Amygdala

AND THE LAND OF THE FREE

2009-11-07T13:38:00.003-05:00

AND THE LAND OF THE FREE. A visual aid:

More.

Read The Rest Scale: 4.5 out of 5; it's your mandatory minimum. America: we're #1! We're #1!

AREA 51

2009-11-05T00:01:00.003-05:00

AREA 51. On November 5th, 1958, I came into the world, six weeks premature.

I believe it was sometime early in the morning, between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m., though I could easily be confused in my memory of what my mother told me.

My own memory of the event is a tad vague.

I am now 51.

Forgot to schedule anything special to do, although my options are rather limited, in any case. Probably I'll stroll up to the supermarket in the afternoon for a small pastry or two.

Sure would be nice to have someone around here to celebrate with, but c'est la vie.

And may you have a good day, as well.

ADDENDUM, 10:53 a.m.: I have to say that the person who sent money as a gift was very kind and generous, and that money does make a wonderful gift, especially to a poor person who is always worried about money! :-)

But, failing that, just putting me on your blogroll, if you haven't, would certainly be enjoyable for me, as well.

And it was nice of Jim Henley to give me the gift of links, even if he does think it's tacky to thank a linker.

TERMINATE THIS

2009-11-03T13:48:00.011-05:00

TERMINATE THIS. The Terminator franchise is up for sale:

[...] An auction is set for January for Halcyon Co. to sell the rights to future "Terminator" pics, TV series, DVDs and merchandise as part of its bankruptcy process.

An exec with FTI Capital Advisers, retained by Halcyon, issued a bullish outlook Monday, saying there's been strong interest building since the investment bankers began sending out materials last week to prospective buyers.

Why?

[...] When Halcyon purchased the “Terminator” property for $30 million in 2007, it became the latest in a series of owners that previously included the producer Gale Anne Hurd and the now-defunct production company Carolco. Though the latest entry in the film series, “Terminator: Salvation,” grossed $369 million worldwide on budget of $200 million, Halcyon filed suit in August against a hedge fund that had provided the money to buy the series rights, saying that a backer at the fund engaged in fraudulent dealings, and filed for Chapter 11 in September. The company’s founders, Derek Anderson and Victor Kubicek, told a bankruptcy court that the “Terminator” franchise was worth $70 million.

Joss Whedon has an offer:

An Open Letter to the Terminator Owners. From a Very Important Hollywood Mogul

Dear Sirs/Ma'ams,

I am Joss Whedon, the mastermind behind Titan A.E., Parenthood (not the movie) (or the new series) (or the one where 'hood' was capitalized 'cause it was a pun), and myriad other legendary tales. I have heard through the 'grapevine' that the Terminator franchise is for sale, and I am prepared to make a pre-emptive bid RIGHT NOW to wrap this dealio up. This is not a joke, this is not a scam, this is not available on TV. I will write a check TODAY for $10,000, and viola! Terminator off your hands.

No, you didn't miscount. That's four -- FOUR! -- zeroes after that one. That's to show you I mean business. And I mean show business. Nikki Finke says the Terminator concept is played. Well, here's what I have to say to Nikki Finke: you are a fine journalist and please don't ever notice me. The Terminator story is as formative and important in our culture -- and my pretend play -- as any I can think of. It's far from over. And before you Terminator-Owners (I have trouble remembering names) rush to cash that sweet cheque, let me give you a taste of what I could do with that franchise:

1) Terminator... of the Rings! Yeah, what if he time-travelled TOO far... back to when there was dragons and wizards? (I think it was the Dark Ages.) Hasta La Vista, Boramir! Cool, huh? "Now you gonna be Gandalf the Red!" RRRRIP! But then he totally helps, because he's a cyborg and he doesn't give a s#&% about the ring -- it has no power over him! And he can carry it AND Frodo AND Sam AND f@%& up some orcs while he's doing it. This stuff just comes to me. I mean it. (I will also offer $10,000 for the Lord of the Rings franchise).

2) More Glau. Hey. There's a reason they're called "Summer" movies.

He's got more.

I suggest Nathan Fillion as John Connor's cousin. And Alan Tudyk as an another experimental Terminator model.

I know exactly how to film it cheaply, too:

More:

Bonus video link.

Joss answers questions about his offer.

And it looks like there will be more Dr. Horrible.

Read The Rest Scale: 3 "oh God, oh God, we're all going to die"s out of 5.

ADDENDUM, 4:19 p.m.: Bonus video for anyone who likes both Buffy and neo-BSG:

Via Susan Palermo Piscitello on Facebook.

EVERYBODY LOVES DEMONIC CANDY

2009-10-30T20:47:00.018-04:00

EVERYBODY LOVES DEMONIC CANDY. I've been meaning to do a follow up on Afghanistan, along with so many other topics, as always, but now we catch up on the important news: crucial Halloween tip! Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network Warns Americans Of ‘Demonic’ Halloween Candy.

I'm pretty sure that's what caused The Most Inappropriate Halloween Costumes Possible.

Alternatively, maybe they were trying too hard to fill this job.

I assume they've taken this guy down by now.

Stop writing so much:

Otherwise, this may happen: a relationship warning:

If only they kept an eye on these evil types: beware of Shire 419 letters.

If you don't, you may be subject to rage:

I'm sure this sort of music calmed him right down. More here.

I demand an end to the war on shortness, and this guy is on my side:

More pics at the link. I never did figure out the purpose of his nose, though.

We all have to take a new, more compassionate, look at the mutant problem. Could anyone hate Kitty?

I think not.

About this scene?

It probably won't be part of this project:

Okay, maybe you want to get away from such geeky genre stuff. Go fast this way:

With enough boost, you might get out here:

(Via John Robinson.)

It couldn't cost as much as a gallon of Tuscan whole milk.

But if travel tires you out, you might try your usual: Bowling. Drive around. The occasional acid flashback.

Anyone would want to get away from living in Nazi Soviet Muslim North Terrorist Korean MaoHitlerstan:

But if you don't want to live there, you should try filtering reality. Sound familiar?

Speaking of sounding familiar? This means war again!

Fortunately now we have Vader on our side.

And he's going to be enforcing our contracts for a very long time.

Does that thought drive you batty? Relax, it's not that bad: Fruit Bats Found to Practice Oral Sex.

Batman, of course, always said that criminals were a cowardly and superstitious sort, but his were rarely this stupid.

I hate to think of what awaits them, so I'm going to think of my new favorite video of all time. Boom-day-atta-boom-day-atta-boom:

Yes, it's xkcd, the musical.

Via John Robinson. Based on this xkcd.

Read The Rest Scale: oh, yeah, all of them, baby. Oh, and will Ursula K. Le Guin's A Pillow Book for Cats be her next Hugo Winner, Nebula Winner, or both?

Yes, do read the whole brief thing, if you at all like cats.

ADDENDUM, 4:32 a.m.: I forgot to sign my post:

Via these folks.

Enjoy your demonic Halloween candy.

Via Bobbie Smith on Facebook: Make A Cylon Jack-O-Lantern:

Star Wars pumpkins.

LET'S BURN ALL THE BIBLES

2009-10-28T12:19:00.010-04:00

LET'S BURN ALL THE BIBLES. Except for one. Whose idea is this? Amazing Grace Baptist Church's.

Pastor Marc Grizzard claims the King James version of the Bible is the only true word of God, and that all other versions are "satanic" and "perversions" of God's word.

On Halloween night, Grizzard and the 14 members of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church will set fire to other versions of the scripture, as well as music and books by Christian authors.

“We are burning books that we believe to be Satanic,” Pastor Grizzard said.

“I believe the King James version is God’s preserved, inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God… for English-speaking people."

All other religious or Christian texts are sacreligious, the pastor insists. The list of books being burned will include works written by "a lot of different authors who we consider heretics, such as Billy Graham, Rick Warren… the list goes on and on,” Pastor Grizzard said.

Also on the pastor's list of heretical authors — Mother Teresa, according to a full list that was previously available at the Amazing Grace Baptist Church's Web site. The Church's Web site — which is no longer available — calls the event 'Burning Perversions of God's Word,' and urges parishioners to "come celebrate Halloween by burning Satan's bibles." Calls to the Amazing Grace Church were not returned Thursday.

The website is gone, but not the Google cache.

And if anything is Satanic, it's their choices of color and web design. Green, yellow, and red, on burning flames? Jesus, indeed!

The event has not been cancelled, mind; it's now only:

This event is not open to the public. Only our members and those by special invitation from the pastor only. All others are tresspassing.

Apparently God's work needs to be done in secret.

If some of this seems a tad incoherent, that's because it is. But it's inspiring to know that they're burning Satan's music, such as country, and some oldies but goldies.

And I have no problem with Chuck Colson being denounced as a heretic.

Reassuringly:

I'm omitting the part where they give their phone number.

But in case you had any doubts about what a fine thing this is: [...]

It goes on like this at some considerable length, quoting various biblical passages, and explaining that:

[...] Those writing perversions are not something new, it's an old trick of the devil.

One might almost get the idea the pastor, or his webmaster, feels a tad defensive, and needs to justify book-burning.

And in case you find the page at all confusing, we're informed:

[...] Everything Satan and Eve said is in Black.

Everything God said is in RED.

Everything I say is in GREEN.

As I said: Satanic web design.

It does go on and on, and I'll spare you, but ya gotta love this part:

[...]

Again, he goes on and on. One other bit, and I'll just quote, rather than keep up the screen shots:

[...] 5. Why don't you be more concerned with winning souls that wasting your time concerning the Bible?

It's not anyone's business but since so many concern individuals are asking here goes. We have a visitation time three times a week. Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturdays we go out into our community and share the Gospel with the lost. Since our church has started we have had eight souls saved from hell. Praise God.

Praise God.

But, wait, there's more!

[...] 6. Why are you celebrating Halloween?

We are not celebrating Halloween. We are making a statement against satan and what Halloween stands for. When most of the world will be dressing up, and giving out candy we will be burning satans perversions, music and books. Kind of like sticking it in his face, so to speak. While most churches see nothing wrong with Halloween we do. One church down the road from us is having what they call an "Eternity House," instead of a haunted house. I am assuming they are going to present hell in a negative way, and then present the plan of salvation. That is awesome. I believe this is a great idea. Some may ask, "why don't you do something similar to try to reach out to the community?" Which is a legitimate question. We do things that reach out to the community, and as stated above we do try to reach people with the gospel. Every event that any church does is not necessarily a "soul winning" event. This book burning is not to reach the lost, but to make a statement about our stand for the Word of God.

And finally:

[...] 7. Why don't you include all the emails instead of just the ones who support you?

Because I don't want to.

Okay, then.

Alas, for my evil, because I believe what I'm doing here is called damning someone with their own words. Oh, damn.

Read The Rest Scale: 3 hell yeah's out of 5. Hallelujah.

BONUS LINK, 8:35 p.m.: What kind of unholy creature could you create if you get a member of this church together with someone from the Ayn Rand dating service?

ADDENDUM, October 29th, 1:05 p.m.: Thanks, Crooks and Liars! Thanks, Avedon!

ADDENDUM, October 30th, 4:40 p.m.: Please send me your demonic candy.

A BAD CASE OF FICTIONAL AMNESIA

2009-10-28T11:29:00.002-04:00

A BAD CASE OF FICTIONAL AMNESIA. People do not, in fact, forget who they are in real cases of the various sorts of amnesia that exist. When people contract fictional amnesia, it's always a story made up for a reason.

Really:

SEATTLE - The girl New York police called "Jane Doe" first drained her bank account of more than 400 dollars before disappearing from Hanville on the Kitsap Pennisula according to a spokesperson for the Kitsap County sheriff's Department. Authorities identified the 18 year old as Kingston High School student Kacie Peterson.

The blonde-hair blue-eyed teen last showed up for class at Kingston High school on Wednesday September 30th according to Scott Wilson from the Kitsap Sheriff's Department. Two days later her family reported her missing.

On October 9th she showed up on the streets of New York City without knowing her name or where she was from.

"She was disoriented and the citizens had told uniformed officers that she was actually in the fetal position. The officer at that time obtained medical attention," said Christopher Zimmerman of the New York Police Dept.

The New York police released her photo and asked for nationwide assistance in identifying her. A CNN viewer from Maryland called in with a tip which led investigators to positively identify her.

According to investigators, after vanishing Peterson took cash from her bank account, spent money at a WalMart in Poulsbo, bought some items at a Thriftway in Kingston and then left her bike outside an Albertson's grocery store in Kingston. That is where the financial trail stopped.
Investigators say Peterson had a rocky relationship with her father over her academic performance. In June she moved from her father's house in Colville, in Eastern Washington. According to investigators the teen moved in with a friend of her now deceased mother. Peterson took off after learning her father was coming to visit says Wilson.

Peterson enrolled in couple of classes at Kingston High School but
school officials told authorities that she wasn't there long and didn't have many friends.

