable to do anything serious to calm the market. The equivalent of voting Present?

One can only wonder who gave him that investment tidbit he offered as a tonic for our troubles: his friend Warren Buffet, or perhaps the CIA, since we know the intelligence agency is providing Obama with a daily economic intelligence document about the economic crisis around the world.

Obama's behavior is causing concern not just at home but around the globe, particularly in Europe. Are Obama's psychological demons greater than Nixon's or Clinton's?

How Dangerous Are Our Leaders?

2009-02-28T21:13:00.006-05:00

The economy is on its sickbed and the market continues to submerge to the bottom of the financial sea, eliminating the traditional act of self-defenestration as an inadequate and ultimately pointless reactionary response. It's not a window we need but a mirror.

Yet Congress, with the country in flames all around them, spend hundreds of billions on non-stimulus projects that are remarkable for their lack of relevance to the state of the economy.

And President Obama, not to be outdone or upstaged, addresses the nation on TV with the firm intention not of calming the markets and reassuring the people, but of declaring war on capitalism and excoriating his personal enemies--Wall Street executives and businessmen in general--with an angry tirade promising wealth redistribution that will bring them all to their knees. The stock market has reacted predictably, with Obama oblivious to the damage to all. Mirroring Lincoln, Obama steers the nation toward a new kind of civil war.

Is the public unable to elect responsible leaders? I would sooner be governed by a random selection of 435 people on MySpace instead of the current members of the House of Representatives. I would rather be governed by 100 random members of Facebook than the current members of the Senate. And I would would accept one member of LinkedIn selected at random as President of the United States instead of Barack Obama. Those individuals, I am confident, would do less damage to our country than those who hold power in Washington.

But what do we do about the voters? Leave them alone to elect any charlatan with a talent for conning them? Elections to high public office are nothing more than exercises in who can snow the voters better than his opponent. Do we raise the voting age to 30? Or lower it to 5? Would that help? Maybe it's time to try?

DHS: The FBI Is Full of Beans

2009-02-23T21:02:00.004-05:00

FBI Director Robert Mueller spoke today to the Council on Foreign Relations about the possibility of terrorists, homegrown or otherwise, attacking the US and what is being done to stop or mitigate these potential attacks.

But a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Michael Keegan, said today that the odds of homegrown terrorists attacking the US "are very low."

So who is right--the FBI or DHS? Should we be "particularly concerned" about homegrown terror or is its likelihood "very low" and therefore we don't need to concern ourselves too much about it?

In the recent Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair wrote:

We remain concerned about the potential for homegrown extremists inspired by al-Qa’ida’s militant ideology to plan attacks inside the United States, Europe, and elsewhere without operational direction from the group itself. In this regard, over the next year we will remain focused on identifying any ties between US-based individuals and extremist networks overseas....Signs that self-generating cells in the US identify with Bin Ladin’s violent objectives all point to the likelihood that a small but violent number of cells may develop here.

So we know 2 things: The FBI Director is concerned about homegrown terrorism. And the Director of National Intelligence is also concerned about homegrown terrorism.

Yet, a spokesman for DHS says it's not likely. He was apparently interviewed specifically for the Fox News story, and said "the latest intelligence" indicates a homegrown attack isn't likely "anytime soon." I'd like to know what intelligence he's talking about and what is his definition, with respect to time, of the word "soon."

This is another unfortunate example of different national security agencies saying different things and giving the American public conflicting signals. I have to go with the FBI and DNI on this one, not the DHS. Homegrown terrorism is a concern to everyone in the country--with the apparent exception of DHS. And does anyone seriously doubt an attack could come at any time? DHS should explain to the public why it feels the need to downplay the likelihood of homegrown terror.

Hopefully the story as written doesn't accurately reflect the true views of the spokesman or DHS, although given the countless well-documented problems of that particular department, nothing would surprise me.

The Robot Armies of the Future

2009-02-21T12:30:00.005-05:00

Future wars will be fought between robots rather than humans. He who builds the better robot will achieve military superiority. But the future is almost now, because the use of military robots is increasing dramatically.

A new report "Autonomous Military Robotics" focuses on the question of ethics: how do you program a robot to behave in an ethical manner, so that it will not just randomly kill people or turn on its own makers?

Robots are currently used to find IEDs in Iraq and target terrorists in Pakistan, among other things. Ideally, the military would want human-like robots to replace warfighters on the battlefield to reduce human casualties.

Human soldiers turning on their own fellow troops happens occasionally, but it seems the possibility of robots being "hacked" by an enemy to rewrite their programming and make them fight against their own army would be a significant problem to be overcome.

Aside from hacking, robots and their networked command structures could be subjected to jamming, rendering them harmless. Could the Future Combat Systems be taken out by jamming a satellite? Could the Pentagon's robots be disabled by an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)? How easily can our electronic army be defeated by cyber attacks?

An army with advanced technology doesn't necessarily mean an unbeatable force. We know how difficult it has been to destroy al Qaeda, operating with their own far less sophisticated technology, and Arthur C. Clarke's short story "Superiority" served as a warning as well. What studies have been done to consider the vulnerabilities of an electronic army by an adversary using a much lower level of technology and what are the advantages of such a strategy? That will be the only option available for most or all of our enemies in the future.

Will robot armies make wars more or less likely in the future, if human lives are no longer on the line? The world community (the United Nations and the like) may deem it "unfair" for a country with a robot army to fight a country with human soldiers--basically making robot versus human wars illegal in the eyes of the world.

These are all questions no longer reserved for science fiction but are coming soon to a battlefield near you.

Hillary Gives Human Rights Abusers Green Light

2009-02-21T12:06:00.005-05:00

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled to China, and by implication other regimes infamous for their human rights abuses, the green light to not worry about offending the US, because there are more important issues for the US, such as the economy.

Human rights groups expressed shock at her comments. Despite Hillary's half-hearted attempt to claim the Obama administration will still bring up these issues when meeting foreign leaders, it is abundantly clear to all that human rights in countries like China is not considered a pressing problem and Hillary will raise the issue in a perfunctory, unserious way.

The Chinese communist government must surely have been thrilled to hear this. And so other rogue regimes will take notice that this is the kind of "change" the world can expect from Obama.

It's been a dismal first month for the Obama administration as foreign policy missteps and conflicting signals are the rule, rather than the exception. Meanwhile Wall Street continues to give Obama a no confidence vote on a daily basis.

Since no one ever really thought Obama was more qualified to be president than his main rival, John McCain, and since more people didn't cast a vote on that basis, it should be no surprise that we are stuck with a president in over his head and lacking any leadership qualities useful for all the things that matter. Look out below.

