I asserted that Ari Fleischer was lying when he said "human rights has [sic] always been at the forefront" of the actions of the "American military and our nation."  It has been bothering me that I did not provide any justification for this accusation, so I wanted to take a moment and do just that.  This also lets me share a link to the National Security Archive if you are not yet familiar with this group.

In April 2000, the U.S. State Department released, under the Freedom of Information Act, a startlingly frank interagency study of recent U.S. humanitarian interventions entitled "Interagency Review of U.S. Government Civilian Humanitarian & Transition Programs."  The National Security Archive hosts a scanned copy of this document.  I cite from Annex 1, "Kosovo Case Study":

The U.S. response [in Kosovo was] significantly shaped by the lack of a humanitarian voice in senior policy deliberations.  ...  The first phase was a confused scramble, during which there was a disturbing perception at the highest levels of the USG [(U.S. Government)] that no one was in charge of USG civilian humanitarian programs.  ...  It became apparent that little forward planning had been conducted, including the establishment of prior collaborative arrangements between USG civilian and military agencies.  ...  [Later,] while humanitarian components within the USG cited the need for a more aggressive posture vis-à-vis the Macedonians in humanitarian forums, they made no effort to push for a shift in policy at more senior levels.  ...

The KCC [(Kosovo Coordination Council)] was established by the White House one week after the bombing to provide high-level leadership of the humanitarian aspects of the Kosovo crisis.  ...  [It] had mixed results.  ...  Its impact on policy formulation was largely marginal: most policy decisions were taken at the daily [video teleconference] or at [other high level] meetings  ...  It [(the KCC)] was ad hoc and lacked continuity and follow-through.

If we grant that life, health, shelter, and nutrition (i.e., humanitarian provisions) are human rights, then Fleischer's claim seems untenable.

I figured out how to get a floating menu bar, as you see near the upper-right of the screen, rather than a strip down the entire page.

Some more points from the latest round of press briefings that may be interesting.  First, to draw attention to one passage from Tuesday's briefing:

MR. FLEISCHER: You know, I think if you take a look around the world, at all the actions that over time our American military and our nation has been called on, human rights has always been at the forefront of it.  It's true in the manner in which the United States military conducts its operation and the manner in which any type of harm to civilians has always tried to be kept to the absolute, absolute minimum.

This rather blatant lie set me on guard (Note: I justify this accusation in a later post.); this is relevant for my reaction to the next passage I cite, from Wednesday's briefing:

Q: Is the United States taking a softer line on Russia over Chechnya in return for the cooperation Putin has offered in this effort?

MR. FLEISCHER: President Putin gave a very important speech the other day. ... [The President] wants to note particularly President Putin's remarks ... in which [he] called on Chechen insurgents to disassociate themselves immediately from the international terrorist networks.

...

Q: And so, the administration believes, with President Putin, that the resistance in Chechnya has been infiltrated and is linked to the same terrorist networks that committed the atrocities in New York?

MR. FLEISCHER: [T]here is no question that there is an international terrorist presence in Chechnya that has links to Osama bin Ladin.

...

Q: Haven't we made many statements denouncing Russia for its attacks at Chechnya?  And is there some image of some freedom fighters there?  And all of a sudden, you're calling them terrorists?

MR. FLEISCHER: As I just indicated, the concern for human rights remains a vital part of American policy, and the only solution to the problem in Chechnya is a political one.

Q: Yes.  But why is it just today that you're calling them terrorists?  What has changed?  Is this what Putin has asked for, in exchange for his help?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as I indicated, that's not the case.  That's been the longstanding position.

Q: I think this is the first time -- is this not the first time you've used this word at that podium?

Q: It's the first time we've heard it.

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure that I have discussed the situation in Chechnya with the White House Press Corps prior to this.  We haven't had much reason to do so.

...

Q: Sounds like a deal, though.  It sounds like in exchange for Putin's support, we, rhetorically from this podium, are lending him support in characterizing the opposition as international terrorists.

MR. FLEISCHER: No, no such conclusion should be reached.  This is consistent with actions taken by the previous administration, because it's an accurate statement about developments in Chechnya.

Q: Can you give us the date of [the] Senate testimony [you mentioned regarding Chechnya]?

MR. FLEISCHER: If I recall, it was November 1999.

"Yeah, right," I thought to myself.  "You have really outdone yourself this time, claiming that there is Senate testimony identifying the Chechen rebels as terrorists and linking them to bin Laden."  So I dug around, using November 1999 as the guide.  I decided Fleischer had to be referring to S. Hrg. 106-294, entitled "Chechnya:  Implications for Russia and the Caucasus," from November 4, 1999 (Text|PDF), and I read this with interest.  And I found that Fleischer was absolutely correct.  I stress this now because I certainly would have made a big deal out of it if Fleischer had been lying.    From the testimony of Stephen R. Sestanovich, U.S. State Department:

Chechen insurgents are receiving help from radical groups in other countries, including Usama [sic] Bin Laden's network and others who have attacked or threatened Americans and American interests ... Russian government statements linking Osama Bin Ladin's organization to Chechen fighters Basayev and Al-Khattab are plausible. We are aware of continuing cooperation between Bin Ladin's Al-Qaida organization and Chechen rebels, including Ibn Al-Khattab.  It is likely that some of the non-Chechen rebel fighters coming from outside Russia have received training, funding, and other logistical support from terrorist organizations.

Fascinating.  If the media did not know of this it is their own dumb fault, as it is clearly a matter of public record.  But before we leave the transcript of these testimonies, I would like to excerpt a few more passages:

In the name of rooting out terrorists, Russia is using force against Chechnya in an apparent effort to undo the military defeat it suffered ... Islamic fundamentalism obviously affects the stability of the region as a whole.  Yet suppression of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists may be a very convenient pretext for Russia to pursue its designs in the Caucasus.

I don't think it is unreasonable to draw a parallel between this and the current situation, substituting 'U.S.' for 'Russia' and 'Afghanistan' for 'Chechnya'.  The State Department seem to have had a good perspective on the issues less than two years ago when they dealt with a foreign government; let us hope they can apply it here.