Peterson's father has been working with missing person's detectives.
This isn't the first time Peterson has suffered a case of amnesia.

That's "amnesia," with air quotes.

Her father told investigators in May she vanished. He later found her lying near a stream on his property. When she woke up at the hospital the dad told detectives she didn't remember her name or where she was from.

Authorities say family members are flying to New York City to reunite with Kacie.

Authorities still want to know how she ended up in New York City. Wilson says this is not a criminal matter.

I'm sure it wouldn't help Kacie Peterson or her family to press charges, but it seems perfectly clear that this was a run-of-the-mill runaway case, where either for some reason the police were amazingly gullible, or where they simply chose to play out her story to help get her identified.

Most missing teens don't get reported as missing persons, so those who sell a story can be problematic to identify. In this case, the girl went with what had worked before: why wouldn't it work again, in her view?

In real amnesia:

Global amnesia is a common motif in fiction despite being extraordinarily rare in reality. In the introduction to his anthology The Vintage Book of Amnesia, Jonathan Lethem writes:
Real, diagnosable amnesia – people getting knocked on the head and forgetting their names – is mostly just a rumor in the world. It's a rare condition, and usually a brief one. In books and movie, though, versions of amnesia lurk everywhere, from episodes of Mission Impossible to metafictional and absurdist masterpieces, with dozens of stops in between. Amnesiacs might not much exist, but amnesiac characters stumble everywhere through comic books, movies, and our dreams. We've all met them and been them.
[...]

Amnesia is so often used as a plot device in films, that a widely-recognized sterotypical dialogue has even developed around it, with the victim melodramatically asking "Where am I? Who am I? What am I?", or sometimes inquiring of his own name, "Bill? Who's Bill?"

In movies and television, particularly sitcoms and soap operas, it is often depicted that a second blow to the head, similar to the first one which caused the amnesia, will then cure it. In reality, however, repeat concussions may cause cumulative deficits including cognitive problems, and in extremely rare cases may even cause deadly swelling of the brain associated with second-impact syndrome.

Lethem's anthology sounds pretty good, by the way.

But as soon as I read claims such as this:

[...] The Administration for Children's Services, which is caring for the girl, said as far as psychologists can tell, her amnesia is genuine.

I thought: what a bunch of crap.

Stuff like this should have offered any reader with no prior medical knowledge a clue:

[...] Amnesia is a common device used in popular novels and in movies and television shows, but it usually occurs with the person's sense of identity intact, according to the Mayo Clinic, unlike the fictional device used.

[...]

She may also have been the victim of a severe concussion or have a heretofore undiagnosed (by those who know her now) neurological (perhaps degenerative) disorder that caused her to lose her identity. True amnesia presents with an individual having problems processing new memories or learning new information. ACS personnel say she is studying GED material and seems to not have a problem retaining the information, making her case even stranger.

Or, in other words: liar, liar, pants on fire.

You'd like to think that sf folks wouldn't be so gullible, either.

Read The Rest Scale: 2 out of 5.

DANCING IN THE DARK

2009-10-21T12:57:00.003-04:00

DANCING IN THE DARK.

[Cross-posted at Obsidian Wings, as a guest post.]

On December 31, 2009, three provisions of "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001," aka the "PATRIOT Act" sunset and expire.

Bills to reauthorize or amend these three provisions have been moving through the Congressional Judiciary Committees in the past two months.

The three sections are:

SEC. 206. ROVING SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.
Section 105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting 'or in circumstances where the Court finds that the actions of the target of the application may have the effect of thwarting the identification of a specified person, such other persons,' after 'specified person'.

This is also known as "the John Doe" provision.

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Also known as the section dealing with "national security letters," by which:

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities [....]

The third is:

SEC. 805. MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM.

What are these about, and why should we care?, you ask.

As the ACLU explains:

National Security Letters (NSLs). The FBI uses NSLs to compel internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people. Government reports confirm that upwards of 50,000 of these secret record demands go out each year. In response to an ACLU lawsuit (Doe v. Holder), the Second Circuit Court of Appeal struck down as unconstitutional the part of the NSL law that gives the FBI the power to prohibit NSL recipients from telling anyone that the government has secretly requested customer Internet records.

Material Support Statute. This provision criminalizes providing "material support" to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since September 11, this section criminalizes a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organizations. Federal courts have struck portions of the statute as unconstitutional and a number of cases have been dismissed or ended in mistrial.

FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This past summer, Congress passed a law to permit the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents' international telephone calls and e-mails. This too must be amended to provide meaningful privacy protections and judicial oversight of the government's intrusive surveillance power.

How are NSLs abused?

Through NSLs the FBI can compile vast dossiers about innocent people and obtain sensitive information such as the web sites a person visits, a list of e-mail addresses with which a person has corresponded, or even unmask the identity of a person who has posted anonymous speech on a political website.

The provision also allows the FBI to forbid or "gag" anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone about the record demand. Since the Patriot Act was authorized in 2001, further relaxing restrictions on the FBI's use of the power, the number of NSLs issued has seen an astronomical increase.

The Justice Department's Inspector General has reported that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI issued nearly 200,000 NSLs. The inspector General has also found serious FBI abuses of the NSL power.

Nearly three and a half years ago, I wrote:

[...] But first, here [link rotted] we see that 9,254 "national security letters" were unilaterally issued by the Administration (without warrants, as per the PATRIOT ACT) in 2005; lots more here.

Otherwise:
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) wiretaps/searches:

* Submitted 2,074 applications in 2005 to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for wiretapping and searches of spies and terrorists. (1,758 in 2004)
* 2 of those were withdrawn before the court ruled. One was modified and resubmitted and approved by the court). (3 withdrawn, 1 re-submitted 2004)
* 2,072 were approved by the secret FISA court, but 61 were substantially modified. (1754 approved, 94 modified in 2004)
And Section 215 Orders for Business Records:
* Submitted 155 applications for business records (and maybe tangible things, like that guy's iPod)
* None withdrawn by government
* FISA court approved all 155 but modified 2 substantially
FISA Court: clearly turning down too many warrants.

Sarcasm is more than called for when our liberty is at stake.

5 Myths About the Bush Administration's Use of National Security Letters.

We have no reason as yet to think the Obama Administration is doing better.

Julian Sanchez last week looked at an example from 2005 of very funny business with an NSL.

There have been two main bills introduced to "reform" the problems in these three sunsetting provisions of the "PATRIOT Act," as well as several other problematic aspects of both the "PATRIOT Act" and subsequent surveillance law revisions, including the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which you'll recall gave the telecoms immunity from lawsuits, and which Senator Obama voted for.

One is the Feingold bill, the so-called "JUSTICE Act":

U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) have introduced legislation to fix problems with surveillance laws that threaten the rights and liberties of American citizens. The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act would reform the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act and other surveillance authorities to protect Americans’ constitutional rights, while preserving the powers of our government to fight terrorism.

The JUSTICE Act reforms include more effective checks on government searches of Americans’ personal records, the “sneak and peek” search provision of the PATRIOT Act, “John Doe” roving wiretaps and other overbroad authorities. The bill will also reform the FISA Amendments Act, passed last year, by repealing the retroactive immunity provision, preventing “bulk collection” of the contents of Americans’ international communications, and prohibiting “reverse targeting” of innocent Americans. And the bill enables better oversight of the use of National Security Letters (NSLs) after the Department of Justice Inspector General issued reports detailing the misuse and abuse of the NSLs. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, September 23rd, on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.

What would the "JUSTICE Act" have done? A lot and a little. A lot of good, and still only revising the "PATRIOT Act" very little, indeed.

Infuriatingly, but utterly unsurprisingly, the proposed minor changes of the "JUSTICE Act" are far too radical for the Obama Administration, and much of the the Congress, and so Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate Judicary Committee proposed yet far thinner soup: the "USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009."

Let's look at the "radical" proposed improvements of the Feingold, et al, "JUSTICE ACT":

[...] Title I – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Records

Sections 101-106 – National Security Letters

The bill rewrites the National Security Letter (NSL) statutes to ensure the FBI can obtain basic information without a court order, but also adds reasonable safeguards to ensure NSLs are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of NSLs and associated gag orders.

Section 107 – Section 215 Orders

The bill would reauthorize the use of Section 215 business records orders under FISA, but with additional checks and balances to ensure these orders are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of Section 215 orders and associated gag orders.

This is elementary stuff, these proposed Section NSL changes: National Security Letters shouldn't be used in mere criminal investigations.

Who would object to such a clarified restriction, which was supposed to be inherent in the first place? And who would object to judicial review, particularly of the unprecedented gag orders constraining telling anyone you've gotten an NSL letter?

Repeat: gag orders wouldn't be eliminated. The bill merely requires judicial review.

Next, "sneak and peek" searches, where the FBI or other agency breaks into your home or business, searches it, and leaves without you ever being informed, wouldn't be eliminated -- such searches would remain perfectly legal! -- but they'd be restricted to terrorism investigations.

[...] Section 201 – “Sneak & Peek” Searches

The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s authorization of “sneak and peek” criminal searches but eliminate the overbroad catch-all provision that allows these secret searches in virtually any criminal case. It would shorten the presumptive time limits for notification, and create a statutory exclusionary rule.

Is this objectionable to any reader? Or should we just do away with the Fourth Amendment entirely?

The Feingold "JUSTICE Act" would have made a number of small changes in the FISA law: too many to list here, but one of the more significant would have been:

[...] Section 301 – FISA Roving Wiretaps

The bill would reauthorize roving FISA wiretaps, but eliminate the possibility of “John Doe” roving wiretaps that identify neither the person nor the phone to be wiretapped. It would require agents to ascertain the presence of the target of a roving wiretap before beginning surveillance.

Julian Sanchez did a fine job of explaining Why Congress should not renew the PATRIOT Act's "lone wolf" provision.

[...] The extraordinary tools available to investigators under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed over 30 years ago in response to revelations of endemic executive abuse of spying powers, were originally designed to cover only "agents of foreign powers." The PATRIOT Act's "lone wolf" provision severed that necessary link for the first time, authorizing FISA spying within the United States on any "non-U.S. person" who "engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor," and allowing the statute's definition of an "agent of a foreign power" to apply to suspects who, well, aren't. Justice Department officials say they've never used that power, but they'd like to keep it the arsenal just in case.

As with so many of the post-9/11 intelligence reforms, the lone wolf provision has its genesis in the misguided assumption that every intelligence failure is evidence that investigators need more power.

[...]

Courts have generally been extraordinarily deferential to the executive in the realm of foreign intelligence, and have suggested that the Fourth Amendment's protections against warrantless searches apply only weakly, if at all, in this context. But when it comes to domestic national security investigations, a unanimous Supreme Court has ruled that the usual restrictions remain largely intact. The court clearly saw the involvement of a "foreign power" as providing the distinction between the world of the criminal law's Fourth Amendment protections and the hazy arena where the executive enjoys far greater latitude. The "lone wolf" provision recklessly blurs that line, defying the common sense meaning of an "agent of a foreign power," and giving investigations that belong in the first world a dubious statutory foothold in the second.

[...]

Justice Department officials have suggested that the definition would cover a suspect who "self-radicalizes by means of information and training provided by a variety of international terrorist groups via the Internet," making a Web browser the distinction between a domestic threat and an international one. Activities "in preparation" for terrorism, according to the legislative history, may include the provision of "personnel, training, funding, or other means" for an attack.

While it's difficult to be an unwitting "member" of a terror group, nothing in the law requires that the contribution a lone wolf makes to terror activities be a knowing one. And while definitions of an "agent of a foreign power" applicable to citizens explicitly prohibit investigations conducted wholly on the basis of protected First Amendment activities, PATRIOT appears to permit "lone wolves" to be targeted merely on the basis of advocacy. Finally, while the criminal law requires "preparation" for terrorism to include a "substantial step" in the direction of carrying out an attack, the Justice Department has suggested that FISA's definition does not. Thus, not only may lone wolf suspects be monitored despite the absence of ties to a terror group, they may not even need to be engaged in criminal conduct.

So if you or anyone you have contact with "advocate" anything the FBI or another agency finds suspicious, hey, that's enough to get not just you wiretapped, but roving wiretaps instituted that need not identify you specifically, nor any specific phone, but if you happen to use one of those phones, or have any contact at all with anyone engaged in such suspicious advocacy, well, prepare for government agents enjoying all your "private" communications.

Sanchez further explains the abuses, and why the law, as per the "JUSTICE Act," should be curtailed. Among other aspects:

[...] Yet on the basis of such claims, a panicked Congress signed off on almost limitless authority to vacuum up international communications — authority that we already know has resulted in systematic "overcollection" of purely domestic conversations, and even resulted in the interception of former President Bill Clinton's e-mails.

