18.5 minutes

Perhaps the most famous case of destruction of evidence is the 18.5 minute gap that appears on one of the Nixon White House tapes associated with the Watergate scandal. After the existence of the tapes had become known, and portions of them had been subpoenaed by special counsel Archibald Cox, White House secretary Rose Mary Woods testified that she may have "erased" upwards of five minutes of conversations accidentally. However, the Advisory Panel on White House Tapes subsequently concluded that Ms. Woods 5 minute gap was inconsequential, and that the 18.5 minutes of erasure was deliberate. To this day it is still not known if any incriminating evidence was destroyed by the erasure.

Now we have learned that the CIA has "out-Nixoned" Richard Nixon, likely by many hours, if not days! Officials at the CIA have admitted to destroying video tapes of the interrogations of several high profile Al Qaeda suspects. It has virtually been admitted that the tapes contain graphic footage of the abuse and torture of these individuals, probably including details of the administrations' interpretation of waterboarding. CIA head Michael Hayden, in a statement that would make Orwell turn over in his grave, informed us that the tapes posed a "serious security risk," and therefore had to be destroyed. This is so patently false that it barely warrants refutation. For one thing, if true, what would it say about the CIA's ability to keep National Security information under its control protected? Or does the agency fear an inevitable leak of the material by one of it's own employees? Either way it doesn't paint a very comforting picture of supposedly the nation's top intelligence outfit, does it? Of course, the only risk involved in the existence of the tapes, and the real reason for their destruction, is the very real risk of criminal prosecution to those who ordered and carried out the torture allegedly captured on the videos. Moreover, since these suspects were purportedly "big fish" operatives, it would also seem likely that in this case the chain of command went up pretty high, perhaps as high as the "torturer in chief" himself.

As usual, Congress has fiddled and done nothing. Republicans that had been informed of the existence of the tapes, and their destruction, didn't even bat an eye. This is par for the course for the "Rubberstampicans", but it also appears that the handful of Democrats so notified, including "Lieberman-wannabe," representative Jane Harmon (she of the recent "Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act"), and Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller, also turned a blind eye. Let's hope that some kind of investigation is initiated, after all, Nixon got far worse for a lousy 18.5 minutes.

Chaos

If you have kids then you know that they can be like little "Maxwell Demons," exuding massive quantities of entropy at fantastic rates. For the thermodynamically challenged, "Maxwell's Demon" was an imaginary agent introduced in a thought experiment by the famous physicist James Clerk Maxwell. Maxwell hypothesized that the actions of such a demon might lead to a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This law states that in any closed system entropy always increases. If you're also a little fuzzy on entropy, then just think disorder, or better yet, chaos. As can be seen in these photos, if you regard my house as a closed system, then my two youngest kids always see to it that entropy never decreases.

The physical quantities that seem to create the most entropy in my house are "toys" and "laundry." Here, laundry is to be considered any article of clothing that has been worn for at least 5 minutes, and or removed from a drawer and not replaced within an hour. Invariably, through a process that can only be revealed on a need-to-know basis, these articles make there way to the bottom of the basement stairs, where they accumulate until it becomes nearly impossible to pass by without twisting your ankle. Then they are moved to the hallway in front of the laundry room (as in the photo on the right), and eventually, hopefully, are laundered and put back in the correct clothes drawer, ready to begin the process anew. I shudder to think what fraction of our electric bill is due to laundry!

While laundry is a cyclical process, "toys" can be a more persistent source of chaos. They get taken out, distributed around the house, and often mixed together, so that it becomes difficult to keep pieces of a given toy in the same area, or even floor. One then has a "melting pot" of trains, cars, balls, weebles, you name it. And once the weebles get mixed in with the country bumpkins, then all bets are off! Eventually, a critical level of confusion is reached, and then it's more than likely that the whole pile of offending items will be bagged up together, and eventually removed to an undisclosed location, which I would not give up even under the most extreme torture. The most annoying items are those large things which can end up dominating a room, as in the collapsible house in the photo above. At least now it's in the basement, and not occupying half of the living room! Toys are an especially touchy subject these days, as it is only mere weeks before a whole new set of objects will be entering my life. Happy Holidays!

One turkey to another

One turkey pardons another. This is one of the Thanksgiving "traditions" that rather irks me. Are we supposed to think that Mr. Bush is as beneficent as Oz because he ostensibly pardons a single turkey on Thanksgiving? The origin of the turkey pardon is unclear. Some suggest that Truman inaugurated the practice, but solid evidence of this is lacking. I wonder what Iraqis would make of this bizarre stunt? The man with a heart big enough to spare a pair of turkeys seems to not have the same concern for them, or kids with no healh insurance, for that matter.

Have you ever wondered what fate befalls these lucky birds after their photo-ops? Actually, the birds are provided by the National Turkey Federation (NTF), and they are raised and groomed solely for their presidential appearance. Afterwards, they are given plum posts at petting zoos or farms, but the birds are often so large that they don't live to turkey old-age.