Also fascinatingly, there is a senatorial question from this session on record as follows:

From the perspective of the Administration, how can we tell when the United States should discourage Russian military excesses combating Islamic forces in the Caucasus, and when--if ever--should the United States consider collaborating with Russia in fighting Islamic sources of terrorism?

The answer, in retrospect, seems quite clear: the U.S. decided to collaborate with Russia once U.S. soil was attacked.  Just so we are clear on this: Russia, supposedly our allies, suffered attacks resulting in extensive loss of life from terrorists funded by extremist Islamic groups.  Congress then talked about "when, if ever" we should join Russia "in fighting Islamic sources of terrorism."  They talked about it, and, to my knowledge, made no commitment until the attacks of 11 September.  The new President, backed by Congress, then had the audacity to announce to the world, including Russia, that the U.S. will begin the international war against terrorism, and if the rest of the world, including Russia, did not support us 100%, then they should be considered the enemy.  The hypocrisy here is stiflingly thick.

An article I read last week in Le Monde sported the headline «George W. Bush se pose en chef de guerre et leader du monde civilisé.»  No kidding.

I did not know until today that White House press briefings are published on whitehouse.gov.  This is very good; it allows us to bypass yet one more level of spin and agenda, that of the print and broadcast journalists who compose stories for public consumption.  And it is reassuring to know that hard questions are being asked, even if they seem not to make it to the front pages of newspapers.

The most recent briefing contains several important questions and responses that I would like to consider. Emphasis is added.

Q: Ari, it does seem that across the board, on proving that these charitable organizations, non-governmental organizations, [and] banks have links to terror; on proving that bin Laden is behind these acts; on what plans the administration has post whatever movement we make in Afghanistan; the answer is always, "that's classified, trust us."  Does that really serve the democracy well if all this information on which the government is basing its actions is classified?

MR. [Press Secretary Ari] FLEISCHER: I think the American people get it.  I think they understand that as the nation moves from a peacetime footing to a wartime footing, the government's need to hold certain pieces of information closer is an important need.  And I think the American people are accepting and understanding of that. And I think you all will be the judge if you believe the government has gone too far.  But I don't think there's any indications among the public, certainly, that that is the case.

...

Q: -- the Swiss and the Cayman Islands and other governments, places where money is usually -- large amounts of money are usually stashed and they have strict rules about giving out information to law enforcement?

MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated earlier, we're going to continue to work with all nations around the world and we're going to continue to see what the level of cooperation is with each nation.  But make no mistake, what is so different about the executive order the President signed last night is now the United States is prepared to take action against nations that don't take action themselves.

Q: So the U.S. is willing to take action against the Swiss?

MR. FLEISCHER: The United States is prepared to take action against nations that don't help in this cause.

Q: How will that process work?  For instance, you identify one of these groups and you go to a foreign bank and say, we want you to freeze the assets of this organization.  Will the U.S. just attest that this is linked to terrorists?  Will they supply some sort of detailed information? How do you avoid -- how do you do that and avoid using sources and methods?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, every case is going to be different. ... I can't be in a position of being the spokesperson for every bank or foreign nation around the world.  We'll see what they do to cooperate. ...

Q: No, but I was asking you what the administration intends to do, not what they intend to do -- what you intend to do to give them information to convince them?  I mean, if someone came to a U.S. bank and said, by the way, lock up this account because we think these guys are terrorists -- you would have to go through some legal procedures, you couldn't just say, oh, the Swiss told [us]--

MR. FLEISCHER: [The Departments of Treasury and State] will be the most appropriate places to go [with these questions].

...

Q: The Treasury -- the response from the Treasury Department to that this morning was, "we will act like responsible adults."  I think those were the words he used, even.  I mean, you're really asking people to trust the government on this.  And without being more specific, do you intend to be more specific soon?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think what you need to do is talk to these foreign governments and talk to the foreign banks and get their point of view. I think you are surmising what their point of view may or may not be. ... [W]e'll see where it goes over time.

That is quite a bit more informative for me than most news reports.  More unsettling, too, as it reveals the efforts Fleischer makes to emit sounds from his mouth without answering the questions.  I am not a scholar of history so my depiction may be incorrect, but this seems to be the pattern in our country's history:

1. We limit freedoms (Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, McCarthy's witch hunt) for what seem to be valid reasons.
2. We later decide that the restrictions were excessive, but justifiable given the circumstance.
3. Even later, we decide that the restrictions were an abuse of governmental power and that the actions were unjustifiable in any circumstance.

Proofs from history are inherently flawed, but I am not attempting a proof, rather a comparison.  When the nation is in a state of hysteria, the sacrifice of our freedoms seems a price we are willing to pay.  Spurred by the sense of closeness and trust engendered by foreign hostility, we seem to accept that "the government are our friends", that "they would do nothing to take advantage of this situation."

And here arises the logical fallacy I am intending to address: we cannot fundamentally change the state of a system and have any confidence that the system will continue to exhibit the same behaviors.  Thus it is (strongly) arguable that the very reason the government seem our friends is that the Constitution explicitly limits their power by delegating responsibility to the people.

The past few weeks seem to indicate America turning a blind eye to many abuses.  Racial profiling in the federal investigations, for instance: how many of us think that the FBI agents did not take the passenger manifests and scan them first for Arabic names?  "Well, Josh, it seems to have worked," my hypothetical conversant replies.  Well, yes; but enforcing a police state, or creating a dictorship, or executing people for their thoughts are all means to ends as well.  We cannot use expedient methods that violate Constitutional principles to accomplish a temporary aim.

"I don't think there's any indications among the public" that they resent the government telling us to trust them as benevolent, says Fleischer.  I hope he is wrong.  And I certainly hope the U.S. government will come to their senses and stop saber-rattling ("The United States is prepared to take action against nations that don't help in this cause ... We'll see what they do to cooperate") against countries that keep a cool head through these events.

Another exchange:

Q: A statement broadcast today, apparently a fax from Osama bin Laden, in which he called on Muslims in Pakistan to "fight the American crusade."  A, does this administration believe the statement is credible, and do you have any reaction to it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there have been so many different statements coming out of the Taliban that I think the only statement that the President is looking for is a statement of action.  And the words that were issued today by the Taliban are a chilly reminder about how serious and real this is.