In theory, the purpose of building "sunset" provisions into these new powers was to allow — indeed, to force — Congress to consider what changes might be needed in the event of such misuse. Given the incredible secrecy of intelligence investigations, this would be a dubious check even under ideal circumstances. But what's truly astonishing is that even known abuses don't seem to have given legislators second thoughts about resisting administration demands.

Among the reforms in Feingold's JUSTICE Act was a measure requiring targets of "roving" wiretaps to be identified, as is required under criminal wiretap statutes, rather than merely described. Unlike criminal taps, FISA eavesdropping tends to be extraordinarily broad, with any innocent communications picked up "minimized" later. Yet "minimization," the legal procedures meant to protect the privacy of innocent Americans when their communications are swept up in a FISA wiretap, does not mean deletion. In a 2003 case, US v. Sattar, prosecutors submitted 5,175 recordings made under FISA that had not been "minimized." Yet, faced with disclosure obligations at trial, it turned out that they were able to produce a far greater volume of recordings: more than 85,000 audio files.

Given that breadth, the risks inherent in "John Doe" warrants, which neither name a specific phone line or Internet account in advance nor identify a target, are obvious. Indeed, a 2005 Inspector General report on the FBI's translation backlogs revealed that among the eighty-seven years' worth of foreign language material recorded FISA in 2004 alone — a tiny fraction of what the NSA collects — there were an undisclosed number of "collections of materials from the wrong sources due to technical

Sanchez explains even further.

[...] Suppose, for instance, that a FISA warrant is issued for me, but investigators have somehow been unable to learn my identity. Among the data they have obtained for their description, however, are a photograph, a voiceprint from a recording of my phone conversation with a previous target, and the fact that I work at the Cato Institute. Now, this is surely sufficient to pick me out specifically for the purposes of a warrant initially meant for telephone or oral surveillance. The voiceprint can be used to pluck all and only my conversations from the calls on Cato’s lines. But a description sufficient to specify a unique target in that context may not be sufficient in the context of, say, Internet surveillance, as certain elements of the description become irrelevant, and the remaining threaten to cover a much larger pool of people. Alternatively, if someone has a very unusual regional dialect, that may be sufficiently specific to pinpoint their voice in one location or community using a looser matching algorithm (perhaps because there is no actual recording, or it is brief or of low quality), but insufficient if they travel to another location where many more people have similar accents.

[...]

We also know that individuals can often be uniquely identified by their pattern of social or communicative connections. For instance, researchers have found that they can take a completely anonymized “graph” of the social connections on a site like Facebook—basically giving everyone a name instead of a number, but preserving the pattern of who is friends with whom—and then use that graph to relink the numbers to names using the data of a different but overlapping social network like Flickr or Twitter. We know the same can be (and is) done with calling records—since in a sense your phone bill is a picture of another kind of social network. Using such methods of pattern analysis, investigators might determine when a new “burner” phone is being used by the same person they’d previously been targeting at another number, even if most or all of his contacts have alsoswitched phone numbers. Since, recall, the “person” who is the “target” of FISA surveillance may be a “group” or other “entity,” and since I don’t think Al Qaeda issues membership cards, the “description” of the target might consist of a pattern of connections thought to reliably distinguish those who are part of the group from those who merely have some casual link to another member.

Remember:

[...] FISA wiretaps are covert; the targets typically will never learn that they occurred. FISA judges and legislators may be informed, at least in a summary way, about what surveillance was undertaken and what targeting methods were used, but especially if those methods are of the technologically sophisticated type I alluded to above, they are likely to have little choice but to defer to investigators on questions of their accuracy and specificity. Even assuming total honesty by the investigators, judges may not think to question whether a method of pattern analysis that is precise and accurate when applied (say) within a single city or metro area will be as precise at the national level, or whether, given changing social behavior, a method that was precise last year will also be precise next year. Does it matter if an Internet service initially used by a few thousands—including, perhaps, surveillance targets—comes to be embraced by millions?

[...]

What is absolutely essential to take away from this, though, is that these loose and lazy analogies to roving wiretaps in criminal investigations are utterly unhelpful in thinking about the specific problems of roving FISA surveillance.

This cries out for reform.

And, of course, all the info goes here, as James Bamford updates:

On a remote edge of Utah's dry and arid high desert, where temperatures often zoom past 100 degrees, hard-hatted construction workers with top-secret clearances are preparing to build what may become America's equivalent of Jorge Luis Borges's "Library of Babel," a place where the collection of information is both infinite and at the same time monstrous, where the entire world's knowledge is stored, but not a single word is understood. At a million square feet, the mammoth $2 billion structure will be one-third larger than the US Capitol and will use the same amount of energy as every house in Salt Lake City combined.

Unlike Borges's "labyrinth of letters," this library expects few visitors. It's being built by the ultra-secret National Security Agency—which is primarily responsible for "signals intelligence," the collection and analysis of various forms of communication—to house trillions of phone calls, e-mail messages, and data trails: Web searches, parking receipts, bookstore visits, and other digital "pocket litter." Lacking adequate space and power at its city-sized Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters, the NSA is also completing work on another data archive, this one in San Antonio, Texas, which will be nearly the size of the Alamodome.

Just how much information will be stored in these windowless cybertemples? A clue comes from a recent report prepared by the MITRE Corporation, a Pentagon think tank. "As the sensors associated with the various surveillance missions improve," says the report, referring to a variety of technical collection methods, "the data volumes are increasing with a projection that sensor data volume could potentially increase to the level of Yottabytes (1024 Bytes) by 2015."[1] Roughly equal to about a septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages of text, numbers beyond Yottabytes haven't yet been named. Once vacuumed up and stored in these near-infinite "libraries," the data are then analyzed by powerful infoweapons, supercomputers running complex algorithmic programs, to determine who among us may be—or may one day become—a terrorist. In the NSA's world of automated surveillance on steroids, every bit has a history and every keystroke tells a story.

Then there's the issue of "sneak and peek."

[...] The “sneak and peek” provision of the USA PATRIOT Act was used 1291 times in Fiscal Year 2008. Of those, it was used five times for “Terrorism” purposes. So, .0038% of the time, the “sneak and peek” provision was used to combat terrorism; which was, of course, the Act's original purpose. On the other end of the spectrum, it was used 843 times (65% of the time) for “drug offenses”. Clearly, this is a blatant violation of any interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, except where it's superseded by the USA PATRIOT Act.

See the full study done by the Administrative Office of United States Courts in July 2009 for details.

The last issues I'll cover regarding the proposed revisions the "JUSTICE Act" would have made are these two highly important changes:

[...] Section 501 – Domestic Terrorism

The Patriot Act’s overbroad definition of domestic terrorism could cover acts of civil disobedience by political organizations. The bill would limit the qualifying offenses for domestic terrorism to those that constitute a federal crime of terrorism.

Section 502 – Material Support

The bill would amend the overly broad criminal definition of material support for terrorism by specifying that a person must know or intend the support provided will be used for terrorist activity.

What crazy ideas are these?!

Again: the "PATRIOT Act" is supposed to be used to fight terrorism. It's not supposed to provide a grab bag of tools to be used against any criminal or every person.

Should this be controversial? Can anyone concerned with fighting terrorism explain the problem with these amendments?

But what we're apparently going to get is some version, as combined with the forthcoming House bill, of S. 1692: USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009.

Compare the two bills and current law. It's a very simple chart.

What's wrong with Leahy's "Sunset Extension Act" (supported by the White House)?

[... The] bill, introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the committee, passed with bipartisan support but has been denounced by civil liberties groups and privacy advocates.

[...]

Critics of the Leahy bill assert that the legislation does little to address the well known civil liberties concerns and extends sweeping law enforcement surveillance powers with little to no safeguards. For instance, as passed out of committee, the bill renews the roving "John Doe" wiretap authority that allows the federal government to obtain a wiretap order without the requirement to name the target or specify the phone lines and e-mail accounts to be monitored. Further, it offers little or no reform of other controversial Patriot Act provisions.

Reform of National Security Letters (NSLs) was also limited in the legislation. NSLs are used by the Justice Department like subpoenas to seek information from companies, such as Internet service providers and phone companies, about their subscribers. The Feingold-Durbin bill had included increased standards for NSL issuance, limitations on the types of information that can be obtained by NSLs, limitations on non-disclosure orders for NSLs, and limits on emergency use of NSLs. The Leahy bill only requires that the government draft an internal statement showing that the information sought is somehow relevant to an investigation. Conversely, the Feingold-Durbin standard would require discussion of specific facts, a much more rigorous standard. However, the committee noted that the Obama administration supports a relevance standard like that found in the Leahy bill.

[...]

Some of the provisions to protect civil liberties that the administration opposed, such as the restrictions on NSLs, were proposals that Obama had supported as a senator. In particular, Obama had supported the SAFE Act (S. 737) in 2005 that attempted to reform Section 215 orders that require anyone to produce tangible records relevant to an investigation to protect against international terrorism, including business records. The SAFE Act had been unanimously reported by a Republican-controlled committee and included the requirement of a link between records sought and a terrorist or other agent of a foreign power. Durbin proposed an amendment to the Leahy bill that would have added this standard, but it was voted down due to the administration’s opposition.

Some committee members reacted negatively to the committee vote to accept the Leahy bill for Senate debate. Feingold expressed his disappointment in the final version of the bill. Feingold likened the Senate Judiciary Committee to a "Prosecutor’s Committee" and stated that the bill "falls well short of what the Congress must do to correct the problems with the Patriot Act." This position was echoed by some advocates, including Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, who proclaimed that "the opportunity for real reform will not come again anytime soon. Congress needs to do the right thing, even if Obama will not."

Some minor reforms were included the final Leahy bill. The bill included reforms for "sneak and peek" searches and requires the executive branch to issue procedures to minimize the use of NSLs. However, these changes were not enough to garner the support of Feingold or many of the civil liberties groups following the legislation.

Meanwhile, the press coverage of all this has generally stunk or been next to nonexistent.

Fox News and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal have done what you'd expect, of course, including the latter publishing a misleading op-ed by former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey.

The New York Times has barely reported on any of this, with one adequate editorial on October 8th, and a foreshadowing article back on September 19th.

Marcy Wheeler has been doing 10,000 times better coverage at Emptywheel.

And now the battle goes to the House where House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott (D-Va.) yesterday introduced the USA Patriot Amendments Act of 2009.

It's pretty much the same as the Feingold, et al, "JUSTICE ACT."

The rest is covered in H.R. 3846, FISA Amendments Act of 2009.

Conyers has also introduced further attempts at reform and oversight including "The Department of Justice Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009," which would:

[...] authorize the Department of Justice Inspector General to investigate attorney misconduct within the Department of Justice. Under current law, all allegations of wrongdoing by the Department of Justice attorneys are required to be investigated by the by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, rather than the Inspector General. In contrast with the statutorily independent Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility is supervised by the Attorney General.

This limitation on authority does not exist for any other agency Inspector General. The Department of Justice Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009 will make the authority of the Department of Justice Inspector General consistent with that of all other agencies and will prevent future abuses and politicization within the Department.

And the "The Inspector General Authority Improvement Act of 2009," which would:

[...] provide the Inspectors General of the various agencies the authority to issue subpoenas for the testimony of former employees or contractors as part of certain investigations. Under current law, a critical witness can avoid being interviewed by an Inspector General, and thus seriously impede an investigation, by simply resigning from the agency.

These loopholes badly need to be closed.

Now you know what to write and call your Representative about.

Before I finish this post, although it's digressive, in the spirit of Hilzoy and Katherine R., I'd like to at least mention that the Supreme Court on Tuesday:

[...] agreed to decide whether federal courts have the power to order prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay to be released into the United States.

And that You Can't Trust A Tortured Brain: Neuroscience Discredits Coercive Interrogation.

Yesterday, at the UN:

The U.N.'s top investigator on torture and punishment called Tuesday for a new U.N. convention to protect the rights of detainees, saying many are held for years and sometimes for a lifetime in inhuman and degrading conditions.

In Canada:

The Conservative government faced new questions yesterday about what it knew about the alleged torture of Afghan prisoners after opposition parties pounced on an explosive new book by the former head of the Canadian Forces, Rick Hillier.

After published allegations of torture surfaced in 2007, Conservative ministers denied they had any previous knowledge of problems with the transfer of detainees. But Hillier now suggests he was aware of allegations possibly as early as 2006. He writes that he also warned officials in Ottawa that prisoner transfers would stop in the fall of 2007 unless inspectors visited Afghan jail continuously.

And you may have noticed that a few days ago in Britain, High Court Approves Releasing U.S. Intelligence Documents on Torture.

Finally, in a ludicrously minor step, Senate allows more transfers of detainees to U.S. for trial. Yes, they concluded that it's actually possible detainees won't use their magical al Qaeda Mr. Miracle super escape powers. Woo and hoo.

It's not all bad news, if you look at the trivial: Amherst, MA, has volunteered to take two Guantanamo prisoners. Standish, Michigan, however, is wavering.