Welcome Mat Out for Gitmo Terrorists in Europe

2009-01-24T14:07:00.004-05:00

European governments have been crying for the US to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for years and soon they will get their wish, due to President Obama's recent decision.

And it's good to see several European countries show a willingness to accept some of the terrorists. Here is a list of the countries favorably disposed to providing a new home for the terrorists:

Germany
France
Portugal
Switzerland
Finland

Statements by many other EU countries display a certain lack of alacrity at the prospect of taking in any prisoners at all because, after all, they are terrorists and they want to kill people.

Over 60 Gitmo detainees who were previously released went back to terrorism, so those who have been portraying them as innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time are contradicted by their recent behavior after being given their freedom.

EU leaders will meet Monday to decide their response to the Guantanamo question. France has suggested the EU take in 60 prisoners, which seems a paltry figure considering there are about 245 inmates left. Why so few? Why not more? You wanted Gitmo closed, so now is the time to help out.

For those countries willing to take some prisoners, I have a proposal for integrating them into European society. Create "Terrortowns" on the model of "Chinatowns." Provide housing for the prisoners in one small geographic area within large cities. Force them to live there and stay there. Assist the terrorists with starting up businesses designed to attract tourists. This would include bookstores selling jihadist literature and manuals on making explosives.

A blind eye would be turned on black market sales in the backrooms of such things as IEDs, rocket-propelled grenades, etc. Tourists would pay to hear terrorists tell stories of their capture and how they were innocent of all charges all along, that all they ever wanted to do was to be good citizens, that they were wrongfully jailed, that every human being is their brother, and that they deserve reparations.

I thank those European countries willing to help out the US with the problem of what to do with the jihadists. We don't want them, so if someone has to take them, it may as well be you.

In Times of Crisis, Turn to Socialism?

2008-10-12T12:44:00.005-04:00

Do our political & financial leaders believe in free market capitalism?

The recent financial meltdown has been met with calls for unprecedented governmental intervention--taking stakes in the leading banks and ownership of financial institutions, short-term regulatory quick fixes, and the transfer of unlimited taxpayer dollars to the Treasury with no oversight.

In the depths of a crisis, the first instinct of our supposedly free enterprise-loving leaders is to stampede headlong in the direction of socialism as the answer to our gravest problems. Clearly, they don't believe in capitalism, and governmental interference is contributing to the panic.

Syncronized with the declining financial values on Wall Street are John McCain's political fortunes. Just as the stock market began its precipitous fall, so did McCain's poll numbers.

Barack Obama is the closest thing to a socialist in the political race, and he is the beneficiary of the turmoil. So not only our governmental leaders turn to socialism in a time of crisis, but apparently the American public and voters do as well. McCain has favored the bailout as well, but the socialism candidate in this race is Obama, not McCain, and socialism is winning handily at this point in time.

The liberal Congress is expected to become even more liberal after the November elections. Socialism is yawping on the horizon.

Why the sudden eagerness to jettison free enterprise? Hasn't it given us the greatest country on earth, with millions and millions attempting to move here legally and otherwise? And hasn't socialism proven to be a terminally failed idea that hasn't succeeded anywhere?

What is the attraction to an idea that is in the trashcan of history? Does anyone really expect anything good to come of it?

Gitmo Terrorists Next Door

2008-10-11T07:49:00.005-04:00

One of the strongest arguments against giving the terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay their day in court and the same rights as anyone else, is the prospect that the legal evidence against them might not be sufficient. Therefore, they might get to walk and go back to their terrorists ways--as previous Gitmo inmates have done.

But I doubt few considered that our legal system might not only set some of the Gitmo terrorists free, but allow them to live free in the United States!

The Wall Street Journal has a story on this likely scenario--courtesy of the US Supreme Court and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The onus is now on Congress to legislate a solution preventing "the terrorists next door." But will this Congress have any interest in doing so? A liberal Congress perhaps joined by a socialist president, Barack Obama? Seems absurdly unlikely to me, as their opinions would coincide with Kennedy's judgment.

Wall Street isn't the only American institution suffering a meltdown; it is joined by our legal and legislative branches of government as well. Once we've "turned ourselves upside down" and seen the other side, then what?

Wall Street Shudders at First Socialist President

2008-10-11T06:46:00.004-04:00

Barack Obama is the likely next President of the United States, based on the opinion polls, and Wall Street knows what that means: A socialist president and the end of American capitalism.

Investor's Business Daily published an editorial stating this as the reason why the stock markets in the US and around the world are crashing. And I find it a plausible theory.

Obama and his minions can try to market him as a moderate to the general electorate and succeed, but those who aren't so easily led know the truth. Not only is Obama the most liberal senator in the Senate, he is in truth a socialist with a socialist agenda that will manifest itself and become clear to all after the November election.

The prospect of Obama raising taxes across the board as the start of a redistribution of wealth agenda has caused 100 economists, including Nobel winners, to warn of a deepening economic crisis if his ideas are implemented.

Yet the general public has bought into the idea of Obama as the messiah of a positive kind of social change with little discernible effect on the type of government we have. Most who vote for Obama appear oblivious that they are voting against themselves and their way of life that surpasses that of any other nation on the earth.

Meanwhile the questions continue to be raised on Wall Street: What is the true source of the problem, and is it different this time?

FBI Warning on Suicide Attacks

2008-10-07T21:04:00.004-04:00

The FBI has recently notified law enforcement agencies that al Qaeda could use suicide bombers to blow up public buildings.

This is always a possibility but I would imagine al Qaeda wants to destroy very high profile buildings that are guarded better than most (I would hope).

What interested me about the story was the point made by the terrorists that many publicly accessible buildings have poorly trained or unarmed security guards. And it reminded me of local shopping malls and the security guards I see there. Looking them over with a critical eye, they don't make me feel secure at all; quite the opposite. I imagine if real terrorists attacked, they would be in big trouble and so would the customers, such as myself.

Al Qaeda could have done something like this by now but they haven't. It isn't such a desirable scenario for them.

New Poll: Boot All Congressmen

2008-10-07T20:38:00.004-04:00

A new poll says 60% of voters want to boot out all Members of Congress and elect an entirely new Congress.

Do you believe that will happen this November? I don't.

If this is true, at least 60% of incumbents up for re-election will be defeated. But we know that in every election, over 90% of incumbents are re-elected. This is because voters don't do their job and merely vote by name recognition or party affiliation regardless of how incompetent the incumbent may be. 90% re-elected every time! Those are Soviet "election" numbers. Are our Members of Congress so fantastic that they deserve automatic re-election? Obviously not. Approval ratings of congressmen are at historic lows.

But now, I'm supposed to believe the voters are really mad this time and will vote for new blood in Congress. In November, we can forget that 90% re-election statistic. Historic "change" is coming and most of the incumbents will be voted out, right? Or is it just temporary anger with business as usual from the voters once again?