I reread these passages a couple of times to make sure I was reading correctly, and I left the passage intact to show I am not selectively quoting.  Since when were missives from Osama bin Laden identical to statements by the Taliban?  Oh, right: since the "we will make no distinction" speech.  Let us assume that North Korea decides that they are not too keen on letting the U.S. government stomp all over their banking system, and refuse to open financial records to American eyes.  Could we envision this exchange at a White House press briefing?

Q: A fax from Osama bin Laden called on Muslims to begin a Jihad against Americans.  Do you believe this is a threat?

FLEISCHER: Well, North Korea has been engaging in many threatening behaviors in the past few years, and we are worried about their possession of nuclear weapons.  But we are really waiting for an explicit declaration from North Korea before we start taking bin Laden's threats seriously.

I am trying to figure out what flaw my hypothetical conversation partner would find in my analogy, but I cannot find anything ("bin Laden is on Afghan soil" is insufficient.)  I thought the "make no distinction" speech was posturing, a statement of hegemonism, a threatening and imposing way of saying "Help us NOW!".  I did not think the administration would literally make no distinction between the terrorists and harboring states.  That just doesn't make sense.

It has been a while since I have written any malts reviews.  I added one tonight, and I remember now how much I enjoy doing so.

I purchased Nickelback's new album Silver Side Up yesterday (the album was released, rather unluckily, on the eleventh.)  I have been a fan of Nickelback's since May 2000 when I heard "Leader of Men" from The State, purchased the album, and was extremely impressed.  The new offering is quite solid.  On my first listen, "Never Again", "Good Times Gone", and "How You Remind Me" stood out prominently, the latter dramatically so.  I believe "How You Remind Me" will be the track that makes them a household name.  On that listen I thought there was a lot of filler on the album, but I have listened through it once more, with "Hollywood" and "Where Do I Hide" catching my attention and the remainder sparking more interest than the first time.

A flip-through of my CD collection should indicate whether you (the reader, personally) should trust my musical recommendations.

The Washington Post ran a story [local archive] headlined "Chinese Working Overtime to Sew U.S. Flags," relating to the rocketing number of American flag purchases in the wake of the terror.  This is not surprising, given that U.S. mythology casts Betsy Ross as Prometheus: a legendary figure who once gave us a great gift, before the means to produce it became cheap, widespread, and completely disposable.  Many U.S. citizens fail to realize that the headline indicates the source of the problem in the first place.

I purchased Michael Moore's Downsize This! tonight and have read the first ten chapters.  In a previous post I tore Moore apart and wondered if "Mr. Moore is just an idiot or if is his aim is more sinister," in response to his distorted figures and half-truths.  My verdict: he's an idiot.

Eric Bogosian once described Oliver Stone as being not a liberal, but rather what conservatives want people to think liberals are like.  I cheerfully appropriate this and apply it to Michael Moore.

I TiVoed the Tribute to Heroes telethon last night and watched it this morning.  I took note of the artists who appeared and present the list here.  This is in no way official or guaranteed correct.  These are just my notes.

1. Bruce Springsteen
2. Tom Hanks
3. Stevie Wonder
4. George Clooney
5. U2
6. Will Smith and Muhammad Ali
7. Faith Hill with Paul Shaffer
8. Kelsey Grammer
9. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
10. Jim Carrey
11. Enrique Iglesias
12. Neil Young (covering John Lennon)
13. Cameron Diaz
14. Alicia Keyes
15. Robin Williams
16. Limp Bizkit (covering Pink Floyd)
17. Dennis Franz and Jimmy Smits
18. Billy Joel
19. Callista Flockhart and Amy Brenneman
20. The Dixie Chicks
21. (Montage set to U2's One)
22. Dave Matthews
23. Conan O'Brien and Sarah Jessica Parker
24. Wyclef Jean
25. Tom Cruise
26. Mariah Carey
27. Ray Romano
28. Jon Bon Jovi and Richie Sambora
29. Lucy Liu
30. Sheryl Crow
31. Sela Ward and Jane Kaczmarek
32. Sting
33. Julia Roberts
34. Eddie Vedder, Mike McCready, and Neil Young
35. Chris Rock
36. Paul Simon
37. Robert DeNiro
38. Celine Dion
39. Clint Eastwood
40. Willie Nelson (with all-star chorus)

If I have made any errors, please let me know at joshua@mcgees.org.

I began with the intention of posting a complaint about the name "Operation Infinite Justice" applied to the terrorist retaliation efforts.  Does "Operation Infinite Justice" cause you (the reader) to shudder?  What we are hoping for (right?) is a finite struggle.   And damaging as it may have been, the attack was of finite scale, and therefore deserves finite retribution.

It is also problematic that "infinite justice" comes with heavy religious weights attached to it.  To propose that the U.S. could (let alone should) mete out such retribution would seem to offend most people.  The religious would be offended by the implicit arrogation of divine right, while the non-religious would be offended by casting a secular, military-political issue as a religious conflict.  I grimaced when George W. Bush used the word "crusade" to describe the conflict, but "Operation Infinite Justice" is not much of an improvement.  As Salon's Scott Rosenberg writes, "The crusade, it seems, is on again."

But good news, in the "this just in" sense: Rumsfeld announced he is "considering" finding a new name after hearing from Muslim clerics that it was offensive.  I think this can be read as a guarantee that they will change it (What else would he do?  Hold a press conference, announce that it is offensive to Muslim Americans, and then keep it?)

On two occasions in the past week I have heard television newscasters use the phrase "beg the question" to mean "leads one to ask the question."  This is not the meaning of this phrase.  To "beg the question" has a precise definition in logic: it means to assume in your argument that which you are trying to prove.

Examples might be more enlightening than a definition.  Consider "Everything in the Christian Bible is true because the Bible tells us so."  Or "Lying is bad because one ought to tell the truth."  Or (from an August post) Coca-Cola's proof that dining experiences are improved by ordering Coke, due to the fact that a program to increase Coke sales succeeded, and thus improved customers' dining experiences.

I did a search and found a World Wide Words column on the topic (if you are interested in words and are not yet subscribed, you can sign up for a great email newsletter at the site.)  According to Michael Quinion (the author), the problems propagated from a 1581 translation of "petitio principii" as "beg the question."  Quinion suggests that "laying claim to the principle" would have been a better translation.