Surveilling "terrorists" 7 months before 9/11

There have been some extremely interesting disclosures about Bush's so called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" in the last week or so. However, what appear to be rather stunning revelations don't seem to be gaining much traction with our lobotomized corporate press. It now appears rather certain that this surveillance program was beginning some 7 months BEFORE 9/11. Several outlets, including the Washington Post have reported on this, citing court documents associated with several ongoing lawsuits. A number of important questions immediately come to mind. Since we know that the last thing on the Bush crowd's mind at that time was terrorism--by all credible accounts they were more or less asleep at the switch--what was the primary motivation for initiating the program at that time. Might it have been, dare I say it, politically motivated? I wonder what the real, original name for the program was? Obviously, "Terrorist Surveillance Program," would not have worked, maybe something along the lines of "Voter Fraud Surveillance Program," is closer to the mark, but then I forget, this Republican crowd would never do anything with political motives. They're much to pure for that. Indeed, I apologize for even suggesting it. Equally of interest is the subsequent, monstrously hypocritical, retroactive justification for the program as having been necessary to fight the "terrorists" and keep America safe.

There are several informative links on the subject, but Ray McGovern's is a nice summary, and Glenn Greenwald's provides substantial background.

"... you just go to an emergency room."

The "beating heart" of political conservatism was on display for all to see at the White House the other day. Its cold, callous, cynical heart that is. George W. Bush decided that it would be too much of a "budget-buster" to sign into law the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-chip) bill that had passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support. And this from the President for whom all ink is red. The program has broad support and provides the only health insurance for millions of American kids. There was a desire from legislators on both sides of the aisle to expand the program--rather modestly, if you consider it in the same light as, say, a 100 billion supplemental appropriation for the Iraq boondoggle, er, war--to cover the remaining 9-10 million low income kids who still have no health insurance. But apparently even this bipartisan bill with such obvious positive benefits to children and the future of the Nation was too much for Mr. Bush.

The President doesn't seem to see the problem, "People have access to health care in this country, after all, you just go to an emergency room." he quipped. He also seemed most disturbed that this was an attempt to "Federalize," or "socialize," health care in this country. Apparently Mr. Bush is unaware that essentially all of our historic allies, the industrialized West, currently have, and have had socialized medicine for decades, and that, the majority of citizens in those countries wouldn't want it any other way. Apparently Mr. Bush has also never heard of the Medicare or Medic-aid programs. But, for Mr. Bush our kid's futures are much less important than the profits of health insurance companies that literally make a killing off of suffering people. You see, most modern societies have long ago reached a consensus that health care is a human right, not something that should be left to the whims of the marketplace, and certainly not something that should be profited from. In fact, I'm willing to bet that most of us would probably view as obscene the notion of "for profit" health care; that is, providing care simply to those who can afford to pay for it themselves. But that is essentially what we have in this country. About 50 million Americans cannot afford health insurance, so, if they get sick, they do have to find an emergency room, and hope they will get the necessary care. We can be sure they would never find it in Bush's White House.

Of course the White House rolled out its spin-meisters (and mistresses) in an effort to try and control the damage. Dana Perino and Ed Gillespie insisted the President really was interested in seeing that kids get health insurance, it was just that the S-chip bill was too much of "federal" solution. Let's forget for a moment that government run programs actually do a better job if you consider administrative costs. Medicare is much better than the insurance industry average, for example. Why isn't profit ever considered an administrative cost? Gillespie in particular made some bizarre claims on NPR's All Things Considered. He insisted that a main reason for Bush's veto was that the bill allowed too many adults into the program or to remain in it. Host Robert Seigel remarked, correctly, that the bill in fact did not support adults and in fact removed those presently on it. This follows a standard Bush White House pattern, when the facts don't fit, start making up your own "facts."

The real costs of war

Our corporate owned media does little to show us the real costs of American military folly in Iraq. This extends to a near black-out of any images of those devastated by war, including American servicemen (and women). In a new book, "Never Coming Home," Andrew Lichtenstein has compiled images which convey the true costs of war. They do not show the physical damage inflicted, but the longer term, devastating emotional consequences to family and loved ones. You can view the short photo essay here.

Crude hosts

The elected President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was invited to speak and engage in a public forum at Columbia University yesterday. Considering the rudeness and out-right hostility he faced, he seemed to handle himself with commendable aplomb. The President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, provided one of the more boorish displays from an American academician in recent memory. Bollinger, seemingly bent on providing Fox News with it's course of raw meat for the day, acted the part of the "ugly American" to a tee. He came off as nasty, ill-informed, and downright arrogant. Perfect for Fox in fact.

While I do not agree with much of what Ahmadinejad stands for, and he certainly has made a number of regrettable and ill-informed statements, he has not bombed and invaded any countries under dubious circumstances (like some other president I know), and he has not threatened the United States in any serious way. Whether we like to admit it or not, he was legitimately elected in Iran, and he actually wields considerably less power in Iran than George W. Bush has appropriated for himself in this country. Why not let him speak, judge him on his statements, and perhaps try to engage and educate him to a more enlightened point of view? That's the truly American response that I was taught.

Moreover, why bar Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero, in lower Manhattan, if he had expressed a wish to do so? There is not a shred of evidence linking Iran to the 9/11 attacks, recall that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Indeed, Iranians expressed deep sympathy with Americans after the attacks, as did much of the world. Sympathies which the Bush administration has done much to undue since then. If the attempt is to further try and demonize Iran as somehow responsible for Bush's debacle in Iraq, then we must not forget that Iraq too had nothing to do with 9/11. How is it that we became such crude hosts?