Cofer Black: 9/11 Couldn't Be Averted

2008-10-07T20:19:00.004-04:00

Cofer Black, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism division, said in a new interview that nothing could have been done to avert 9/11. He said he can't think of a thing "we could have done that would have changed anything."

It's a ridiculous statement with the apparent intention of exculpating himself from any blame for the 2001 terrorist attacks. Somehow, I don't think anyone will go for it. There is plenty of blame to go around and Black should accept that he deserves some of it.

If he could have done nothing, then that is an indictment of his tenure in that job at the CIA. Why are you in the counterterrorism business if you really can't think of anything you could have done to prevent 9/11? Aren't you in the wrong business if you really believe that?

Shouldn't the CIA hire people who know very well that something could have been done to avert 9/11 and know very well what those actions were?

Al Gore's Descent into Radicalism

2008-09-29T21:11:00.005-04:00

Did something happen to Al Gore's psyche in 2000 when he lost the presidential election to George W. Bush?

Since then, he has become a global warming messiah and his words have become increasingly radical:

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."

The next logical step would be for Gore to recruit and train his environmental jihadist army and send them out on missions of "civil disobedience." Is "civil disobedience" a euphemism for advocating domestic terrorism against coal companies?

Elsewhere, Gore said new coal plants should be banned in the United States.

The problem is that coal accounts for about 50% of U.S. electricity, and without it, how do we make up that 50% from other sources, and how do we keep utility bills from skyrocketing? We don't.

As I said elsewhere some time ago, Al Gore believes what he says. He made a conscious decision following the events of 2000 to try to become some kind of modern day Gandhi, or John Brown, or Martin Luther King. The election loss may have precipitated a psychological break in him.

He is now advocating for "young people" (not himself, obviously) to break the law in the service of his so-called "planetary crisis." How far will he go to guarantee this happens?

How can he stay relevant and in the public eye with many countries, especially in Europe, balking at green initiatives because they are so expensive, with dubious results, and with a recession looming? Not to mention evidence the earth is cooling, not warming?

Are we seeing a fissure opening inside Gore? How radical will he feel he needs to go? And what internal conflicts are at the root of it all?

No Suicide Note from Ivins

2008-09-29T20:10:00.004-04:00

Bruce Ivins, the anthrax killer, left no suicide note, according to recently released FBI documents.

The absence of any mea culpa is consistent with his behavior as a loner refusing to accept responsibility or take the blame for anything.

We learn that a couple days before Ivins killed himself, he went to a public computer and read comments from FBI Director Robert Mueller that the anthrax case would soon be solved. That same day, Ivins had been released from a psychiatric hospital where the FBI had obtained a DNA sample from him. He knew the game was up at that point.

A Washington Post article claims there are "two irreconcilable versions" of Ivins: the supposed anthrax killer and the respected scientist who was kind to people. But really, can anyone in this day and age not believe that someone who appears kind and gentle can be a mass murderer as well? We know it's true, and certainly was the case with Ivins. There is nothing "irreconcilable" about it at all. Quite the contrary.

More quotes from his co-workers who, they say, just cannot believe it and want more proof. Why do they think he had guns and ammo at his house? Because he loved target practice? The FBI discovered that this great guy had tried to deceive them by doctoring samples from his lab. In light of the evidence, the doubts of Ivins' guilt by his co-workers takes on a bizarre tinge, as if they can't psychologically accept the truth, no matter what. It's eerie.

The source of Ivins' damaged psyche? His brother Tom said when they were kids, there was physical abuse in their family house. Were the anthrax victims stand-ins for the people he really wanted to kill but couldn't?

There is precious little in the way of statements or quotes from Ivins' family. The silence is deafening. They must know a great deal more than we've heard. Don't they have an obligation to the victims and their families? Yes, many questions remain unanswered in this case.

More evidence of Ivins' violent mind emerge. He told a counselor that he went out of town to watch a woman play soccer and if she lost, he was going to poison her. "It was not a crime of impulse. It was planned with cunning," she said.

New Ivins Documents Reveal Mind of a Killer

2008-09-24T19:27:00.004-04:00

How can anyone doubt Bruce Ivins is responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks? New documents reveal more evidence that Ivins was a sick, evil man often thinking about harming others while fretting that the feds were on to him.

Ivins sent an email (to himself) in 2007 announcing that he had discovered the identity of the anthrax killer. He didn't reveal the name of the killer, preferring to keep his own identity hidden from himself.

If he was innocent and had discovered the killer, he had ample opportunity to tell someone, but he didn't. The email to himself sounds like he was creating an email to possibly send to others around him at a later date to take suspicion off himself.

He talked about killing co-workers as well as the actress Kathryn Price from the TV show "The Mole," and sent an email to someone with her name asking if she was the actress and if she made public appearances where he could meet her.

In early 2008, Ivins spilled anthrax on himself and then tried to blame the accident on someone else.

Ivins was such a basket case, it is a puzzle why he was not the first and primary suspect all along, and further than that, why didn't his co-workers, knowing his mental problems, alert the FBI and insist he might well be the killer? Instead, the other scientists display surprise that the FBI points the finger at him! One even called him an "honorable man."

Without doubt, the FBI made many mistakes in its investigation of the killings. The National Academy of Sciences will review the scientific aspects of the investigation. But what about the non-scientific aspects?

Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey wants a national commission to study the anthrax attacks. But why is the extra cost and effort of a national commission necessary, rather than a congressional investigation? (Anthrax letters were mailed to a post office in his district.) Why not then have a national commission study any and every crime where several people were killed? Holt needs to answer the question why a national commission is necessary. Standard and unnecessary congressional overkill, but luckily, some are balking at the idea.

If anyone truly believes someone other than Ivins is responsible for the anthrax killings, they should speak up and tell us who they have in mind. This would include Sen. Patrick Leahy who has yet to present any details of his theory that someone else is responsible. I think it would be entertaining.

Sarah Palin Exposes the Left's Personal Inadequacies

2008-09-22T21:00:00.006-04:00

Why does the Left hate Sarah Palin to such an extreme? Talking heads on CNN and scribes in the print media have quickly devolved to adolescent schoolyard attacks against her. The final verdict explaining this behavior might reveal a lengthy list of ingredients in this strange stew, but an immediate (while not incorrect) answer is what I propose for now.

Sarah Palin exposes the personal inadequacies of men and women on the Left. It isn't just that she is a Republican and they are Democrats. This isn't about politics--not even close. The virulence of the attacks against her are proof enough of that.