If all this is confusing, I may have simply done a poor job explaining it.  Read Quinion's column and see if that elucidates things.  If it is still confusing after that, you probably want to avoid using the expression.  While the corrupted meaning has arguably (and, in my opinion, quite unfortunately) entered common usage, using it as such will draw the condemnation of people with logic training.  To be more succinct: if you are attempting a logical argument and blatantly misuse a logic term, you have set yourself at a significant disadvantage.

If you really like the ring of "begs the question" in the incorrect usage, try saying "invites the question." I expect that it should be comparably satisfying.

The new Nimda worm is much, much worse than was Code Red.  As of this writing, mcgees.org has been hit with over 18,000 attacks from over 1,000 machines.

[Johnson] charges himself with not rising early enough ... "One great hindrance is want of rest; my nocturnal complaints grow less troublesome towards morning; and I am tempted to repair the deficiencies of the night."
        - James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson

This seems to quite applicably describe my insomnia.  In my attempts to repair this, it would seem logical that, were I to rise early, I would be tired enough by evening to fall asleep at a reasonable hour.  This does not seem to be the case.

United Airlines ... plans to cut at least 20,000 employees, or 20 percent of its workforce. ... United currently has about 100,000 employees.

How can a film that announces "No animals were harmed in the making of this film" contain scenes of the actors eating meat?

Would a short diversion from tragedy be in order?  1994 saw the release of a couple of cheesy action movies centered around skydiving, one of which was the Wesley Snipes vehicle Drop Zone.  I saw this in the theatres, and was won over by a character in the film called Swoop.  In the midst of a so-so film emerged an engaging, interesting character, acted better than any of the others.  I remember having multiple conversations to the effect that "the movie stinks, but it is worth watching for the character of Swoop."

I did not watch much television for most of the mid-nineties, so I did not catch onto Homicide: Life on the Street (which I now consider to be the finest television drama of the 1990s, bar none) until 1998, when I started watching from episode 1 on CourtTV.  Homicide is stunningly rich in acting, screenwriting, directing, cinematography, and the bravery with which they addressed issues.  One of my favorite characters was Detective Tim Bayliss, acted with enormous complexity and skill by Kyle Secor.

Today I caught the end of Drop Zone on an HBO network.  I was astonished to realize that the character of Swoop, who had stood out so prominently for me, was portrayed by Kyle Secor.

I guess it was too good to last: Michael Moore has followed up his previous, reasonably balanced column with more of his normal incorrect, knee-jerk statements that give liberalism a bad name.  Moore writes:

Back in May, you [Bush] gave the Taliban in Afghanistan $48 million dollars of our tax money. No free nation on earth would give them a cent, but you gave them a gift of $48 million because they said they had "banned all drugs."

Unless one believes the U.S. State Department is boldly lying to the American public on all significant issues of its foreign policy, this is such unmitigated bullshit that it has my blood boiling.  I am left wondering if Mr. Moore is just an idiot or if is his aim is more sinister [Note 23/9/2001: Click here for my verdict.]

Following are the facts, as presented by the U.S. State Department.  I emphasize a subset of the points that Mr. Moore distorts.

The Taliban government issued a ban on poppy production.  This goes nicely with the U.S. War on Drugs, as Afghanistan produces some 75% of the world's opium, which is then used to produce heroin.  The problem is that poppies are a very effective cash crop for poor Afghan farmers: they can harvest two crops a year, then grow watermelons or other food crops on the same land to feed themselves.  They have experience growing poppies, the poppies are drought-resistant, and since they are high-maintenance they employ many people.  The Taliban poppy ban came at a particularly bad time, as it was instituted two years into a terrible drought, and the drought has lasted another year.  The drought, coupled with the outlawing of crops, puts some 4 million Afghans at severe risk of famine.

The U.S. is by far the largest (but far from the only) provider of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan; in 2000 the U.S. provided approximately $114 million in aid.  The U.S. State Department are not idiots (unlike, perhaps, Mr. Moore.)  They realize that giving the money to the Taliban would defeat the purpose.  In the words of Secretary Powell, "Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."  Leonard Rogers (Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Humanitarian Response, USAID) expands: "The money will all go through either the United Nations or nongovernmental organizations, and some of those nongovernmentals are American organizations like CARE and International Medical Corps."

In May 2001, the State Department announced an additional $43 million (not $48 million) in aid, in order to address the effects of the drought, the effects of outlawing poppy production, and general concerns of poverty and famine.  This raises year-to-date contributions to $124 million, a less than 9 percent increase over year 2000 funding.  And the U.S. is not flying over with attaché cases full of "benjamins".  The disbursement includes 65,000 tons (NB: tons, not pounds) of wheat, $5 million in foodstuffs designed for therapeutic feeding programs for malnourished children (notably vegetable oil and nutritious corn-soy grain blends), and $10 million for "livelihood" assistance such as health assistance through UNICEF and seed- and tool-giving programs.  According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States, US hard wheat export prices in April 2001 were $134 per ton.  This means that ($134 * 65,000) + $5,000,000 = $14 million of this was given to U.S. farmers.  Think about it (I know this is a browbeating tone, but so few people seem to actually be thinking): take $14 million from U.S. taxpayers, buy surplus grain from America's heartland, decrease the need for farm aid, and feed countless starving people.  What are we arguing about?

Now here is Moore's quote again for you to read:

Back in May, you gave the Taliban in Afghanistan $48 million dollars of our tax money. No free nation on earth would give them a cent, but you gave them a gift of $48 million because they said they had "banned all drugs."

A bit of a different picture, eh?  This aid would be greatly appreciated even if poppy production had not been outlawed; it is absolutely critical now.  I wonder what Moore would have us do: stop humanitarian aid?  Stop feeding starving families?  My sense is no: he would like us to provide this much humanitarian aid, but the voters to believe that a Republican administration wasn't doing so.

Sorry again for my livid tone ... but do your civic duty and read the State Department briefings and their responses to our questions before you start demonizing U.S. foreign aid.  I know that in my comments on the Unity piece I came out against pro-American propaganda.  But are we supposed to replace this with anti-American propaganda?  Fact: the U.S. feeds refugees in Afghanistan.  Fact: the U.S. does this without giving money to the Taliban.  Fact: the U.S. does this while retaining Taliban sanctions.  Fact: the U.S. encourages the Taliban to stop their civil war, become self-sufficient, and not starve their population.