But at least not all elected Americans are crazy, even though most of the national Republicans, and too many of the national Democrats, are.

Finally, on a much-needed lighter note -- sort of -- Q&A: Our Threatiest Threat.

Now, go call, write, and visit your Representatives about the bills above. Do it today, tomorrow, or the rest of this week.

Do it for America.

Do it because it's right.

HEY, JOE, WHERE YOU GOING WITH THAT GUN IN YOUR HAND?

2009-10-19T17:06:00.023-04:00

HEY, JOE, WHERE YOU GOING WITH THAT GUN IN YOUR HAND?

Cross-posted as a guest blog posts at Obsidian Wings, in two parts.

On Friday night's PBS Newshour, Tom Bearden gave the following report from Fort Carson:

(Audio-only, if you have bandwidth issues. Click the above link for a transcript.)

I was struck cold.

I've been to that chapel.

I've seen the upended rifle with the soldier's own helmet atop it, and boots beside it.

I've been there for the chilling sound and sight of the honor guards' rifle-shot salute.

I've listened to the bagpipes, and seen the faces of the family and friends, just as we see and hear in this video.

Then it was one soldier's boots and rifle.

On Friday, it was six at once.

This is the cost of our Long War in Afghanistan.

This is the price our families, and sons and daughters, and parents, are paying.

It's been eight years and a week since American forces began combat in Afghanistan.

Come Februrary of 2010, we'll have been fighting in Afghanistan longer than we fought the American revolutionary war (April, 1775 to September, 1783 = 100 months).

(That's by the longest possible measure: the last actual major British land offensive ended in October of 1781, when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown; the war formally ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on on September 8, 1783.)

The date on which America "began" fighting the Vietnam War is an entirely debatable question, but for argument's sake, let's go with the commencement of U.S. air strikes on North Vietnam with Operation Flaming Dart on February 7, 1965, and major U.S. bombing of North Vietnam in Operation Rolling Thunder on March 2nd, 1965. The deployment of the 18th Tactical Fighter Wing to Da Nang for Flaming Dart led to the almost immediate deployment, on March 8th, 1965, of a Marine brigade (3,500 troops) to protect U.S. air bases in South Vietnam from ground attack.

By April of 1965, the U.S. had 60,000 ground troops in South Vietnam.

On June 27, 1965, the U.S. launched a major ground offensive against the National Liberation Front.

By December of 1965 the U.S. had 200,000 ground troops in South Vietnam.

On January 27, 1973, the U.S. signed a cease fire, and by March 1973, all U.S. combat operations troops had left Vietnam. America's war in Vietnam was effectively over by them, although the final collapse of South Vietnam's corrupt shell of a government didn't take place until April 30, 1975, the same date the last U.S. personnel fled Vietnam, and the last two American soldiers, Marines, died under hostile fire in Vietnam.

It was a war of eight to ten years.

And as matters presently stand, America looks sure to have a longer war in Afghanistan, our longest war evah, if not as of now, our ninth year of war in Afghanistan, but within, at most, a year or two from now.

So, as a former mayor of New York City used to ask: how are we doing?

The unanimous opinion is: we're deep in a bloody hole.

As Dexter Filkins writes in Sunday's long profile of Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal:

[...] Success takes time, but how much time does Stanley McChrystal have? The war in Afghanistan is now in its ninth year. The Taliban, measured by the number of their attacks, are stronger than at any time since the Americans toppled their government at the end of 2001. American soldiers and Marines are dying at a faster rate than ever before. Polls in the United States show that opposition to the war is growing steadily.
Worse yet, for all of America’s time in Afghanistan — for all the money and all the blood — the lack of accomplishment is manifest wherever you go. In Garmsir, there is nothing remotely resembling a modern state that could take over if America and its NATO allies left. Tour the country with a general, and you will see very quickly how vast and forbidding this country is and how paltry the effort has been.
And finally, there is the government in Kabul. President Hamid Karzai, once the darling of the West, rose to the top of nationwide elections in August on what appears to be a tide of fraud. The Americans and their NATO allies are confronting the possibility that the government they are supporting, building and defending is a rotten shell.

And that's the crucial problem: no foreign power can win a counter-insurgency war on behalf of a government not widely regarded as legitimate, relatively uncorrupt, and able to provide security for its own people. That was always the problem with Vietnam: wars are, in the end, as Carl von Clausewitz said, "merely a continuation of politics" ("Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln"), and if you can't win politically, all the military battles you win are irrelevant.

The classic exchange:

The late Colonel Harry Summers liked to tell a tale familiar to many who served in Vietnam. In April 1975, after the war was over, the colonel was in a delegation dispatched to Hanoi. In the airport, he got into a conversation with a North Vietnamese colonel named Tu who spoke some English and, as soldiers do, they began to talk shop. After a while, Colonel Summers said: "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield." Colonel Tu thought about that for a minute, then replied: "That may be so. But it is also irrelevant."

Can the government in Kabul become one that most Afghans regard as legitimate?

That is the antepenultimate question, rather than which military forces or strategy should be used.

The penultimate question is: if so, can we help the government in Kabul become that legitimate government?

The ultimate question for America and NATO is: if so, how high a price is too high a price for us to pay to help the government in Kabul become that legitimate government?

Thomas H. Johnson, of the Department of National Security Affairs and director of the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School and retired Foreign Service officer M. Chris Mason think not:

[...] Meanwhile the political failure in Kabul is Saigon déjà vu. A government that is seen as legitimate by 85 or 90 percent of the population is considered the sine qua non of success by counterinsurgency experts. After the Diem coup, this was never possible in Vietnam, as one incompetent and utterly corrupt government succeeded another. None was legitimate in the eyes of the people. Contemporary descriptions of the various Saigon governments read almost exactly like descriptions of the Karzai government today. Notwithstanding all the fanfare over this week's presidential voting in Afghanistan, the Kabul government will never be legitimate either, because democracy is not a source of legitimacy of governance in Afghanistan and it never has been. Legitimacy in Afghanistan over the last thousand years has come exclusively from dynastic and religious sources. The fatal blunder of the United States in eliminating a ceremonial Afghan monarchy was Afghanistan's Diem Coup: afterwards, there was little possibility of establishing a legitimate, secular national government.
It doesn't matter who wins the August elections for president in Afghanistan: he will be illegitimate because he is elected. We have apparently learned nothing from Vietnam.

Elizabeth Bumiller also reminds us that Afghanistan has not always been riven, when there was a monarchy seen as legitimate by many Afghans:

[...] American and Afghan scholars and diplomats say it is worth recalling four decades in the country’s recent history, from the 1930s to the 1970s, when there was a semblance of a national government and Kabul was known as “the Paris of Central Asia.”
Afghans and Americans alike describe the country in those days as a poor nation, but one that built national roads, stood up an army and defended its borders. As a monarchy and then a constitutional monarchy, there was relative stability and by the 1960s a brief era of modernity and democratic reform. Afghan women not only attended Kabul University, they did so in miniskirts. Visitors — tourists, hippies, Indians, Pakistanis, adventurers — were stunned by the beauty of the city’s gardens and the snow-capped mountains that surround the capital.
“I lived in Afghanistan when it was very governable, from 1964 to 1974,” said Thomas E. Gouttierre, director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, who met recently in Kabul with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan. Mr. Gouttierre, who spent his decade in the country as a Peace Corps volunteer, a Fulbright scholar and the national basketball team’s coach, said, “I’ve always thought it was one of the most beautiful places in the world.”
Afghans today say that the view of their country as an ungovernable “graveyard of empires” is condescending and uninformed. “Unfortunately, we have a lot of overnight experts on Afghanistan right now,” said Said Tayeb Jawad, the Afghan ambassador to Washington. “You turn to any TV channel and they are experts on Afghan ethnicities, tribal issues and history without having been to Afghanistan or read one or two books.”
“Afghanistan,” Mr. Jawad asserted, “is less tribal than New York.”

Perhaps so, but NYC remains unlike this.

Still, it's worth keeping in mind that Afghanistan has been relatively governable in living memory:

[...] “There was definitely what was developing to be a newer tradition of a more open society and trained people” in those earlier years, said Paula Newberg, director of Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, who was an adviser to President Hamid Karzai’s government in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2004.

But, setting aside the question of elections, is it realistic to somehow reconstruct a legitimate -- as seen by most Afghans -- government in Kabul?

Among the issues to consider:
a) Corruption, corruption, corruption.
b) Tribalism.
c) Religious legitimacy.
d) Ability to provide security.

Matthew Yglesias is surprisingly dismissive of the corruption issue.

The justly much maligned Tom Friedman is here the clock that's right twice a day:

[...] For my money, though, I wish there was less talk today about how many more troops to send and more focus on what kind of Afghan government we have as our partner.
Because when you are mounting a counterinsurgency campaign, the local government is the critical bridge between your troops and your goals. If that government is rotten, your whole enterprise is doomed.
Independent election monitors suggest that as many as one-third of votes cast in the Aug. 20 election are tainted and that President Hamid Karzai apparently engaged in massive fraud to come out on top. Yet, he is supposed to be the bridge between our troop surge and our goal of a stable Afghanistan. No way.
I understand the huge stakes in stabilizing Afghanistan and Pakistan. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, our top commander there who is asking for thousands more troops, is not wrong when he says a lot of bad things would flow from losing Afghanistan to the Taliban. But I keep asking myself: How do we succeed with such a tainted government as our partner?
I know that Jefferson was not on the ballot. But there is a huge difference between “good enough” and dysfunctional and corrupt. Whatever we may think, there are way too many Afghans who think our partner, Karzai and his team, are downright awful.
That is why it is not enough for us to simply dispatch more troops. If we are going to make a renewed commitment in Afghanistan, we have to visibly display to the Afghan people that we expect a different kind of governance from Karzai, or whoever rules, and refuse to proceed without it. It doesn’t have to be Switzerland, but it does have to be good enough — that is, a government Afghans are willing to live under. Without that, more troops will only delay a defeat.
I am not sure Washington fully understands just how much the Taliban-led insurgency is increasingly an insurrection against the behavior of the Karzai government — not against the religion or civilization of its international partners. And too many Afghan people now blame us for installing and maintaining this government.
[...]
Talking to Afghanistan experts in Kabul, Washington and Berlin, a picture is emerging: The Karzai government has a lot in common with a Mafia family. Where a “normal” government raises revenues from the people — in the form of taxes — and then disperses them to its local and regional institutions in the form of budgetary allocations or patronage, this Afghan government operates in the reverse. The money flows upward from the countryside in the form of payments for offices purchased or “gifts” from cronies.
What flows from Kabul, the experts say, is permission for unfettered extraction, protection in case of prosecution and punishment in case the official opposes the system or gets out of line. In “Karzai World,” it appears, slots are either sold (to people who buy them in order to make a profit) or granted to cronies, or are given away to buy off rivals.

Friedman reverts to his more normal-in-recent-decades state of uttering a caution that's almost impossible to fulfil:

We have to be very careful that we are not seen as the enforcers for this system.

How to do this? Friedman's answer amounts to either invoking vague magic, or leaving:

[...] I would not add a single soldier there before this guy, if he does win the presidency, takes visible steps to clean up his government in ways that would be respected by the Afghan people.
If Karzai says no, then there is only one answer: “You’re on your own, pal. Have a nice life with the Taliban. We can’t and will not put more American blood and treasure behind a government that behaves like a Mafia family. If you don’t think we will leave — watch this.” (Cue the helicopters.)

How we can make take such "visible steps to clean up his government" is utterly unclear to me. We can't do this for Hamid Karzai without making him even more of a puppet than he is, and if American and NATO are seen as controlling the Kabul government -- as we already effectively are by many Afghans, and rightly so -- we're certainly not creating a legitimate government of and by Afghans.

Matt Yglesias, commenting on Friedman, dismisses the corruption issue, saying:

[...] This kind of seems like so much pious myth-making to me. I went and looked up the most corrupt countries on earth at Transparency International and added Switzerland (since Kevin mentioned it) and Denmark (the actual least-corrupt country) for comparison’s sake [....]

Matt reproduces the chart, and concludes:

Afghanistan, as you can see, is pretty corrupt. That said, it’s not really far out of line with local norms. Sundry other central Asian states join it at the bottom of the barrel. And while it’s true that some of the most corrupt countries are anarchic failed states, the examples of Myanmar and Turkmenistan clearly indicate that establishing effective control over your territory doesn’t at all require you to develop good governance or be respected by the people.

What's strangely lacking here is that Matt fails to note such critical differences as that none of these countries is in the throes of a full-stage civil war, none of these countries lacks control over most of their countryside, none of these countries has warlords with sway over much of their countryside, none of these countries have governments seen as puppets of a foreign power, and neither is NATO and the U.S. remotely willing to engage in the brutality Myanmar and Turkmenistan are, brutal as the war we are waging can be.