Men on the Left are distingushed as abhorring war, afraid of guns, running away from religion, extremely pro-gay, and more than eager to stunt any trace of traditional masculine values. Palin, the pro-war, pro-guns, moose-hunting strong woman in effect reveals the self-castration of men on the Left. That explains the anger against her, and tellingly, men on the Left often try to hide their anger by couching their attacks as "jokes" and laughing while they talk about her. Campbell Brown's show on CNN tonight was a textbook example.

"Palin Fear" is rampant among the Left because she holds up a mirror to them and the result is embarrassment. The response from the men is to pretend Palin doesn't belong on the national stage and to attack her personally. But to attack a woman in public like that is to betray a personal lack of manhood and to accept the truth of that deficit as well.

For women on the Left, Palin represents the ultimate "goal" of the female that they have rejected and need to deny as worthy and rightful. She calls into question the validity of their womanhood.

The anti-Palin hate has a strong undercurrent of psychological chaos boiling within it. We are supposed to believe the "cover story" that this is about politics, but the political angle is a mask that serves to hide the true "argument" the Left has with Palin. It's personal and it hurts. I think of that every time I hear a guy on CNN laugh as he tries his best to diss a pretty, intelligent woman on national TV.

Al Qaeda's October Surprise

2008-09-22T19:42:00.006-04:00

Al Qaeda wants to influence the US presidential elections, acording to a news story. Former CIA Director James Woolsey said al Qaeda does 3 things related to elections:

1. Attack before an election (Spain 2004)
2. Attack when a new leader takes command (Pakistan this week)
3. Send messages to populations in elections

A McCain official has said any al Qaeda attack will benefit McCain in the polls, and I believe there is no dispute about that. I also take it for granted that al Qaeda would prefer Barack Obama to win the election, primarily because he is so much weaker on national security than McCain, and secondarily because those in the Muslim world who are anti-American feel a kinship with the Democratic Party.

But any attack before the November election will benefit McCain. Any attack after the election will cause the US government to shift more attention and resources to national security.

A message to the American public that might change their votes? Al Qaeda is in a position whereby the only way to support Obama (other than doing nothing and hoping the votes are cast their way) is to use reverse psychology. Osama bin Laden will need to appear in a new video endorsing McCain for president. That would win Obama some votes. And that's not going to happen.

The New York Times As Democratic Party Shill

2008-09-22T18:04:00.007-04:00

Steve Schmidt, a John McCain aide, said today that the New York Times is an "Obama advocacy organization." I see no reason to dispute that obvious point.

The mainstream media, led by the likes of the Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, and CNN, has been moving further leftward for at least the past 40 years. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between the media outlets mentioned above and radical leftist blogs such as Daily Kos. All pretenses to objectivity are gone, and I think even the casual reader of the media is aware of that. It's never been so obvious as it is now, as the media seems uninterested in hiding its partisanship.

When did the leftward slant start? With the fallout from Watergate, the media tasted blood, and realized they had the power to bring down a president. Or did the slant begin earlier, with the radical changes that came along with the 60s? Or did the end of objectivity begin with the assassination of JFK?

Regardless of when it started, what could possibly cause the media to shift en masse back in the other direction and be respectable and trustworthy again? Newspaper circulation figures are rapidly declining: will a lack of subscriber and advertising dollars strangle some sense into the papers or has the agenda been enthroned to such a degree that not even the threat of oblivion will prod a regime change?

Or is it nothing more than a matter of the baby boomer generation gradually dying off to be replaced by a different mindset somewhere down the road?

The Anthrax Weaponization Mystery

2008-09-20T06:16:00.006-04:00

It was recently announced to the public about a month ago that the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks shortly after 9/11 was not weaponized. That determination had been made back in 2002 by researchers at Sandia National Labs, but they weren't allowed to say anything until now.

Scientific American has now published an article about the science behind the Sandia investigation.

It's been public knowledge for at least 2 years that the anthrax wasn't weaponized.

But this past Wednesday, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Arlen Specter asked FBI Director Robert Mueller, "Was the anthrax weaponized, that is, engineered to make it more deadly or not?"

I'd suggest Specter's staff read the Scientific American article or the Sandia press release cited here for the answer. There is no longer any mystery.

Leahy Believes Group Responsible for Anthrax Attacks

2008-09-17T19:38:00.004-04:00

Sen. Patrick Leahy believes more than one person was involved in the anthrax attacks of 2001, of which he was one of the targets. The FBI has identified Bruce Ivins as the sole attacker.

Who are the others Leahy suspects of the murders? The leaders of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Al Qaeda? He offered no evidence anyone else was involved, and even questioned whether Ivins wasn't a scapegoat.

What I find interesting is the total lack of logic or reason in the statements of those who have some involvement and are commenting about the anthrax case. Leahy didn't even dare mention any of the unfounded conspiracy theories he probably has been told about and believes, out of fear of additional embarrassment.

Al Qaeda? Not nearly enough people were targeted for it to be one of their operations and even if it were, they would have made sure everyone knew about it.

Co-workers and friends of Ivins insist he was a wonderful guy despite solid evidence to the contrary. And now millions of taxpayer dollars will be spent on a review of the investigation that will unlikely change anyone's minds from whatever they want to believe.

Sen. Arlen Specter wants to name people to the review committee to ensure "objectivity." What's there to consider? Politics, Senator?

Anthrax Probe: The FBI Fingered the Right Man

2008-09-16T21:24:00.005-04:00

The National Academy of Sciences will review the science used by the FBI to link Bruce Ivins to the anthrax letters sent to congressional offices and media organizations in the days after 9/11 in 2001. FBI Director Robert Mueller made the announcement at a congressional hearing today.

Fox News revealed the text of the "Quantico Letter" today, and its similarities to the texts of the anthrax letters is undeniable. It would be incredible if they were written by different people, although the FBI, somewhat absurdly, says the Quantico Letter has nothing to do with the case. It apparently was an attempt to frame Dr. Ayaad Assaad who worked alongside Ivins, and Assaad said they were friends. But a "friend" like Ivins is capable of anything. It seems incredible to me that Assaad and other scientists would doubt Ivins was responsible. This suggests other problems among this particular community.

Assaad said: "Bruce Ivins is an honorable man." This is demonstrably untrue, as we know from many facts of the case, such as Ivins adding derogatory information about Kappa Kappa Gamma in the Wikipedia entry, and his threats to kill his co-workers, and many other similar incidents. These are not the actions of an "honorable" man.

Some who knew him are portraying Ivins as a mild-mannered guy who would never do anything to hurt anyone, but a social worker accused him of stalking and threatening to kill her. Her own credibility has been attacked, but Ivins' brother said he isn't surprised by such charges, and said Ivins "considered himself like a god."