It is taking enormous effort not to end this posting with a paragraph of anger against Michael Moore.  I'll restrain.  Read Moore's article, read the State Department briefings, and fill it in mentally for yourself.

A friend sent a very thoughtful and intelligent email to me regarding the recent events, prompted by the postings on this page.  He passed along two valuable links.  First is a column from Michael Moore that was far more moderate than I would have expected.  This statement (one of the few moments of rhetoric that he allowed himself) seems to land close to the mark:

Will we ever get to the point that we realize we will be more secure when the rest of the world isn't living in poverty so we can have nice running shoes?

Second, this personal recollection makes for enlightening, if chilling, reading.

Note added 5 December 2001:  It turns out I was wrong in at least one respect.  I am now convinced that the images were not doctored: see here and here.

I still do not believe these faces are actually the manifestation of Satan, of course.  I would be interested to see the results of someone going frame-by-frame through the pictures and finding other just-as-convincing visages: a cowboy, perhaps, or an elephant, or The Phantom of the Opera.

My apologies to those whom I harshly accused of idiocy.

If I had slightly less faith in humanity I might have seen this coming: so far 29 (see below for current number) people have hit my Live Recordings Trade Center looking for variations on a theme of "Satan/Devil face in World Trade Center".  Can we assume there has been an imbecilic rumor floating about that if you freeze-frame one of the explosion recordings, and turn your head just right, you see the face of (whoooah, man!) Satan?

I know on an intellectual level that people are scrambling to make sense of the disaster, but the fact that this story is being gobbled up strains credulity.  Maybe they are Asimov fans: his 1956 short story Hell-Fire covered this ludicrous ground.  Regarding the Asimov story, reviewer John Jenkins writes:

This and "Silly Asses" are Asimov's two worst nuclear war cautionary tales, being too short, too obvious, and having nothing of merit outside of their message. In this case, the fact that the story's conclusion--the face of Satan is visible in the explosion--has basically been headline material for the likes of the National Enquirer doesn't help it. Avoid this story, if possible.

Yes, folks: avoid this story if possible.

Note added 14 Sept 2001, 21:30: The total searches for 'devil in trade center', 'satan face in world trade center', etc. to hit my site now number 122.

Note added 16 Sept 2001, 10:30: The total has now grown to 207.

Note added 17 Sept 2001, 23:45: We are up to (brace yourself) 352.

Note added 19 Sept 2001, 11:15: We have now reached 443.

Note added 20 Sept 2001, 11:15: Another 89 hits in the last 24 hours; now up to 532.  And this has to be a very tiny sampling, since savvy web searchers would disregard the "hit" from the Google excerpt that shows on the search results page.  If one searches for "devil face in world trade center", the following appears on page 1:

Live Recordings Trade Center: List of Recordings
... Devil By His Side; ... In The Free World; Tuning Up for ... 95, The Delta Center, Salt Lake
City ... so if you trade with me I ... Flow; Daughter > Broken Face > Real Me > Another ...
www.mcgees.org/livereclist.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

If one searches for "satan face in world trade center", the following appears on page 2 of the results:

Live Recordings Trade Center: List of Recordings
... In The Free World; Tuning Up for ... Small Town; Rats; Satan's Bed; Once; Sonic ... 95, The
Delta Center, Salt Lake City ... if you trade with me ... Daughter > Broken Face > Real Me ...
www.mcgees.org/livereclist.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

I finally gave in and looked into this rumor a bit more.  A Salon article attributes much of the hullabaloo to Art Bell.  Apparently he discussed this on his radio talk show, and posts some faked pictures on his website.  Here I will be blunt: If a viewer has even the slightest sophistication regarding, or experience with, digital images, it will be immediately obvious that these are nothing more than rather poorly-executed fakes.

Note added 22 Sept 2001, 12:00: 661

Note added 24 Sept 2001, 11:20: This post is about to fall off the front page of mcgees.org, so this may be the last addendum.  The total is now a staggering 826.

I am still quietly fuming.  Last night, participating in a weekly Yahoo! chat, I was admonished post facto for "political" discussions.  By this is meant that "bomb the Middle East", "go after our enemies whether or not they had anything to do with the attack", and "torture is too good for bin-Laden; cut his balls off and let him die a eunuch" are not political statements, but urging care and restraint is.  Implicitly (and not very obscured) is the point that bilious tirades, racist generalisations, and threats of (further) unprovoked military force are harmless and on-topic; conversely, arguing in response that we should actually investigate who the guilty parties are before considering a storm of terror is "political".  Note that for the soldiers who have been successfully brainwashed by our armed forces, the definition of "political" is actually "pansy-assed".

Oh, I forgot that my views were also "shockingly naive".  This, by the way, after I had left the chat.  A note to Yahoo! chat users: if a user goes "away from desk", the browser still retains a log of what is discussed.  I vehemently reject the premise that diplomacy, research, and a respect for life are inappropriate in this circumstance.  I am cautiously heartened that Bush and Powell have so far demonstrated a willingness to think, rather than act on bigotry, the "they're all the same" mindset, as despicable as that which motivated the attackers.

ESR, whom I did not know was capable of this level of political opportunism, sent a message to several news organizations on Tuesday afternoon subtitled First lessons from the 9/11 attack (note that the American-centric stance extends even to his date format.)  In this editorial ... and I am finding it difficult to even transcribe this ... he advocates arming all airline passengers as a way to prevent terrorism.  This bears repeating: according to Mr. Raymond, if you allow any passenger to carry loaded firearms onto a civilian airliner, you will prevent hijackings.

This is a complex editorial, but only in the sense that its audacity, irresponsibility, and insanity vie so closely for superiority that it is difficult to determine which comes out on top.  Situation: Armed passengers.  Result: Potential hijackers train as crack marksmen, carry semiautomatic pistols and wear Kevlar jackets.  They position themselves at various points of the plane and announce the hijacking.  They explain that anyone who resists will be shot, and will also cause two children on the aircraft to be shot.  Someone resists, is shot, as are a random four-year-old and six-year-old from among the passengers.  Someone else tries to resist, gets off a panic shot, punctures a window, and triggers an explosive decompression of the aircraft.  Now this is progress.