I'm going to forgo giving examples of just how corrupt the Kabul government, and the warlords it has nominally put in charge of many provinces, are -- let's take that as read, shall we? Afghanistan, both in its Kabul government, and its rural warlords, is unbelievably corrupt.

David Kilcullen recognizes the problem:

Counterinsurgency is only as good as the government it supports. NATO could do everything right — it isn’t — but will still fail unless Afghans trust their government. Without essential reform, merely making the government more efficient or extending its reach will just make things worse.

Absolutely right. His solution, though?

Only a legitimately elected Afghan president can enact reforms, so at the very least we need to see a genuine run-off election or an emergency national council, called a loya jirga, before winter. Once a legitimate president emerges, we need to see immediate action from him on a publicly announced reform program, developed in consultation with Afghan society and enforced by international monitors. Reforms should include firing human rights abusers and drug traffickers, establishing an independent authority to investigate citizen complaints and requiring officials to live in the districts they are responsible for (fewer than half do).
Other steps might include a census and district-level elections (promised since 2001, but never held), fair and effective taxation to replace kickbacks and extortion, increased pay to diligent local officials, the transfer of more budgetary authority to the provinces and the creation of local courts for dispute resolution.
If we see no genuine progress on such steps toward government responsibility, the United States should “Afghanize,” draw down troops and prepare to mitigate the inevitable humanitarian disaster that will come when the Kabul government falls to the Taliban — which, in the absence of reform, it eventually and deservedly will.

However, most of these proposal seem to me like airy dreams; on the other hand, an inevitable fall of Kabul to the Taliban seems to me not at all the inevitable sole alternative. A long continued stalemate remains, in my view, highly possible. But I'll get to possible outcomes, as well as proposed policies, in Part II.

But should the U.S. pay for an indefinite stalemate? Consider the numbers:

[...] National Security Adviser Jones had to hit the talk show circuit to state that Kabul is not falling, that the Taliban are not "coming back", and that there are less than 100 al-Qaeda jihadis in Afghanistan. Which raises the question: what's the point of the whole war then? Why the super-human need for the extra, "magical", 40,000 troops McChrystal has requested?
All this is played up deep inside a staggering financial black hole. According to Jo Comerford, executive director of the National Priorities Project, the war in Afghanistan has cost US taxpayers no less than $228 billion so far, with $60.2 billion in 2009 alone. The war under Obama is costing $5 billion a month; last year, under Bush, it was "only" $3.5 billion a month". Comerford projects "we'll hit $1 trillion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in March 2010". These $228 billion, Comerford points out, "equal 800,000 four-year university scholarships for US students" (no wonder China is overtaking the US). Not to mention that $228 billion would have turned Afghanistan into Singapore by now.

The U.S., it should be obvious, can afford to pay only so much money into the Afghanistan project, even if we largely cut back our combat troops.

Meanwhile, it's well-known that the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has a history going back to the communization of the Afghan government in supporting Afghan religious militias, some of whom morphed into the Taliban and some of whom morphed into their opposition. It remains an open question just how much support elements of the ISI may still be giving to Taliban and other Afghan resistance forces. Members of the Afghan government have been blaming Pakistan's ISI for funding and instigating attacks for a long time, and they continue to allege such involvement:

A Pakistani spy agency is helping anti-Western militants mount attacks including suicide bombings in Afghanistan, a reality the West lacks the resolve to confront, an advisor to the Afghan government said on Thursday.
Davood Moradian, senior policy advisor to Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta, told Reuters the motive of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency was to arouse Western concern for stability in neighbouring nuclear-armed Pakistan and use it to obtain financial support for Islamabad.
[...]
Moradian said the ISI's involvement had gone far beyond providing hospitality to the Afghan Taliban. "They (Taliban) are functioning, working and organising their activity in Pakistan in the full knowledge and engagement of the ISI," he said.
Asked if the ISI simply turned a blind eye to attacks, he said: "No. It is a strategic direction in choosing the targets, and in briefing the Taliban leadership about public opinion."
Suggesting it was hard for outsiders to deal with different power centres in Pakistan, Moradian said the Pakistani interior and foreign ministries were not involved in Afghan violence because the ISI had a monopoly on national security policy.
Asked what other evidence there was of ISI involvement, Moradian said an assessment written in August this year by top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal had "publicly and openly stated the ISI role".
An unclassified passage in the report states that senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups "are reportedly aided by some elements in Pakistan's ISI".
In an address to the institute, Moradian said the ISI's involvement in Afghanistan violence was part of a "triangle of terror" that also included the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, after a major kerfuffle between Islamabad and Washington over the language of the bill, Pakistan is getting ever more money from us:

U.S. President Barack Obama quietly signed a $7.5 billion aid bill for Pakistan on Thursday that drew criticism in the nuclear-armed South Asian country because of conditions linked to the assistance.
Obama signed the bill behind closed doors at the White House without a public ceremony before leaving on a trip to New Orleans. The law provides $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan over five years.
Pakistan's military had complained because the legislation ties some funds to fighting militants and is seen by critics as violating sovereignty.

There's endless incentive for Pakistan to prolong and continue America's war in Afghanistan indefinitely, as has been much elaborated on by many commentators.

And, of course, attacks coordinated by the Afghan Taliban in Pakistan, via the Quetta shura, grow:

Senior Taliban leaders, showing a surprising level of sophistication and organization, are using their sanctuary in Pakistan to stoke a widening campaign of violence in northern and western Afghanistan, senior American military and intelligence officials say.
[...]
American military and intelligence officials, who insisted on anonymity because they were discussing classified information, said the Taliban’s leadership council, led by Mullah Muhammad Omar and operating around the southern Pakistani city of Quetta, was directly responsible for a wave of violence in once relatively placid parts of northern and western Afghanistan. A recent string of attacks killed troops from Italy and Germany, pivotal American allies that are facing strong opposition to the Afghan war at home.
These assessments echo a recent report by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, in portraying the Taliban as an increasingly sophisticated shadow government that sees itself on the cusp of victory in the war-ravaged nation.
General McChrystal’s report describes how Mullah Omar’s insurgency has appointed shadow governors in most provinces of Afghanistan, levies taxes, establishes Islamic courts there and conducts a formal review of its military campaign each winter.
American officials say they believe that the Taliban leadership in Pakistan still gets support from parts of the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s military spy service. The ISI has been the Taliban’s off-again-on-again benefactor for more than a decade, and some of its senior officials see Mullah Omar as a valuable asset should the United States leave Afghanistan and the Taliban regain power.

Meanwhile, we've been creating endlessly more Afghan enemies:

[...] Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, called for the creation of the task force in late August in a strategic assessment of the war that warned that the prisons in Afghanistan, including an American-operated detention center at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, were breeding grounds for Qaeda fighters.
“There are more insurgents per square foot in correction facilities than anywhere else in Afghanistan,” General McChrystal said in the report.
The prisons mix hardened Islamic militants with petty thieves and other common criminals, often radicalizing and indoctrinating the less dangerous prisoners, General McChrystal said.

A small good step, but trivial given our history:

The Pentagon is closing the decrepit Bagram prison and replacing it in November with a new 40-acre complex. The military for the first time is notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross of the identities of militants who were being held in secret at camps in Iraq and Afghanistan run by United States Special Operations forces.

I'm sure the prisoners will enjoy being in a much more modern, spiffed up, prison. But in more thinking that seems quite dreamy:

A senior Pentagon official said Wednesday that the new task force would also advise the Afghan government on how to improve its detention and judicial systems, and that it would be an important part of General McChrystal’s strategy to help reintegrate former Taliban members into Afghan society. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because many of the task force’s specific duties were still being worked out, said: “You want people to come out saying: ‘Yeah, the Americans detained me, but it wasn’t all so bad. We can reconcile with them.’”

Yes, that's what we'd like, but is it what we can get? How likely do you think this is?

The U.S. now has benchmarks for success.

But when you read it, you realize that it's, more than anything else, a wishlist:

Objective 1. Disrupt terrorist networks in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan to degrade any ability they have to plan and launch international terrorist attacks.
Objective 2a. Assist efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan.
Objective 2b. Develop Pakistan's counterinsurgency (COIN) capabilities; continue to support Pakistan's efforts to defeat terrorist and insurgent groups.
Objective 2c. Involve the international community more actively to forge an international consensus to stabilize Pakistan.
Objective 3a. Defeat the extremist insurgency, secure the Afghan populace, and develop increasingly self-reliant Afghan security forces that can lead the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism fight with reduced U.S. assistance.
Objective 3b. Promote a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan that serves the Afghan people and can eventually function, especially regarding internal security, with limited international support.
Objective 3c. Involve the international community more actively to forge an international consensus to stabilize Afghanistan.

Click the link to see the attached (non-classified) metrics for judging how these objectives are being met, but a plan for meeting them is not part of the document.

McChrystal knows he hasn't much time:

[...] When the briefing was finished, McChrystal looked around the room. “Gentlemen, I am coming into this job with 12 months to show demonstrable progress here — and 24 months to have a decisive impact,” he said. “That’s how long we have to convince the Taliban, the Afghan people and the American people that we’re going to be successful. In 24 months, it has to be obvious that we have the clear upper hand and that things are moving in the right direction. That’s not a choice. That’s a reality.”
In a tour of bases around Afghanistan, McChrystal repeated this mantra to all his field commanders: Time is running out.

McChrystal wants two to four Friedman Units.

Michael Flynn, McChrystal’s deputy:

[...] I asked General Flynn to imagine the future here. “We are going to go in and ask for some resources,” he told me. “If those resources are brought to bear in a timely manner, I believe that it’s probably going to take us three years to really turn the insurgency to the point where it’s waning instead of waxing. To do that we have to fix the Afghan security forces, we have to build their capacity and capability, and we have to absolutely culturally change the way they operate. And then I think beyond those three years, we are looking at another two years when the government of Afghanistan and the security forces of Afghanistan begin to take a lot more personal responsibility. The challenge to us is: What can we do in 12 months? What should we expect? If people’s expectations are that we are going to have the south turned around, for instance, it’s not going to happen.”

What does McChrystal want to do?

In the military arena, McChrystal wants to put as many of his men as close to the Afghan people as he can. That means closing some of the smaller bases in remote valleys and opening them in densely populated areas like the Helmand River valley. Here, at least, military force will play a central role, at least in the early phase of his strategy, as the Americans fight their way into areas they have not been in before.
“The insurgency has to have access to the people,” McChrystal told me. “So we literally want to go in there and squat among the people. We want to make the insurgents come to us. Make them be the aggressors. What I want to do is get on the inside, looking out — instead of being on the outside looking in.”
“There will be a lot of fighting,” McChrystal added. “If we do this right, the insurgents will have to fight us. They will have no choice.”
And that’s the rub: the population-focused strategy requires more troops — as many as 40,000 more. This is the decision that confronts President Obama and his advisers now.
The other part of the military option is one with which McChrystal is familiar but does not completely control. It’s his old portfolio — killing and capturing insurgents and terrorists.

More on McChystal's plans. This includes:

[...] He proposes speeding the growth of Afghan security forces. The existing goal is to expand the army from 92,000 to 134,000 by December 2011. McChrystal seeks to move that deadline to October 2010.
Overall, McChrystal wants the Afghan army to grow to 240,000 and the police to 160,000 for a total security force of 400,000, but he does not specify when those numbers could be reached.

John Nagl wants that surge of both Afghans and American/NATO forces, but admits:

[...] The first requirement for success in any counterinsurgency campaign is population security. This requires boots on the ground and plenty of them—20 to 25 counterinsurgents for every 1,000 people is the historically derived approximate ratio required for success, according to the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual. That force ratio prescribes some 600,000 counterinsurgents to protect Afghanistan, a country larger and more populous than Iraq—some three times as large as the current international and Afghan force. The planned surge of 30,000 additional American forces to Afghanistan over the next year is merely a down payment on the vastly expanded force needed to protect all 30 million Afghan people.
The long-term answer is an expanded Afghan National Army. Currently at 70,000 and projected to grow to 135,000, the Afghan Army is the most respected institution in the country. It must be expanded to 250,000, and mirrored by sizable local police forces, to provide the security that will prevent Taliban insurgent infiltration of the population. Building Afghan security forces will be a long-term effort that will require American assistance and advisers for many years, but there is no viable alternative.

600,000 counterinsurgents? 30,000 additional American forces merely a down payment? An indefinite commitment for decades? Is that really the only "viable alternative"?

How long are we talking about?

[...] Afghanistan is now so dangerous, administration officials said, that many aid workers cannot travel outside the capital, Kabul, to advise farmers on crops, a key part of Mr. Obama’s announcement in March that he was deploying hundreds of additional civilians to work in the country. The judiciary is so weak that Afghans increasingly turn to a shadow Taliban court system because, a senior military official said, “a lot of the rural people see the Taliban justice as at least something.”
[...]
Even before the election, a January Defense Department report assessing progress in Afghanistan concluded that “building a fully competent and independent Afghan government will be a lengthy process that will last, at a minimum, decades.”