Pathological characters like Ivins are capable of anything, and I would be shocked if Ivins was not responsible for the anthrax attacks and the Quantico Letter, with no one else involved.

The review of the probe will cost plenty and several members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are demanding it.

I see no conspiracy here except the one orchestrated by Ivins. I expect the probe will corroborate that finding.

McCain Adviser: Intelligence Community is Bloated

2008-09-15T18:06:00.004-04:00

John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan who is now advising John McCain, said the intelligence community is bloated. He spoke at a conference last week sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association ("New Directions in Homeland Security").

Lehman said he would rather receive a briefing from the New York Police Department intelligence unit than the CIA. Things are worse than at 9/11 in terms of producing usable intelligence for the president.

Lehman's comments come on the heels of McCain's plans for a "New OSS" that would take risks and cut through the bureaucracy that hampers the intell community today.

A New OSS would require its own bureaucracy, so to accomplish the objective of reducing IC bureacracy, something would have to leave--perhaps a chunk of the CIA.

I hear no one saying the Intelligence Community is good as is. Nobody says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Everyone agrees there are problems, including Rachana Bhowmik, an Obama adviser, who spoke along with Lehman, and wondered about the role of intelligence within the Department of Homeland Security.

Can the "bloated" intell community be reformed without suffering the same problems we saw during the Clinton years? A lot of talk and some effort was made in revamping intelligence after 9/11, but success is a long way off.

In today's Wall Street Journal, L. Gordon Crovitz laments that "intelligence agencies stockpile silos of unshared data in a large bureaucratic structure more suited to a predigital age." Fewer than a third of the FBI's security branch agents have the internet on their desktops! "Washington has build a massive, unwieldy intelligence structure" at the Office of the Director of National Security.

The solution? A New OSS? Perhaps. No one doubts we need new ideas. New leadership? Or a revamped organizational structure that makes it difficult if not impossible for turf wars and bureaucracy to hamper the fight against our enemies? The destination is a known quantity; the path that leads there, uncertain.

Intelligence Budgets During the Clinton Years

2008-09-14T18:26:00.007-04:00

The annual U.S. Intelligence budgets declined greatly after the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Bill Clinton gutted intelligence during his presidency according to many, and I wanted to track down some sources to corroborate that judgment.

The Intelligence budget was not made public for most of Clinton's tenure in the White House, so it's not easy fnding good figures.

The best source I've seen is a document from 1996 called "Preparing for the 21st Century: An Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence."

Chapter 13 is entitled "The Cost of Intelligence" and includes a chart on Intelligence spending from 1980 and projected to 2000 (see chart on the right). Intelligence spending enjoyed a tremendous increase from the beginning of Reagan's presidency, then started a decline during Bush's years and continued downward throughout the Clinton years.

Former CIA Director George Tenet wrote in March, 2004:

The record shows that despite the well-documented resource reductions we took in the 1990s and the enormous competing demands for our attention, I and a series of DCIs before me saw to it that the resources committed to the counterterrorism effort were not only protected but also enhanced.

The cost of the post-Cold War “peace dividend” was that during the 1990s our intelligence community funding declined in real terms, reducing our buying power by tens of billions of dollars over the decade. We lost nearly one in four of our positions. This loss of manpower was devastating, particularly in our two most manpower intensive activities: all-source analysis and human source collection. By the mid-1990s, recruitment of new CIA analysts and case officers had come to a virtual halt. NSA was hiring no new technologists during the greatest information technology change in our lifetimes. Both Congress and the Executive Branch for most of the decade embraced the idea that we could surge our resources to deal with emerging intelligence challenges, including threats from terrorism.

From a budget perspective, the last part of the 1990s reflects CIA’s efforts to shift to a wartime footing against terrorism. CIA’s budget had declined 18 percent in real terms during the decade and we suffered a loss of 16 percent of our personnel (this is slightly less of a cut than the 1 in 4 cited for the Intelligence Community as a whole earlier).

Tenet also said in April, 2004:

By the mid-1990s the Intelligence Community was operating with significant erosion in resources and people and was unable to keep pace with technological change. When I became DCI, I found a Community and a CIA whose dollars were declining and whose expertise was ebbing.

We lost close to 25 percent of our people and billions of dollars in capital investment.
The pace of technological change and a $3 trillion telecommunications revolution challenged the National Security Agency’s ability to keep up with the increasing volume and velocity of modern communications.
The infrastructure to recruit, train, and sustain officers for our clandestine services—the nation’s human intelligence capability—was in disarray.
We were not hiring new analysts, emphasizing the importance of expertise, or giving analysts the tools they needed.

In a 2004 article called "How the Left Undermined America's Security Before 9/11," David Horowitz wrote that a study by Terry Cooper showed that the Democratic congressional leadership in the 1990s often voted to cut Intelligence funding. Unfortunately, I don't see a link to the Cooper study anywhere.

UPDATE: Did Clinton gut the Intelligence Community budgets during his presidency? I've noticed some sites on the internet running cover for Clinton by noting that decreases in the intelligence budget began while George H.W. Bush was president, therefore somehow that means Clinton didn't gut the budget or Bush gutted it first.

The intelligence budget reached its peak sometime between 1987-1990. When Bush was president, he faced a hostile, Democrat-led Congress. He was a former Director of the CIA, and had no interest in cutting the intelligence budget.

Why cut at all? Because the Soviet Union collapsed and many commentators on the left felt this meant that we didn't need much in the way of intelligence anymore. In January 1991, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) introduced legislation to abolish the CIA and hand over its duties to the State Department! Other democrats felt the intelligence budget needed to be cut drastically. Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont wanted across-the-board intelligence cuts of 10% every year for years! That's what Bush had to work with in those days.

Bush remarked in November 1991:

We need a strong intelligence community to consolidate and extend freedom's gains against totalitarianism. We need intelligence to verify historic arms reduction accords. We need it to suppress terrorism and drug trafficking. And we must have intelligence to thwart anyone who tries to steal our technology or otherwise refuses to play by fair economic rules. We must have vigorous intelligence capabilities if we're to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

But Congress had other ideas and voted to cut intelligence. Even Sen. John Glenn (D-OH) was concrened about those cuts. He offered an amendment to keep funding at current levels for the proposed FY1992 budget but it was badly defeated:

Of greatest concern to me are the reductions in the intelligence budget contained in this legislation. I remain unconvinced of the rationale for these reductions. Our concerns with the intelligence community's priorities should not be addressed by deep budget cuts, but rather by restructuring existing resources. I am convinced that during this time of unprecedented change and uncertainty in the international system, the need for a strong and reliable intelligence capability is particularly compelling.
I am convinced that significant reductions in our intelligence capabilities, especially during this period of international instability, are unwise and could ultimately be damaging to U.S. national security.