It "is arguable that the lawmakers who disarmed all the non-terrorists on those four airplanes, leaving them no chance to stop the hijackers, bear part of the moral responsibility for this catastrophe," claims Raymond.  In point of fact, the crash in Pennsylvania suggests that unarmed passengers did succeed in stopping the hijackers; it seems quite likely they would not have been able to do so had the hijackers possessed firearms.

In an excellent bit of satire, one jsm ridicules and shames ESR's and others' rants (Thanks to Keith Dawson's post on Media Grok for the pointer.):

Of course the World Trade Center bombings are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved.  However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct.  Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened  ...  My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events  ...  [We must] not lose sight of the fact that I am right on every significant moral and political issue, and everybody ought to agree with me.

A response by alprazolam continued the thought, sans satire: "Disturbing people assume that the best response to tragedy is to abandon reason and order.  No matter what political differences I may have with the current administration I'm glad that cool heads have prevailed and the U.S. has not erupted into widespread vigilantism."

People are hitting my Live Recordings Trade Center as a result of searches for "live trade center pictures" and the like.  I feel awful that my inconsequential pages pull them away from their searches.

These are the accounts of my brother, who studies in Manhattan, of Tuesday's events. I publish them with his permission.

My morning began with several reset alarms.  I kept getting up, and thinking that I could sleep just a few more minutes and still be on time.

There sure were a lot of sirens, though.  I didn't pay too much attention to them, because of my proximity to Bellevue Hospital.  And if there were a few more than normal today, I didn't think it anything special. 

We woke up at 9:05, Jason and I.  We trudged around a little bit.  I showered.  When I got back to the room, the phone rang.  Jason answered, paused... muttered "You've got to be kidding me" and pushed the power button on our TV. 

I don't remember what station it was -- it doesn't matter, they were all showing the same thing.  A plane had crashed into one of the World Trade towers.  Another had followed shortly after, smashing into the second tower.  As I was waking up -- just a few miles away, acts of terrorism were being carried out.  At this point, all the rumors were conjecture... if only one plane had hit, I may have believed it an accident until proven otherwise.  But two... certainly this was a terrorist attack. 

The phone call was from my father... he told me that he had just turned on the news, and that this had just happened.  The south wind was blowing the smoke away from me, or I certainly would have known of this before.  I hung up and called the office.  Brian answered- I told him I was coming in, and asked if he knew.  They all knew, he said.  They were all watching.

Sam and Will from down the hall went to look from the roof- Sam grabbed his camera, and they headed out the side doors of our 26th story. 

I headed downstairs, still in disbelief.  I walked to the subway station on Park Ave.  and 23rd.  A man sat with a newspaper and a cup of coffee.  I asked him what had happened.  He told me the same- an airplane into each tower. 

The pillar of smoke ever in my sight, I continued to the subway station.  I used the last of the fares on my metro card.  There were businessmen and women huddled together.  Once again I asked what had happened.  A plane into each tower, the man told me.  And one hit the Pentagon.

I couldn't believe what was happening.  I asked if anybody had claimed responsibility.  Nobody knew. 

The subway was silent as I rode to Astor Place.  I have never heard the subway silent before.  I exited -- the cloud of smoke and ash was much closer now.  I walked on Astor to Broadway- turned south.  A huge cloud of smoke had suddenly erupted from the ground, under where the other flames had been.  People began to run, screaming.  People began running in every direction.  "ANOTHER EXPLOSION, ANOTHER EXPLOSION!" As I walked by an unmarked truck, I began to fear that I was next to a car bomb.  My pace quickened... I moved downtown against the beginning flow. 

Outside of 721 Broadway I turned.  I wanted to see what had happened... I wanted to see it with my own eyes.  I came to a crowd of people standing on Green St.  Again I asked "What happened?" A guy my own age turned and looked at me, tears streaming down his face- "The left tower just fell down."

My heart stopped.  Surely this could not be happening.  A certainly deadly terrorist attack had just leapt into utter devastation.  My hand leapt to my mouth, agape.  There was so much smoke.  I kept walking toward Washington Square Park.  The Main Building of NYU emptied.  The word that classes were cancelled spread quickly. 

I turned around and headed back toward 721 Broadway.  My hand still at my mouth, my heart and mind not truly believing it.  I walked inside, up to the third floor.  My office was empty.  I saw Chris standing down the hall with some students.  I walked up to him- voice shaking- I asked "Chris... did one of them just fall over?" He nodded at me... those always wise eyes suddenly filled with unknowing.  We sat there, gathered at the doorway, listening to the radio.  Two or three other guys, one girl with tear stained cheeks.  I had to sit down, my legs were shaking.  As the others slowly departed to go make important phone calls, I stood back up.  My cell phone, 60 hours old had no signal.  Of course, I thought -- communication towers are on the World Trade Towers. 

I walked back to the office, dropped my bag.  Tried both friends, tried to get to CNN website nothing was working.  All I could think about was getting home.  I heard that classes weren't cancelled, but I didn't care.  I needed to find something else to do. 

Downstairs I saw the same girl from upstairs... Lindsay, she said her name was.  We shook hands.  Trying to force a smile, I said that the next time we met I hoped it would be in better circumstances.  And we parted ways, with wishes of good luck. 

I reached Chelsea outside of Tisch... she hadn't heard what had happened.  Jenny's parents had just called from Beijing and asked if they were watching the news.  She said she was just about to call me.  It was her turn to ask "What happened?" And I stood outside of Tisch, leaning against the wall, sobbing.  I told her what had happened.  New York.  Washington D.C.  She was sobbing now, too.  "How could this happen?" She asked.  I had no answer to give. 

I joined the mass emigration moving northward along major streets.  We all looked behind, constantly.  There was no tremendous thunder clap, there was no fanfare- but when I turned around that last time and saw no more smoke coming from the sky, and billowing clouds of ash from the ground, I knew the second tower had fallen.  Women walking next to me had no signal on their phones.  One asked if she could use my phone, she had to call her family- but once I disconnected, I too had no signal.  The streets were filled with people moving uptown.  Away and further away. 