Decades.

The Obama administration has been considering other possibilities. And this has been much written about. But right now things seem to be on hold, awaiting an answer to the question of whether there will be an Afghan run-off election.

Let's look at some yet different thinking, though. The ever-insane Michael Scheuer for example. Scheuer asserts as a rationale for all-out war that:

[...] one has to wonder what can be meant by arguing that the Taliban does not pose a "direct threat" to the United States. Did the drafters of the new strategy bother to ask the intelligence community whom the United States is fighting in Afghanistan? The Taliban and its allies are unquestionably a direct threat to deployed U.S. military forces -- ask the commander of the U.S. post at Kamdesh, Nuristan, mauled on Oct. 4 [....]

So, in Scheuer's view, the Taliban is a threat to the U.S. because they're attacking U.S. troops in Afghanistan. On that logic, we could put troops into hostile action in any country in the world, and when our troops are attacked, well, the forces in that country are a direct threat to us. Brilliant.

But of course there's more:

[...] By protecting al Qaeda, incidentally, Taliban leader Mullah Omar's outfit is also facilitating a "direct threat" to the continental United States.

We'll come back to that.

It is time to face the facts. The Taliban and its allies have waged an eight-year insurgency against the United States, NATO, and the Afghan government that is growing in geographical reach, battlefield success, and popularity in the Muslim world. As long as U.S. forces are in Afghanistan, this reality will remain the same. The only way to create a less threatening Taliban is for the Obama administration to admit defeat and turn over Afghanistan to Mullah Omar, knowing that he will allow bin Laden and al Qaeda to stay in place and that U.S. defeat will have an enormous galvanizing impact on the Islamist movement around the world.

Is Scheuer onto something here? But no, it's just a setup to conclude:

[...] For the sake of U.S. soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan, let us hope this new strategic formulation is quickly dropped and forgotten and that Washington's focus is refixed on the hard but simple Afghan choice it faces: Because the U.S.-NATO occupation powers the Afghan insurgency and international Muslim support for it, we must either destroy it root and branch or leave. This issue merits debate, but that must wait until McChrystal gets the troops needed to delay defeat. Afterward, only the all-out use of large, conventional U.S. military forces can be expected to have a shot at winning in Afghanistan. Since 1996, the United States has definitively proven that clandestine operations, covert action, Special Forces actions, and aerial drone attacks cannot defeat al Qaeda. It has likewise proven beyond doubt that nation-building in Afghanistan is a fool's errand.
That said, military victory would require 400,000 to 500,000 additional troops, the wide use of land mines (even if Princess Diana spins in her grave), and the killing of the enemy and its civilian supporters in the numbers needed to make them admit the game is not worth the candle. This clearly is not a viable option. We do not have enough troops, and U.S. political leaders, many U.S. generals, and the anti-American academy and media do not think "military victory" is an appropriate or moral goal; their mantra is: "Better dead Americans at home and abroad than criticism from Europe, the media, and the academy."
Overall, then, we are well along the road to self-imposed defeat in Afghanistan, and about the best we can do is give McChrystal the troops he needs to slow defeat. After doing that, we can figure out how to get out of Afghanistan in an orderly manner, while preparing to absorb more al Qaeda attacks in North America.

In short, we should keep fighting, with no solution in sight, and eventually we'll somehow, at some indefinite point in the future, "figure out how to get out of Afghanistan in an orderly manner."

That's one hell of a "solution."

And that "killing of the enemy and its civilian supporters in the numbers needed to make them admit the game is not worth the candle"? The Soviet Union tried that route, and failed anyway.

Elsewhere, Bruce Riedel and Michael O'Hanlon (that's the Bruce Riedel who chaired Obama's interagency review of Afpak strategy in March) assert that we can't go small:

[...] The fundamental reason that a counterterrorism-focused strategy fails is that it cannot generate good intelligence. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban know not to use their cellphones and satellite phones today, so our spy satellites are of little use in finding extremists. We need information from unmanned low-altitude aircraft and, even more, from people on the ground who speak the language and know the comings and goings of locals. But our Afghan friends who might be inclined to help us with such information would be intimidated by insurgent and terrorist forces into silence — or killed if they cooperated — because we would lack the ability to protect them under a counterterrorism approach.

Except, as Dexter Filkins reminds us, we can't do that now:

[...] The notion that large groups of Taliban fighters could be persuaded to quit is not new. Previous efforts have ended in failure, often because neither the Americans nor their allies were able to protect people who changed sides.
Earlier this year, for example, a local Taliban commander in Wardak Province named Abdul Jameel came forward with a group of fighters and declared that he wanted to quit. Wardak’s governor, Halim Fidai, accepted his surrender and told him he was free to go home. Two weeks later, Taliban gunmen entered Jameel’s home and killed him, his wife, his uncle, his brother and his daughter.
“We had nothing to offer him,” Fidai told me.
In another case, Gulab Mangal, the governor of Helmand Province, told me that during a recent American military operation he got a telephone call from a Taliban commander. “He wanted to surrender,” Mangal said. And then the military operation was over — and the American troops went back to their bases. “He never called back after that,” Mangal said.

McChrystal and the other proponents of more U.S. troops assert that the additional U.S. troops would change that.

But we've already seen that we'd need, according to COIN doctrine, and our own Counterinsurgency Field Manual, FM 3-24 and Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-33.5 with forewords by General David H. Petraeus and Lt. General James F. Amos and by Lt. Colonel John A. Nagl, calls for 600,000 troops that we're never going to have.

Moreover, what's really at stake here? Andrew Bacevich explains:

[...] If the president approves the McChrystal plan he will implicitly:
■ Anoint counterinsurgency - protracted campaigns of armed nation-building - as the new American way of war.
■ Embrace George W. Bush’s concept of open-ended war as the essential response to violent jihadism (even if the Obama White House has jettisoned the label “global war on terror’’).
■ Affirm that military might will remain the principal instrument for exercising American global leadership, as has been the case for decades.
Implementing the McChrystal plan will perpetuate the longstanding fundamentals of US national security policy: maintaining a global military presence, configuring US forces for global power projection, and employing those forces to intervene on a global basis. The McChrystal plan modestly updates these fundamentals to account for the lessons of 9/11 and Iraq, cultural awareness and sensitivity nudging aside advanced technology as the signature of American military power, for example. Yet at its core, the McChrystal plan aims to avert change. Its purpose - despite 9/11 and despite the failures of Iraq - is to preserve the status quo.
Hawks understand this. That’s why they are intent on framing the debate so narrowly - it’s either give McChrystal what he wants or accept abject defeat. It’s also why they insist that Obama needs to decide immediately.
Yet people in the antiwar camp also understand the stakes. Obama ran for the presidency promising change. The doves sense correctly that Obama’s decision on Afghanistan may well determine how much - if any - substantive change is in the offing.
If the president assents to McChrystal’s request, he will void his promise of change at least so far as national security policy is concerned. The Afghanistan war will continue until the end of his first term and probably beyond. It will consume hundreds of billions of dollars. It will result in hundreds or perhaps thousands more American combat deaths - costs that the hawks are loath to acknowledge.
As the fighting drags on from one year to the next, the engagement of US forces in armed nation-building projects in distant lands will become the new normalcy. Americans of all ages will come to accept war as a perpetual condition, as young Americans already do. That “keeping Americans safe’’ obliges the United States to seek, maintain, and exploit unambiguous military supremacy will become utterly uncontroversial.

The one thing wrong with Bacevich's analysis that his last paragraph I quote is already the old normalcy, and has been since the Korean war.

So: what to do?

First we have to distinguish between the Taliban and al Qaeda. Then we have to analyze what threat either actually presents. And then we have to do a cost-benefit analysis of what's the best course of action. The essential war with al Qaeda, both insofar as al Qaeda remains any kind of organization, and, more importantly, insofar as it remains an inspiration to jihadists, is an ideological war, not a military war. The Taliban now have tried a YouTube channel for propaganda. The best way to fight al Qaeda is to fight their ideology, and we're doing okay at that. From 2008:

[...] These new critics, in concert with mainstream Muslim leaders, have created a powerful coalition countering Al Qaeda's ideology. According to Pew polls, support for Al Qaeda has been dropping around the Muslim world in recent years. The numbers supporting suicide bombings in Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh, for instance, have dropped by half or more in the last five years. In Saudi Arabia, only 10 percent now have a favorable view of Al Qaeda, according to a December poll by Terror Free Tomorrow, a Washington-based think tank. Following a wave of suicide attacks in Pakistan in the past year, support for suicide operations amongst Pakistanis has dropped to 9 percent (it was 33 percent five years ago), while favorable views of bin Laden in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, around where he is believed to be hiding, have plummeted to 4 percent from 70 percent since August 2007.

We can continue presenting an alternative. Many play up contemporary al Qaeda-Taliban ties, but that's highly questionable, as Gareth Porter writes:

[...] But two former senior intelligence analysts who have long followed the issue of al Qaeda's involvement in Afghanistan question the alleged new intelligence assessments. They say that the Taliban leadership still blames Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for their loss of power after 9/11 and that the Taliban-al Qaeda cooperation is much narrower today than it was during the period of Taliban rule.

[...]

One of the arguments for an alternative to the present counterinsurgency strategy by officials, including aides to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, is that the Taliban wouldn't allow al Qaeda to reestablish bases inside Afghanistan, The Wall Street Journal reported Oct. 5. The reasoning behind the argument, according to the report, is that the Taliban realises that its previous alliance with al Qaeda had caused it to lose power after the Sep. 11 attacks.

Officials in national security organs that are committed to the counterinsurgency strategy have now pushed back against the officials who they see as undermining the war policy. McClatchy newspapers reported Sunday that officials have cited what they call "recent U.S. intelligence assessments" that the Taliban and other Afghan insurgent groups have "much closer ties to al Qaida now than they did before 9/11" and would allow al Qaeda to re-establish bases in Afghanistan if they were to prevail.

McClatchy reporters said 15 mid-level or senior intelligence, military and diplomatic officials they interviewed had agreed with the alleged intelligence assessments.

But John McCreary, formerly a senior analyst at the Defence Intelligence Agency, wrote last week on NightWatch, an online news analysis service, that the history of Taliban-al Qaeda relations suggests a very different conclusion. After being ousted from power in 2001, he wrote, the Taliban "openly derided the Arabs of al Qaida and blamed them for the Taliban's misfortunes".

The Taliban leaders "vowed never to allow the foreigners – especially the haughty, insensitive Arabs – back into Afghanistan," wrote McCreary. "In December 2001, [Mullah Mohammad] Omar was ridiculed in public by his own commanders for inviting the 'Arabs' and other foreigners, which led to their flight to Pakistan."

McCreary concluded, "The premise that Afghanistan would become an al Qaida safe haven under any future government is alarmist and bespeaks a lack of understanding of the Pashtuns on this issue and a superficial knowledge of recent Afghan history."

The Central Intelligence Agency's former national intelligence officer for the Middle East, Paul Pillar, expressed doubt that the Taliban's relations with al Qaeda are tighter now than before the Taliban regime was ousted. "I don't see how you can say that," Pillar told IPS. "If you look at the pre-9/11 relationship between the Taliban and al Qaeda, in many ways it was far more extensive."

In the civil war between the Taliban regime and its Northern Alliance foes from 1996 through 2001, Pillar observed, "bin Laden's Arabs and money" represented a far bigger role in supporting the Taliban than the one al Qaeda is playing now.

"You can say that there are more groups which have relationships with al Qaeda now, but I don't see any as close as that which existed before 9/11," said Pillar.

[...]

Gen. Jones told CNN interviewer John King Oct. 4 the presence of al Qaeda in Afghanistan today is "minimal", adding the "maximum estimate" is 100 foreign fighters. One official critical of the White House position quoted in the McClatchy story suggested the number might be as high as 200 or 250.

Both figures appears to be consistent with the estimate by Western officials of a total of only 100 to 300 foreign fighters in Afghanistan cited in the New York Times Oct. 30, 2007.

Of that total, however, only "small numbers" were Arabs and Chechens, Uzbeks or other Central Asians, who are known to have links with al Qaeda, Seth Jones of the Rand Corporation told Voice of America the following month.

The bulk of the foreign fighters in Afghanistan are Pashtuns from across the border in Pakistan. Those Pashtun fighters are recruited from religious schools in Pakistan, but there is no evidence that they are affiliated with al Qaeda.

Just this month, U.S. intelligence has increased its estimate of Taliban armed insurgents to 17,000, compared with 10,000 in late 2007. Even if all foreign fighters were considered as al Qaeda, therefore, 250 of them would represent only 1.5 percent of the estimated total.