After the intelligence budget had been cut, Bush said:

I am concerned that the authorizations for appropriations below my request do not adequately provide for today’s intelligence challenges.

No, Bush didn't want to cut intelligence, but Congress did, and that's what happened.

Let's move forward to the FY1993 budget. Bush proposed an intelligence budget without any major reductions. This infuriated the congressional Democrats, who were discussing how necessary it was to make significant cuts because the Soviet Union was no longer around. Therefore, we didn't need much in the way of intelligence did we? That was the level of the discussion by our elected leaders.

Congress cut the intelligence budget for FY1993 by about 6%, and assuming the numbers thrown out by the press in those days, that meant about $1.5 billion.

Enter Bill Clinton. How did he feel about the intelligence budget? Did he want to protect it at current levels as Bush had wanted? Not exactly. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton promised that if elected he would slash the intelligence budget by $1.5 billion every year for 5 years from 1993-1997. That represented something like an annual cut of 5% for 5 years, or 25% total. Ouch.

Clinton promised that. Unlike Bush, he wanted to cut intelligence, and said so. Did he succeed?

As he was about to leave office in early 1993, Bush warned:

As we face a more turbulent and unpredictable world, and as our military forces are being reduced, I just don’t think that we ought to be contemplating significant reductions in the intelligence budget. We need more intelligence, not less.

Next month, Sen. Moynihan said $10 billion could be cut from the intelligence budget and no one would ever miss it. Former CIA Director Robert Gates criticized Congress for not properly exercizing their oversight responsibilities of the intelligence budget in any meaningful way.

When discussing the budget for FY1994, Clinton said:

It is clear that the intelligence community must do more with limited resources. As I promised during the campaign, we will save a total of $7 billion over the years 1993-1997 from the previous administration's request for
national and tactical intelligence programs.

The congressional bill sought about another 4% in cuts from the FY1993 budget. Socialist Bernie Sanders wanted 10% cut. Rep. Barnie Frank (D-MA) agreed. Clinton, sensing political trouble if the far left got its way, repsonded by saying the 10% reduction proposal was just a bit too much:

I will oppose any amendment on the House floor which seeks to reduce intelligence spending beyond the reductions already proposed by the committee.

The Sanders amendment was defeated, and the budget ended up slightly less than the previous year. Democratic Senator Dennis DeConcini warned:

Last year, the cut imposed by Congress was particularly severe, the largest percentage cut in at least 20 years. In addition to these funding cuts, Congress levied an across-the-board 17.5-percent reduction in personnel in all
intelligence agencies, including the CIA, by 1997. So, there should be no mistake, Mr. President, intelligence has been cut and cut severely over the last 5 years.

For FY1995, it was noted that Clinton's goal of cutting intelligence by $7.5 billion in 5 years had been realized in only 3! As Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) said:

There is no shortage of facts and figures I can cite to demonstrate the rather remarkable, indeed reckless, slope of decline on which we have put the intelligence community. Despite a consensus of informed opinion that intelligence cuts should be avoided or at least minimized in a period when we are cutting our defense capabilities, we are again this year cutting intelligence more than defense at large. It is downsizing at a rate twice that recommended by the President's National Performance Review for the Government. President Clinton made a campaign promise in 1992 to cut the Bush administration's proposed intelligence budget over a 5-year period by $7 billion. This was an incredibly ambitious--and many would say a foolhardy--goal. Yet, as Director Woolsey has stated publicly, this has been accomplished with 2 years to spare, and it appears the cuts over the 5 years will likely be more than $14 billion. This irrational urge to keep cutting intelligence has taken on a life of its own and it will, unless stopped, inevitably lead to disaster.

The final appropriation was about 1.5% less than FY1994.

What did Clinton have to say about all this? When FY1996 came around he said:

Today, because the cold war is over, some say that we should and can step back from the world and that we don’t need intelligence as much as we used to, that we aught to severely cut the intelligence budget. A few have even urged us to scrap the central intelligence service. I think these views are profoundly wrong. I believe making deep cuts in intelligence during peacetime is comparable to canceling your health insurance when you’re feeling fine.

One can only wonder what he thought had been happening the past few years! His remarks seem directed at Sanders but he had already presided over steep, or even reckless, cuts.

But something positive finally happened: Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, took control of Congress. Not coincidentally, the intelligence budget began increasing. And that fact affected Clinton's behavior. Knowing intelligence cuts were a thing of the past, he started recommending increases. The new Republican Congress enacted increases larger than his. The intelligence budget for FY1999 went up around $3 billion--the largest increase in 15 years! It was orchestrated by Gingrich, not Clinton. His budget was ignored.

Clinton, you might say, rolled with the punches. He promised to cut intelligence and he did. But the Democratic congresses cut even more and faster than he had proposed. Once Republicans took over in Congress, Clinton started asking for increases but the Republicans appropriated more than he wanted.

Why the roller coaster ride? Why did the intelligence budget need to be cut so deeply in the early 1990s but then went up again in the late 1990s? It depended on who controlled Congress. The Democrats wanted steep cuts and it didn't matter who the president was. The Republicans then brought the budget up to former levels. It was all political, with a lot of nonsensical talk on the floor of the House and Senate throughout those years by elected officials who knew nothing about intelligence.

Clinton, ever the politician, proposed whatever he thought would sell and wouldn't endanger him politically.

George H.W. Bush fought against cuts; Clinton promised them. But Congress was the ultimate decider.

DNI Open Source Conference Day 2

2008-09-12T17:05:00.006-04:00

CIA Director Michael Hayden was the keynote speaker on the second and last day of the DNI Open Source Conference in Washington, DC.

He emphasized the CIA's commitment to open source information and said the Open Source Center (OSC) was one of the original top 3 objectives of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Placing the OSC under the CIA made the most sense, he said. The OSC focus is on the "mission" while the CIA is focused on housekeeping chores associated with it. The OSC director is included at all Hayden's staff meetings, which are held 3 times a week.

"The information is unclassified. Our interest in it is not," he said. Open source items have been included in the President's Daily Brief. Open source helps define what is truly secret and helps us understand the viewpoints of others around the world, both friends and adversaries, he said. We need to do a better job of understanding other cultures.

An open source board of governors will meet quarterly and discuss IT strategy, centralization of services and set the direction and priorities that make the most of our capabilities, Hayden said.

While Hayden defended the decision to place the OSC within the CIA organization, another speaker at another session offered a different view.

Rob Simmons, ex-CIA and former congressman, felt it was a big mistake to place the OSC within the CIA. Simmons said the OSC should be removed from the CIA because that intelligence agency is viewed as a "black mark" by a lot of people in the academic and private realms. Some of those people will never work for OSC as long as it is associated with the CIA, thereby making it questionable whether the OSC will have the best resources at its disposal.