Rumors filled the streets- the Sears Tower had been hit, I heard.  Car bombs were exploding all over D.C., I heard.  I looked up at the Empire State Building, hoping it would last the day.  I feared that it might be next.  There were so many people on the streets.  I feared car bombs.  People were staring at cell phones, willing them to work, looking behind with dread.  As I turned on 26th St., I started talking to some businessmen.  "What the fuck is going on?," I asked? As one turned and wished us good luck, the second echoed my question.  "Where are you headed?" I asked.  "I'm going to Bellevue, try to give blood," he said. 

I joined him -- I was in such shock, it honestly hadn't occurred to me to donate blood.  We quickened our pace again, and made toward Bellevue. 

It was caution-taped shut.  "Nobody comes in," the police officer said.  "We want to give blood," we said.  "Nobody comes in."

So I parted ways with this man too -- he told to me to try again later, and to get as many people as I could.  I told him I would certainly do so.  And I walked back to my dorm.  Up to the 26th floor.  Into Sam and Will's room.  The images from his camera on his computer already, I saw the now destroyed twin towers smoking- as they had stood two, maybe three hours earlier.  But I knew they weren't there anymore... nothing in my life has been so surreal.  As I walked back to my room, the thoughts in my mind were of a new day that will live in infamy.  Of the thousands upon thousands upon tens of thousands that must have been dead in the destruction.  And I couldn't really work it out in my head... I couldn't get it to click. 

Zach was safe, Zach was here.  We talked about how frightened we were, what we had seen, what we had heard.  My concern became for Aaron -- I knew that Jason couldn't have possibly gotten that far downtown -- he had left the dorm after me, and as all public transit systems were down, he couldn't have gotten down there.  But Aaron was gone when I woke up, and we hadn't heard from him.  He called relatively soon -- he was safe at a friend's dorm. 

Jason got back to the dorm.  He had been trying to give blood at other hospitals -- St.  Vincent's and Beth Israel.  He had tried Bellevue too.  They all turned him away.  Too many patients, too few doctors.  All the TV stations said that there was a shortage of blood -- but we couldn't find anybody to take ours.

I couldn't get a phone line out.  Ethernet worked... I got Jonathan Johannsen to call my dad and tell him I was OK, and to have my dad call Chelsea and Josh.  Chelsea signed online shortly after, my dad shortly after her.  I was inundated with instant messages.  I spread the word that I was OK, but that New York was a warzone.  There were so many people. 

Nine or ten of my friends were downstairs, making the trek to Laura's.  Alive and well and accounted for were all those that I hadn't heard from. 

And through the day as I watched the news, I got back in touch with my family... I found out that Chelsea had been planning on surprising me with a visit the next day.  She had a plane ticket to come and see me for the next five or six days, as a wonderful surprise.  And I begged and begged her to wait at least a week to come again.  The last thing I need is for Chelsea to be on a plane right now -- as if I could rest easily with that on my mind.  As if I can now...

And that was the rest of the day... news, and phone, and typing... letting everyone know that I was physically alive, and mentally pretty ragged. 

So I watched the news, and talked to friends, and tried not to think about the things that were happening downtown.  Sooner or later, maybe, it will hit me what has happened.  It will hit me that New York's largest buildings are a heap of 200,000 tons of steel, mixed with concrete and glass... but it hasn't yet.  Maybe it will hit me how many died...  but it hasn't yet. 

But it has started to hit me how everyone came together in this city... it's started to hit me that those places that are taking blood have lines around the block, that usually gruff New Yorkers were sharing cell phones, and wishes of peace. 

This really doesn't change the fact that tens of thousands died today, that I watched a building collapse, that others were closer and others lost loved ones and others had their planes hijacked and flight attendants were stabbed and pilots probably shot, that people decided to fall rather than burn, that rescue workers simply helping out are gone too. 

It doesn't change any of that.  But in a hopeless situation it gives me a glimmer of hope that I desperately need.  And I want to side with that businessman on the street today who said "I hope we give a big "fuck you" to the world and build 'em back again, this time bigger." And I want to send love to those who are offering shelter and food, and to a city always divided to come together so well.

Today it takes an attack, but that hope is there -- that someday it won't have to come to that.  I don't know, but I hope.  It's been the longest, scariest, worst day of my life.  Good night.  And Peace-

I expect that everyone who reads this has received a forward of an editorial spoken by "A Canadian" (or written by a "Canadien", depending on which version you receive) urging Americans to stand proud as Americans.  The overall point of the propaganda is that Americans get a bad rap worldwide, but Americans should continue to believe that they are the coolest, most generous, ass-kickingest people in the known universe, and we should believe this because a Canadian tells us so.  If you have not received one of these emails yet, click here to view a copy or wait thirty seconds for a copy to show up from somebody in your inbox.

The events of 11 Sept have hit all of us very hard, some devastatingly.  My brother lives in Manhattan and I am overwhelmingly relieved that he is safe.  The irresponsible images broadcast by CNN of a small number of Palestinians cheering have left many Americans affronted, but we do need to keep our wits about us.

Surely there are some things that should strike us as odd about this widely distributed email.  "The Canadian" writes:

Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

The present tense of the statement ("are here", "are getting") seems odd considering that there has not been an American draft in effect for thirty years.  Among the patently incorrect statements, this stands out:

Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10?  If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

Well, the Airbus (with a 50% market share and growing) comes to mind.  Airbus planes are flown by airlines worldwide, including U.S. airlines.  And the seemingly irrelevant comment:

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar...

Why does "The Canadian" bring up the erosion of the dollar?  The reason is quite simple: this text is taken out of context from a radio editorial, spoken by Gordon Sinclair in 1973, regarding the collapse of the American dollar following the US withdrawal from the Vietnamese War (before Airbus' first plane had reached production status.)

Statements by world leaders in the past few days should show Americans that the world is united with us, but it strikes me as irresponsible to usurp a thirty-year-old monologue on a different topic to prove it.

Cinna, Brutus, and other conspirators have just assassinated Julius Caesar.  Marc Antony has raised the crowd to riot via an eloquent speech.  The crowd, spilling to the streets, encounter a man called Cinna, a poet.