Not much of a threat, and as has been much previously discussed, the terrorist attacks in London and Madrid were launched by Muslim extremists from apartments in England and Spain. The September 11th attacks were launched largely by Saudis in Germany; you don't need a country to engage in terrorist attacks; thinking otherwise was the Bush administration's fixation and a contender for their supreme foreign policy error, hard as it is to settle on just one. General McChystal wants to buy off members of the Taliban:

[...] The idea, he said, would not be to try to flip the Taliban’s leaders — that’s not likely — but rather its foot soldiers. The premise of the program, McChrystal says, is that most of the Taliban’s fighters are not especially committed ideologically and could be brought into society with promises of jobs and protection. “I’d like to go pretty high up,” McChrystal said, referring to the Taliban’s hierarchy. “It could be people who are commanders with significant numbers of troops. I think they can be given the opportunity to come in.”

The effort, McChrystal said, is based on his own reading of the Taliban and of Pashtun culture: most of the people fighting the United States, he argued, are motivated by local and personal grievances. They want more of a voice in local governance, for instance, or they want jobs. “Historically, the Pashtuns are very practical people,” McChrystal told me. “Pashtun culture adjudicates disagreements in a way that mitigates blood feuds. The Pashtun people go out of their way not to do things that cause permanent feuds. They have always been willing to change positions, change sides. I don’t think much of the Taliban are ideologically driven; I think they are practically driven. I’m not sure they wouldn’t flip to our side.”

Here's an obvious problem with that:

In 1996, approximately 40 percent of Afghans were Pashtun, 11.4 of whom are of the Durrani tribal group and 13.8 percent of the Ghilzai group. Tajiks make up the second largest ethnic group with 25.3 percent of the population, followed by Hazaras, 18 percent; Uzbeks, 6.3 percent; Turkmen, 2.5 percent; Qizilbash, 1.0; 6.9 percent other. The usual caveat regarding statistics is particularly appropriate here.

To be sure, that Pushtuns are a minority, though the plurality, of Afghans, is a good reason to think that the Taliban would have trouble in retaking much of the country again; in their last incarnation in power, they never did subdue the largely Tajik, Hazara, and Uzbek Northern Alliance; the Northern Alliance maintained control over 30% of the country. But there remain problems with McChrystal's idea, inspired by the still unsettled and problematic creation of the "Sons of Iraq":

[...] With more American troops, McChrystal told me, he would be better able to squeeze the insurgents into changing sides. “I think a lot of them need to be convinced that they are not going to be successful,” he said.

An example of how badly pay-offs to the Taliban can go came last week:

When ten French soldiers were killed last year in an ambush by Afghan insurgents in what had seemed a relatively peaceful area, the French public were horrified.

Their revulsion increased with the news that many of the dead soldiers had been mutilated — and with the publication of photographs showing the militants triumphantly sporting their victims’ flak jackets and weapons.

The French had been in charge of the Sarobi area, east of Kabul, for only a month, taking over from the Italians; it was one of the biggest single losses of life by Nato forces in Afghanistan.

What the grieving nation did not know was that in the months before the French soldiers arrived in mid-2008, the Italian secret service had been paying tens of thousands of dollars to Taleban commanders and local warlords to keep the area quiet, The Times has learnt.

[...]

US intelligence officials were flabbergasted when they found out through intercepted telephone conversations that the Italians had also been buying off militants, notably in Herat province in the far west. In June 2008, several weeks before the ambush, the US Ambassador in Rome made a démarche, or diplomatic protest, to the Berlusconi Government over allegations concerning the tactic.

However, a number of high-ranking officers in Nato have told The Times that payments were subsequently discovered to have been made in the Sarobi area as well. Western officials say that because the French knew nothing of the payments they made a catastrophically incorrect threat assessment.

[...]

Two Western military officials in Kabul confirmed that intelligence briefings after the ambush said that the French troops had believed they were moving through a benign area — one which the Italian military had been keen to show off to the media as a successful example of a “hearts and minds” operation.

Another Nato source confirmed the allegations of Italian money going to insurgents. “The Italian intelligence service made the payments, it wasn’t the Italian Army,” he said. “It was payments of tens of thousands of dollars regularly to individual insurgent commanders. It was to stop Italian casualties that would cause political difficulties at home.”

The Italians have denied everything:

[...] Premier Silvio Berlusconi's office called the report in the Times of London "completely groundless." The Italian defense minister denounced it as "rubbish" and said he wanted to sue the newspaper.

But the overall strategy remains questionable:

Whether or not that is true, it points to the biggest flaw in the “bribe the Taliban” argument: What happens when you stop paying?
Once again, the Iraq example is instructive. Responsibility for paying Sunni tribal militias, referred to by the U.S. military as the Sons of Iraq (SoI), was handed over to the government of Iraq, and a certain number of SoI were eventually supposed to be absorbed into Iraq’s security forces. But not all has gone to plan: Earlier this year, fighting erupted in Baghdad after the arrest of Adel Mashadani, a Sunni militia leader and key figure in the “Awakening” movement. As the central government moved to disarm and disband Awakening councils, it prompted concern about a renewed violence in Iraq as U.S. troops packed up for withdrawal.
And Afghanistan presents a much more difficult case. Iraq’s central government can count on a decent stream of revenue; Afghanistan’s government is pretty much broke. Bribery may work to a point, but it seems highly unlikely that Kabul could keep its internal opponents on the payroll when its operating budget is largely drawn from foreign aid and it can barely cover the cost of maintaining its army and police.

What we can do is focus on al Qaeda:

President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.

[...]

The official contrasted that with the Afghan Taliban, which the administration has begun to define as an indigenous group that aspires to reclaim territory and rule the country but does not express ambitions of attacking the United States. “When the two are aligned, it’s mainly on the tactical front,” the official said, noting that Al Qaeda has fewer than 100 fighters in Afghanistan.

Another official, who also was authorized to speak but not to be identified, said the different views of Al Qaeda and the Taliban were driving the president’s review. “To the extent that Al Qaeda has been degraded, and it has, and to the extent you believe you need to focus on destroying it going forward, what is required going forward?” the official asked. “And to prevent it from having a safe haven?”

The officials argued that while Al Qaeda was a foreign body, the Taliban could not be wholly removed from Afghanistan because they were too ingrained in the country. Moreover, the forces often described as Taliban are actually an amalgamation of militants that includes local warlords like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Haqqani network or others driven by local grievances rather than jihadist ideology.

What's the nature of these militants?

Nearly all of the insurgents battling US and NATO troops in Afghanistan are not religiously motivated Taliban and Al Qaeda warriors, but a new generation of tribal fighters vying for control of territory, mineral wealth, and smuggling routes, according to summaries of new US intelligence reports.

Some of the major insurgent groups, including one responsible for a spate of recent American casualties, actually opposed the Taliban’s harsh Islamic government in Afghanistan during the 1990s, according to the reports, described by US officials under the condition they not be identified.

“Ninety percent is a tribal, localized insurgency,’’ said one US intelligence official in Washington who helped draft the assessments. “Ten percent are hardcore ideologues fighting for the Taliban.’’

Moreover:

[...] The Afghan fighters use the threat of force to further their own economic interests - extorting payments from people shipping goods through the mountains including, in some cases, even US military supplies coming into Afghanistan from Pakistan, the officials said.

Which is to say, they're criminal gangs. Did you know, by the way, that we have a Treasury Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing? You'd think we'd be against that. (Yes, I'm kidding.) He's in charge of Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. You can read more about how that works here and here, if you're curious. Eric Schmitt describes the diversity of Taliban funding today:

The Taliban in Afghanistan are running a sophisticated financial network to pay for their insurgent operations, raising hundreds of millions of dollars from the illicit drug trade, kidnappings, extortion and foreign donations that American officials say they are struggling to cut off.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban have imposed an elaborate system to tax the cultivation, processing and shipment of opium, as well as other crops like wheat grown in the territory they control, American and Afghan officials say.

In the Middle East, Taliban leaders have sent fund-raisers to Arab countries to keep the insurgency’s coffers brimming with cash. Estimates of the Taliban’s annual revenue vary widely. Proceeds from the illicit drug trade alone range from $70 million to $400 million a year, according to Pentagon and United Nations officials.

By diversifying their revenue stream beyond opium, the Taliban are successfully confounding American and NATO efforts to weaken the insurgency by cutting off its economic lifelines, the officials say. Despite efforts by the United States and its allies in the last year to cripple the Taliban’s financing, using the military and intelligence, American officials acknowledge they barely made a dent.

[...]

“In the past there was a kind of a feeling that the money all came from drugs in Afghanistan,” Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said in June. “That is simply not true.”

Supporting this view, in his Aug. 30 strategic assessment, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, voiced skepticism that clamping down on the opium trade would crimp the Taliban’s overall finances.

“Eliminating insurgent access to narco-profits — even if possible, and while disruptive — would not destroy their ability to operate so long as other funding sources remained intact,” General McChrystal said.

The C.I.A. recently estimated in a classified report that Taliban leaders and their associates had received $106 million in the past year from donors outside Afghanistan, a figure first reported last month by The Washington Post. Private citizens from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and some Persian Gulf nations are the largest individual contributors, an American counterterrorism official said.

But the important takeaway point is this:

[...] Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, indicated yesterday that the makeup of the insurgency is playing a prominent role in the discussions. “Some in the Taliban have similar agendas that have helped Al Qaeda with safe havens,’’ he told reporters at the daily press briefing. “There’s also a significant number of Taliban that are local warlords that have far different agendas.’’

Indeed, the intelligence reports say the Taliban movement that harbored the Al Qaeda terrorist network before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks is responsible for only a small share of the rising attacks - mostly in southern Afghanistan, according to the officials.

Even the hardline Frederick Kagan agrees that:

“The term [Taliban] has come to have a meaning far beyond what the United States should care about’’ militarily, said Frederick W. Kagan, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who is advising US military commanders.

Steve Hynd elaborates:

[...] The UK's DfID study, a recent Senate report and leaks of current US intelligence analysis reveal that most of the insurgency, while it might take training from the Taliban, could care less about the Taliban's ideological agenda.

Between 70 and 90 percent of insurgents are motivated by resistance to occupying invaders or by the ethnic divides - the domination of Tajiks in a government ruling a Pashtun majority - that Nagl says don't exist. The Taliban just pay them to do lip service to their ideology and run under their banner.

See also Nathan Hodge's Winning Over the Taliban? Fat Chance. What could we do instead of Nagl's only "viable alternative"?

Fred Kaplan summarizes:

[... The problem is that protecting all of Afghanistan, or even all the areas that the Taliban now threaten or dominate, would require many more troops than even McChrystal is requesting—by some estimates as many as 500,000 troops.

Under these circumstances, if Obama agreed to send 40,000 more troops next month, it's a safe bet that the generals would request another 40,000 next year.

An alternative approach, then, is to protect not all of Afghanistan but just a few of its largest cities—say, Kabul, Kandahar, and Ghazni—and to throw at them all the resources they can absorb: military, civilian, financial, the works.

The purpose of this would be twofold.

The first would be to prevent the Taliban from taking over the central government, which is the main reason for having Western troops there at all.

The second would be to create "demonstration zones" for the eyes of Afghans all over the country. If these zones really can be secured and supplied, if they are seen as enclaves of relative peace and prosperity, then Afghans everywhere will want the same thing and reject the Taliban (whose strength today stems less from their fundamentalist ideology than from their ability to provide order and services).

Meanwhile, under this alternative approach, U.S. and NATO forces would keep training Afghan soldiers and police, while special-ops troops and air power would continue to take out "high-value targets" such as top Taliban fighters (even pure counterinsurgency advocates don't think counterterrorist tactics should be cut off completely).

It's hard to say how many more U.S. troops would be needed for this alternative approach—but almost certainly far fewer than 40,000. Ideas along these lines are swirling around the community of scholars and soldiers who think about such matters.

Mehar Omar Khan, a major in the Pakistani army and currently a student at the U.S. Army War College, outlined just such an approach in the latest issue of Small Wars Journal.

Four specialists, including David Kilcullen, an Australian counterinsurgency veteran who advises several top U.S. officials and officers, make a similar case—which they call a "triage" or "enclave" strategy—in a recent paper published by the Center for a New American Security.

Another way to put this is go deep, not big. Gareth Porter:

[...] In a 63-page paper representing his personal views, but reflecting conversations with other officers who have served in Afghanistan, Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis argues that it is already too late for U.S. forces to defeat the insurgency.

"Many experts in and from Afghanistan warn that our presence over the past eight years has already hardened a meaningful percentage of the population into viewing the United States as an army of occupation which should be opposed and resisted," writes Davis.

Providing the additional 40,000 troops that Gen. McChrystal has reportedly requested "is almost certain to further exacerbate" that problem, he warns.

Davis was a liaison officer between the Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan (CFC-A) and the Central Command in 2005, just as the Afghan insurgency was becoming a significant problem for the U.S. military.

In that assignment he both consulted with the top U.S. officers and staff of the CFC-A and traveled widely throughout Afghanistan visiting U.S. and NATO combat units. He also commanded a U.S. military transition team on the Iraqi border with Iran in 2008-09.