Simmons instead recommended a free-standing National Open Source Center not affiliated with the CIA or any other intelligence agency.

DNI Open Source Conference Day 1

2008-09-11T17:29:00.007-04:00

The 2nd Annual DNI Open Source Conference kicked off today in Washington, DC with about 1,600 attendees from the government, business, and academia. About 3,200 had applied, and I was one of the lucky ones to get in (I'm sure it helps to apply the same day registration opens up).

Glenn Gaffney offered his thoughts on the importance of open source information, answering a question about why his staff is so "zealous" about open source. Because they know it's important.

Some in the Intelligence Community apparently aren't on-board with the open source push, and I was sitting there listening to Gaffney and wondering what was really behind it all, and I think one of the reasons people who enter the intelligence business do so is with a desire to work with secret information. Spending time on open source defeats that psychological objective. Humans in all endeavors desire increased status and work toward that goal. A document marked "top secret" has more status than one marked "open source." Two copies of the same document marked with different classifications will have different levels of status associated with them.

The point was made that it isn't the classification that should determine a document's importance but its usefulness in decision-making and in helping to create deliverables. So an open source document that assists with this is more valuable than a top secret document that doesn't.

I attended the session "Creating Decision Advantage with Open Source" and one of the panelists asked how many in the room had read some of Sayyid Qutb's and Zawahiri's writings, and only a couple people raised their hands. There was some admittance that this is a bad thing for the intelligence community and things need to change. I got the feeling a good part of those in the intelligence community are somehow stuck in the culture of 30 years ago and modernizing to a culture more in tune with today's needs will be difficult.

Higher classification of a document doesn't make it more important, the point was made. It isn't about classification, it's about insights derived from information. Open source is good, but OSINT must be more "close mouthed" about its deliverables--the conclusions and actions that will be taken as a result of sifting through open source materials. Classified info, because of its handling restrictions, isn't very portable, while open source is.

Someone in the audience expressed a fear about open source info and shouldn't it be kept secret, but there is no getting around that these days. Don't worry about "big brother," said a panelist, but instead worry about "little brother."

In another session focusing on Web 2.0, the question was asked how many in the room had a Twitter account, and I was one of a handful that raised their hand.

Murder at the Beijing Olympics

2008-08-09T16:06:00.008-04:00

Eventually some novelist will pen a series of historical mysteries set at the Olympic Games, starting with the Athens games and continuing with a new novel for each succeeding event, with the same detective or his descendants solving the murders.

I dont think it's surprising that a real-life murder has just happened at the Beijing Olympics, but I was expecting the victim to be a poor Chinese protester taken away by the police never to be seen again. Instead, a Chinese man stabbed an in-law of the US Men's Olympic volleyball coach, killing him.

But even before the games of 2008 began, they were a disaster. Beijing made a promise years ago, when they were awarded the games, that they would clean up the city's pollution, which has been among the worst of any city in the entire world for a long time. China reneged on that promise. When some US athletes arrived at the airport, they wore face masks, which apparently upset the Chinese authorities, and they subsequently apologized. In a fair world, it would be China apologizing to all the athletes for the horrible pollution that they must endure for no reason except power politics. Beijing is one of the worst places on earth for elite athletes to compete against each other. It's a symbol of the absurdity of the world we live in.

China promised to allow free internet access for journalists, which was then rescinded. Japanese journalists in China were beaten up by the police. China is spying on foreigners in their hotels. More reasons for China to apologize, but that didn't happen, and won't.

A rhetorical question: How can the Chinese communist government lose face when it has no face to lose?

China agreed to accept applications for protests during the games. Last I heard, none of the applications had been authorized.

The Olympic Games are political in nature, taking the form of sporting events. The Chinese communist government is using the games to legitimize their political system and their authority. So far, I'd say they have given themselves two black eyes, as the entire world has seen how terrible their country really is, behind the glitz of the opening ceremony and the fabulously trained athletes.

Russian leaders planned the invasion of South Ossetia to coincide with the Beijing opening ceremonies, so the entire world would be occupied with the "sporting" events, and not their new war.

I can't say it was a good idea to award China the games for the purpose of exposing their warts. You never reward evil like that. Will human rights improve in any significant way in China when all the foreigners take their TV cameras and leave in a couple weeks? No, they won't.

If a country with the human rights record of China can host the games, I suppose any and all other disreputable governments have hope as well. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan--are they the future hosts of the Olympics?

Meanwhile, everyone continues to say nice things about the Olympics, with "journalists" downplaying the pollution and applauding the uniqueness of the Beijing games. History, I think, will find a different verdict.

Google Responds to Our Plain Label Books Post

2008-07-09T19:21:00.003-04:00

A member of the Google Book Search team responded to my most recent post on Plain Label Books (The Mystery of Plain Label Books Solved!).

Google didn't purchase any titles from Plain Label Books, as I had speculated. Those books were included as part of their Partner Program. Anyone who has the rights to a book can submit it to Google Books for free. Several different versions of books in the public domain can be found there--some of them from Plain Label, others from Google Books' library partners.

There you have it, folks. Google didn't buy the Plain Label CD, it was Plain Label that signed up as a partner. Why pay when people come knocking on your door.

I wrote about Plain Label Books and its relationship with Google because so many of their books came up in the search engine, and I keep getting hits on those posts from people around the world who obviously saw Plain Label Books on Google and are wondering who they are.

The Grail Movement Cult in the US

2008-06-20T22:47:00.008-04:00

Members of the Grail Movement in the Czech Republic ate the flesh of an 8-year-old boy after his mother kept him locked in a cage. Perhaps they thought Jesus was recommending cannibalism when he said "Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life."

Earlier this month, Czech police arrested Grail Movement leader Jiri Adam for using slave laborers for nearly 20 years. Another leader of the cult in the Czech Republic distanced his group from Adam.

The Grail Movement traces its origin to a book called In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message, written by Oskar Ernst Bernhardt. This book contains the "Grail Message." Supposedly there are about 20,000 members worldwide, with most residing in Europe. How many are in the United States?

A company profile of the Grail Foundation of America Inc. (Binghamton, NY--the contact address at the group's website) lists 1 employee (Alfred Lewis) and annual sales of $32,000. The Grail Movement of America (Port Chester, NY) lists 2 employees with Gene Ceccarelli as the principal. The Grail Foundation Press (Mount Vernon, OH) lists 2 employees with Micah Rubenstein as the principal. It seems there are few people involved in the US and sales revolve around the previously mentioned book, as well as others in their catalog. The first center in the US was formed about 1939 in Mt. Morris, IL (or in Mt. Morris, MI, according to other sources).