"Your name, sir, truly."

"Truly, my name is Cinna."

"Tear him to pieces!  He's a conspirator."

"I am Cinna the poet!  I am Cinna the poet! ...  I am not Cinna the conspirator."

"It is no matter; his name's Cinna! ... Tear him, tear him!"

      - Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 3.

This is no more rational today than it would have been more than two thousand years ago.

Please take a moment to read this and this.

Some time ago I received one of those insipid and banal email forwards full of "strange" things about our language; the "Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?" sort of drivel.  But this one had an entry that annoyed me significantly.  It asked, "If price and worth mean the same thing, how come priceless and worthless are opposites?"

There are several levels to complain about here.  First is the fact that, no, price and worth are not synonymous.  This is true even before we venture deeply into the moral and aesthetic realms.  Worth expresses the concept of the collected attributes of an object that renders something desirable; price refers to "the amount, as of money or goods, asked for or given in exchange for something else" (American Heritage Dictionary.)  The reason worth and price can seem synonymous on the surface is what I will call the "appraisal effect".  If an appraiser tells you that a painting is "worth" $150,000, this is linguistic shorthand for "this painting possesses a collection of attributes such that, were you to price it at $150,000 or less, someone would likely buy it; but if you were to price it over $150,000 no one would likely buy it."  This is admittedly efficient and useful shorthand, but like so many other linguistic shorthands it is only appropriate if we keep in mind the true meaning.

If one does not keep in mind this distinction, or if the distinction never occurs to one to begin with, what is implied?

1. Pricing is optimal in terms of information dispersal; i.e. markets are efficient,
2. all value judgments are based on financial analysis,
3. and (implicitly) something cannot be with price but without worth, or with worth but with price.

Point one excludes bargains and price gauging from possibility; there would never be a situation where anything were priced higher or lower than what it should be on a global economic scale.  But even globally efficient markets would not imply synonymy between price and worth, since point two excludes any other criteria from the definition of worth.  This strikes me as slimily and naïvely capitalistic: everything I own is worth only what people will pay me for it; likewise for everyone I know.  Point three, if points one and two have not convinced you, should show that the construction reduces to a logical absurdity.

On Tuesday, KQED radio's Forum with Michael Krasny was on the topic of bats.  The educated and eloquent guests included Patricia Winters, education and rehabilitation director for the California Bat Conservation Fund; Rachel Long, farm advisor on pest management with the Cooperative Extension in Yolo/Solano County; and Don Clark, former research wildlife biologist for the US Fish and Wildlife Department.  Their claim was simple, predictable, and unfortunate: bat populations are decreasing markedly around the world, due to a combination of misplaced fear, superstition, pesticides and habitat destruction.

The guests went into great detail regarding bats' harmlessness to humans, their role in managing insect populations, and their roles in pollinating and reseeding.  According to Ms. Winters, bats are responsible for pollinating 450 cash crops^*.  Someone suggested that they were responsible for pollinating cocoa; Winters ruefully remarked that, no, "If bats pollinated chocolate I would have the battle won."

Particularly troubling were the stories of bats becoming trapped inside houses, especially A-frame homes.  Apparently bats will mistakenly enter, fly up to the rafters, and will die of thirst because their terror of the people below prevents them from descending.  There does not need to be much space for them.  Guess the smallest crack the average bat in California can crawl into (width by length) according to the experts.

OK, have a guess?

The mind-boggling answer is three-eighths of an inch by an inch and a half.  They are apparently quite content in this tiny space.

The organization Bat Conservation International was strongly endorsed.  The Organization for Bat Conservation also looks promising; their mission to "Teach the World About the Benefits of Bats" involves providing information, offering "Adopt-a-bat" programs, and selling bat supplies such as bat houses and plans thereof.

^* The other interesting thing as that I doubt if I could name more than 100 cash crops; this illustrates my cluelessness, the inability to extrapolate globally from U.S. practices, or both.

KROQ radio in Los Angeles held a Labor Day countdown of the three hundred "best" modern rock songs of the '90s.  I was skeptical; my experience with modern music countdowns has been that there is usually a bias towards recently-released songs.  I was afraid that a great many of the songs would be from '98 or '99.

I did not listen to much of the countdown, only catching a few songs while driving, but KROQ posted the full list the following Tuesday.  I classified the songs by the release date of their parent albums, which range from 1988 to 2000^*.  Inspecting these numbers, we get the following (click here to download the Excel spreadsheet):

	Median	Mean
Overall	1995	1995.1
1 - 100	1994	1994.3
101 - 200	1995	1995.1
201 - 300	1996	1995.7

I was pleasantly surprised.  The overall countdown was very balanced, and, if anything, older songs seemed to do better.  I charted it to help me visualize:

The chart is oriented with 300 on the left and 1 on the right.  The heavy black line is a period-seven floating average to help smooth the data.  The green line is the best linear fit (with a correlation coefficient of only 0.19); this suggests a slight bias in favor of older songs.  So I was wrong.

From a subjective standpoint, a few things bothered me.  REM seem dramatically under-represented, with only one song on the countdown (what happened to "Man on the Moon", "Drive", "Shiny Happy People", "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?", etc?)  I am far from their biggest fans, but how did Counting Crows not make the list for "Mr. Jones", perhaps even for "Einstein on the Beach"?  Tori Amos only shows up twice, but Sublime shows up nine times (I think this absurdly over-rates them, but my brother may disagree.)  If you are curious, here is a list of artists who show up at least five times on the countdown:

^* There were a few judgment calls that I had to make.  "Everlong (Acoustic)" by the Foo Fighters (#18 on the countdown) was classified as 1998.  "Jane Says (Live)" by Jane's Addiction (#75) was classified as 1988.  In both of these cases I am not sure what live performance KROQ has been playing.  Nirvana's "Verse Chorus Verse" (#243) was assigned to 1993.  Finally, "Sweet Jane" by Cowboy Junkies (#170) was not assigned to 1988, the year The Trinity Session was released, but rather to 1994 when the Natural Born Killers soundtrack, which popularized the song, was released.

My Nokia cell phone gets hot enough in prolonged use to feel like it is burning my ear.  I hung up twenty minutes ago and my ear still feels sunburnt.  Be careful.