Richard Gehl was apparently the US leader for years until his death in 2003. He was accused of being a "false disciple" and responsible for a schism between two factions of the cult. Alfred Lewis seems to have taken over the US group after Gehl's demise.

The group has published books with its own interpretation of the lives of Jesus, Mohammad, Zoroaster, and Buddha. It seems to be a New Age religion based on Christianity and it's unclear
to me (since I haven't Bernhardt's book) how much it relates to other religions that became popular in the 1960s and 1970s, such as the Great White Brotherhood, Ascended Masters, Rosicrucians, etc. (someone has written a book on that topic).

Bernhardt wrote under the pen name Abd-ru-shin. His theory is that God sent man in search of self-awareness and maturity. Physical bodies were fashioned for our true selves to function within while on Earth. The purpose of man is to live in harmony with the divine laws that maintain creation. Then man will return to life eternal in the spiritual realm as a self-aware spirit. The Holy Grail is considered the power center of creation. From the description, it seems hardly worth the effort of creating a new religion around it.

The International Grail Movement reported 400 active adherents in the United States (as of 2002), and 1,000 in Canada. The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions (2001) gives the number of US adherents at 330, but these numbers seem to originate from the cult itself and are likely inflated. Even at these numbers, it's a small group and there seems no reason to believe it will gain any significant increase in members, ever.

Cults like this one notoriously prey on individuals with low self-esteem who have problems integrating themselves into the mainstream of society.

There is another Grail movement associated with the Catholic Church that is an entirely separate group from this one. The Catholic movement was begun in the Netherlands in 1921 by a Dutch Jesuit priest, Jacques van Ginneken. It was created to give women a stronger role and voice in church and society.

That Random House/Zogby Reading Poll

2008-06-20T12:11:00.003-04:00

A recent poll by Random House/Zogby found exactly what I, an ebook advocate, would have expected. Most people prefer print books! Where would we be without polls like this to cast a ray of light in the darkness?

82% said they preferred to read a printed book instead of an ebook. Marketing the results in this manner seems to be designed to inhibit purchases of ebooks and is an effort encourage people to keep buying printed books.

I can take the same survey results and come up with an equally valid headline that paints ebook reading in a much more positive light:

Growing Trend: A Whopping 11% Now Prefer Reading Ebooks Over Traditional Print

To me, the real news here is that the preference for non-print is as high as 11% already. That has to be an increase over previous polls. Why do most people "prefer" print? Because that's how they've always read books. Behavioral changes don't happen overnight. And the social aspect of reading ebooks hasn't gathered steam yet. When people see other people reading ebooks, they'll want to do the same thing.

More book publishers are making ebooks available, but still, I find the biggest problem is a lack of enough titles available in digital format. I've lost track of how many books I would have bought but didn't because there was no ebook format available and I didn't want to buy the printed book. Clearly the publishing industry hasn't embraced the digital format so who could expect readers to follow where publishers are reluctant to lead them? Publishers are keeping the ebook trend line below where it could be right now.

So this new poll told me what I, and I'm sure Random House, already knew, at least in terms of the general public's current acceptance of ebooks, circa 2008 AD. Let's see in a couple years whether that 11% goes up or down--anybody wagering it will go down? I didn't think so.

SLA Seattle Diary Part 7

2008-06-17T20:02:00.003-04:00

Space Needle

Leary probably picked the wrong day to visit the Space Needle. Ascending to the top, the wind was blowing very strong and cold, and he avoided pneumonia by the skin of his...skin.

Starbucks

Leary had entertained the thought that the people who work at the various Starbucks in Seattle must be experts at what they do and wouldn't make the same mistakes the employees at the DC area Starbucks do, but he was proved wrong. Ordering a Vanilla Bean frappuccino with no whipped cream, he watched in horror as the girl started spraying it on and he said aghastedly, "That's not mine, is it?" She then removed the cream she had put on and gave it to him. That's the same thing that happens in DC, Leary noted ruefully as he walked back to his hotel. So much for any romanticized ideas about the superior skills of the Seattle Starbucks employees. And it didn't even taste as good as the ones in DC! There is something strange at work here.

Sharepoint Presentation

Finally, a useful and interesting presentation, this one on Sharepoint 2007 and social networking presented by Microsoft people and a guy from Newsgator.

Twitter

Leary is like a lot of people, apparently, and just doesn't get it. It seems pointless and useless. Leary believes the people who hype it are kidding themselves and just pretending it has any real value.

SLA Seattle Diary Part 6

2008-06-17T13:30:00.003-04:00

Leary wonders when was the last time he ate 2 breakfasts in one day. Mnemosyne shakes her head. Undoubtedly at a previous SLA conference. It's all about the food. (Shouldn't SLA pay for Food Credits, like it paid for Carbon Credits? Imagine all the third world starving kids who could be fed with all the extra food unnecessarily offered and eaten here.)

OCLC breakfast update on their latest enhancements. IEEE breakfast on the latest news. People were given the wrong room number for this one. The Information Booth provided the correct number. Leary sits next to someone who doesn't belong in the room. Try the incorrect room number we were given for this breakfast, Leary counsels her!

Rain in Seattle, the place is finally living up to its reputation after a few days of sunshine. Long lines at the Cyber computers, luckily Leary left the Dell at home and brought a lightweight 2-pound Asus Eee so no need to wait in line.

SLA Seattle Diary Part 5

2008-06-17T11:23:00.004-04:00

Self-Congratulations

A free lunch is offerered all attendees every year at the Info-Expo vendor area. This time it was a giant sandwich with a rice side, a wedge of cheese, a Hershey's chocolate piece, potato chips, and a large cookie.

Leary discussed SLA with someone from the UK. She was disappointed that the vendors didn't want to talk to her because they didn't cover her geographic area, therefore no commission for any sales, probably. Leary suggested they should have an international rep on hand--the larger vendors, anyway.

But they both agreed that the Opening General Session left a bad taste in their mouths because of all the self-congratulations the SLA leadership indulges in. The lion's portion of the opening session didn't involve Vint Cerf and Charlie Rose. Not at all. Most of it was SLA gorging itself on self-congratulations. Probably most of these people deserve an award. Leary says "most" because he's not sure a person should get an award because s/he is a minority or represents an alternative lifestyle. But no doubt most of the people deserve an award. But watching the award handouts at the opening session is like watching a dangerously obese person eat a horse.

Leary has to wonder about the psychology of all this. SLA seems to view itself as one would view a handicapped child--always needing positive reinforcement. And it seems the same people receive an award every year. Not that they don't deserve an award, but this is too much. Leary can't help but wonder about the psychological health (just to mention one aspect of health) of the SLA leadership, and it seems others are wondering as well.