In the paper, Davis suggests what he calls a "Go Deep" strategy as an alternative to the recommendation from McChrystal for a larger counterinsurgency effort, which he calls "Go Big".

The "Go Deep" strategy proposed by Davis would establish an 18-month time frame during which the bulk of U.S. and NATO combat forces would be withdrawn from the country.

It would leave U.S. Special Forces and their supporting units, and enough conventional forces in Kabul to train Afghan troops and police and provide protection for U.S. personnel. The forces that continue to operate in insurgent-dominated areas would wage "an aggressive counterterrorism effort" aimed in part at identifying Taliban and al Qaeda operatives.

The strategy would also provide support for improved Afghan governance and training for security forces. Davis argues that a large and growing U.S. military presence would make it more difficult to achieve this counterterrorism objective.

By withdrawing conventional forces from the countryside, he suggests, U.S. strategy would deprive the insurgents of "easily identifiable and lucrative targets against which to launch attacks". Typically insurgents attack U.S. positions not for any tactical military objective, Davis writes, but to gain a propaganda victory.

[...]

After reading Davis's paper, Col. Patrick Lang, formerly the defence intelligence officer for the Middle East, told IPS he regards the "Go Deep" strategy as "a fair representation of the alternative to the one option in General McChrystal's assessment".

Lang said he doubts that those advising Obama to shift to a counterterrorism strategy are calling specifically for the withdrawal of most combat troops, but he believes such a withdrawal "is certainly implicit in the argument".

And sounding the note that turns up again and again:

[...] In the paper, Davis argues that the counterinsurgency strategy recommended by McChrystal would actually require a far larger U.S. force than is now being proposed.

Citing figures given by Marine Corps Col. Julian Dale Alford at a conference last month, Davis writes that training 400,000 Afghan army and police alone would take 18 brigades of U.S. troops – as many as 100,000 U.S. troops when the necessary support troops are added.

The objective of expanding the Afghan security forces to 400,000, as declared in McChrystal's "initial assessment", poses other major problems as well, according to Davis.

He observes that the costs of such an expansion have been estimated at three to four times more than Afghanistan's entire Gross Domestic Product.

Davis asks what would happen if the economies of the states which have pledged to support those Afghan personnel come under severe pressures and do not continue the support indefinitely.

"It would be irresponsible to increase the size of the military to that level," he writes, "convincing hundreds of thousands of additional Afghan men to join, giving them field training and weapons, and then at some point suddenly cease funding, throwing tens of thousands out of work."

The result, he suggests, would be similar to what followed the U.S. failure to reassemble the Iraqi Army after the invasion of March 2003. Davis also cites "growing anecdotal evidence" that popular anger at the abuses of power by the Afghan National Police has increased support for the insurgency.

He calls for scaling back the increase in Afghan security forces to the original targets of 134,000 Army troops and 80,000 national police. The crucial factor in determining the future of the country, he argues, is not the numbers of security personnel but whether they continue to abuse the population.

If that pattern of behaviour were to change dramatically, Davis says, "the number of Taliban fighters will dwindle to manageable numbers as those presently filling their ranks will no longer be motivated to fight".

And the large point:

[...] Challenging the argument of supporters of a larger war effort that it is necessary to avoid an increased risk of new terrorist attacks, Davis argues that being "myopically focused" on Afghanistan "at the expense of the rest of the world" increases the likelihood of an attack.

The present level of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, he writes, will "make it more likely that terrorist organizations will take advantage of the opportunity to plan and train elsewhere for the next big attack."

As Rory Stewart wrote in his must-read July 9th piece in the London Review of Books

[...] Even if – as seems most unlikely – the Taliban were to take the capital, it is not clear how much of a threat this would pose to US or European national security. Would they repeat their error of providing a safe haven to al-Qaida? And how safe would this safe haven be? They could give al-Qaida land for a camp but how would they defend it against predators or US special forces? And does al-Qaida still require large terrorist training camps to organise attacks? Could they not plan in Hamburg and train at flight schools in Florida; or meet in Bradford and build morale on an adventure training course in Wales?

Furthermore, there are no self-evident connections between the key objectives of counter-terrorism, development, democracy/ state-building and counter-insurgency. Counter-insurgency is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for state-building. You could create a stable legitimate state without winning a counter-insurgency campaign (India, which is far more stable and legitimate than Afghanistan, is still fighting several long counter-insurgency campaigns from Assam to Kashmir). You could win a counter-insurgency campaign without creating a stable state (if such a state also required the rule of law and a legitimate domestic economy). Nor is there any necessary connection between state-formation and terrorism. Our confusions are well illustrated by the debates about whether Iraq was a rogue state harbouring terrorists (as Bush claimed) or an authoritarian state which excluded terrorists (as was in fact the case).

It is impossible for Britain and its allies to build an Afghan state. They have no clear picture of this promised ‘state’, and such a thing could come only from an Afghan national movement, not as a gift from foreigners.

Eric Martin wisely quoted this piece at length in a piece also much worth rereading. The entire question of why we should do more in Afghanistan than in Somalia, or various other failed states, is absolutely critical. What might we learn from our recent experience in Somalia? Jeffrey Gettleman:

[...] In 2006, the C.I.A. shoveled a few million dollars to predacious warlords in an attempt to stymie a competing Islamist movement. When that didn’t work, the American government supported Ethiopia, Somalia’s historic enemy, when it invaded.

What followed was a nasty guerilla war that ended only when the Ethiopians agreed to leave earlier this year and the Islamists were allowed back in. Essentially, the 2006 status quo was returned, minus 15,000 Somalis, now dead.

Still, “most Somalis are not anti-American,” said Afyare Abdi Elmi, a Somali-Canadian political scientist at Qatar University’s International Affairs Program. “Most Somalis are pragmatic and they do not inherently oppose America’s involvement in Somalia per se. They reject when such involvement is associated with warlords or Ethiopians. Neither condition exists now.”

This could spell an opportunity, as the Obama administration seems to think. The United States and other Western powers have provided the new Islamist government with weapons, money and diplomatic support. While terribly weak, the government has proven to be relatively moderate, vowing to repel terrorist groups, and seeking a middle path in its interpretation of political Islam.

The United States, for its part, is helping the government in a crucial way, with pinprick counterterrorism attacks like the commando raid that killed Mr. Nabhan; these presumably advance the mutual interest of eliminating Qaeda terrorists and weakening the Somali insurgency, while avoiding civilian casualties.

So a new template for fighting terrorism may be emerging as the United States shows less desire to get involved in the local intricacies of nation building and more interest in narrowing its focus to Al Qaeda. The focus so far has been precise, limited and often covert, with attacks carried out with a parallel diplomatic strategy.

Some talk of a middle way in Afghanistan. But I've yet to see any rumors the administration is considering an actual downsizing path, as Austin Long outlines in detail what a "small footprint" mission could look like:

[...] First, this posture would require maintaining bases and personnel in Afghanistan. Three airfields would be sufficient: Bagram, north of Kabul, Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan, and ideally Kandahar, in the insurgency-ridden south of the country. This would enable forces to collect intelligence and rapidly target al Qaeda in the Pashtun regions where its allies would hold sway. Kandahar, in the heart of Taliban territory, might be untenable with a reduced U.S. presence, so an alternate airfield might be needed, potentially at Shindand, though this would not ideal.

In terms of special operations forces, this posture would rely on two squadrons of so-called "Tier 1" operators, one at each forward operating base. These could be drawn from U.S. special mission units or Allied units such as the British Special Air Service or Canada's Joint Task Force 2. In addition, it would require a battalion equivalent of U.S. Army Rangers, U.S. Navy SEALs, U.S. Marine Special Operations Companies, British Parachute Regiment, or some mix, with basically a company with each Tier 1 squadron and one in reserve at Bagram. These forces would work together as task forces (let's call them TF South and TF East), with the Tier 1 operators being tasked with executing direct action missions to kill or capture al Qaeda targets while the other units would serve as security and support for these missions. In addition, two of the four battalions of the 160th Special Operations Regiment, basically one at each airfield, would be used to provide helicopter transport, reconnaissance, and fire support for the task forces. One battalion might be enough but two certainly would, thus ensuring that no targets get away for lack of lift. Note that according to Sean Naylor's reporting my direct action task forces are structured like the regional task forces in Iraq in 2006 that were tasked to hunt al Qaeda in Iraq.

Both task forces would be capable of acting against targets elsewhere in the Pashtun regions, but al Qaeda operatives would likely only feel even relatively secure in a fairly limited geographic area. TF East in Jalalabad would likely need to operate principally in the heartland of the Haqqani militant network (Khost, Paktia, and Paktika provinces) as this would be where al Qaeda's principal ally in the east could best protect its members, who are not generally Pashtun. For similar reasons, TF South would principally operate against al Qaeda targets in Kandahar, where the Quetta Shura Taliban is strongest, and some of the surrounding provinces such as Helmand and Uruzgan.

In addition to these two task forces, I would retain the three Army Special Forces' battalions and other elements that appear to be assigned to Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force-Afghanistan. While TFs South and East would focus purely on direct action, these Special Forces units would partner with local forces to collect intelligence and secure specific areas. These local forces would in many cases be from non-Pashtun ethnic groups (Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras), which would limit their ability to be effective in the Pashtun areaa but would likely include at least a few Pashtun tribes that see more benefit working with the Afghan government and the United States than against them. Rather than serving an offensive purpose against al Qaeda like TF South and East, Special Forces would essentially serve a defensive purpose to secure Afghan allies and reassure them that the United States is not going to abandon them.

This reassurance and support of local allies is a crucial and underappreciated part of a small footprint posture. The non-Pashtun groups were the United States' critical allies in 2001 and remain staunchly opposed to the Taliban and other militants. The Tajiks of the Panjshir Valley, for example, are probably more anti-Taliban than the United States is. With U.S. support, these groups will be able to prevent the expansion of militants outside Pashtun areas. Local allies in Pashtun areas will enable collection of intelligence to support the task force operations. Supporting local allies does not mean abandoning the Afghan government any more than supporting local allies in the Awakening movement in Iraq's Anbar province meant abandoning the government of Iraq. Balancing the two will require some deftness and will be the focus of another post.

Finally, a few more "enablers," to use another military term of art, would be required. First, this posture would need some additional special operations personnel focused on intelligence collection, along with a substantial complement of intelligence community personnel to collect both human and signals intelligence. Second, it would require a substantial complement of unmanned aerial vehicles including Predators, Reapers, and a few other specialized types along with their support personnel. Third, a few AC-130 gunships for air support would be needed, along with combat search and rescue teams from Air Force Special Operations Command.

It should be clear that "small footprint" is a relative term. This special operations posture alone would be roughly five battalions of ground forces, four aviation squadrons, and a few odds and ends, probably in the neighborhood of 5,000 U.S. and NATO troops. In addition, a conventional force component would be needed to serve as a quick reaction force, provide security for the bases, and protect convoys. A conservative estimate for this force would be a brigade or regimental combat team, giving a battalion to each base, another 4,000, roughly. For additional air support, two squadrons of fighter-bombers (F-15E, A-10, etc.) would probably be sufficient, adding another 2,000 personnel.

Finally, my proposed posture would require additional staff, logistics, and support personnel (medical for instance), some but not all of which can be contractors, adding another 2,000 military personnel. This would be a total force of about 13,000 military personnel and some number of supporting intelligence community personnel and contractors. This is a high-end estimate, and some military personnel I have spoken to think this mission could be done with half this number of troops, but the posture described above errs on the side of caution. This is small compared to the current posture in Afghanistan, smaller still than the forces implied in Gen. McChrystal's report, and tiny compared to the peak number of forces in Iraq. On the other hand, it is vastly larger than any other purely counterterrorism deployment, and how we get there from here will be the subject of my next post.

Many, of course, will find even 6,000 to 13,000 troops to be too many. I'm not at all sure that I don't find it too many. But I'm not, whatever I read, any kind of professional military person nor military expert. I'm not going to prescribe any precise plan, tempting as it is to simply recommend that we go down to a Marine guard at an embassy, or not even that. But these notions of demonstration zones and smaller footprints strike me as one hell of a lot more practical, and far less open-ended, than any of the other proposals I've read. And even John Nagl writes of the ink spot strategy:

[...] The alternative requires not just more troops but a different strategy. After an area is cleared of insurgents, it must be held by Afghan troops supported by American advisers and combat multipliers, including artillery and air support. Inside this bubble of security, the Afghan government can re-establish control and build a better and more prosperous community with the help of a surge of American civilian advisers. Since 30,000 more troops won't be enough to secure the whole country, we'll have to select the most important population centers, such as Kabul and Kandahar, to secure first. These "oil spots" of security will then spread over time—a long time.

Let's finish our look at Dexter Filkins's piece:

[...] Last month, I visited Richard Haass, one of the idea’s chief proponents, at his office in New York, where he is president of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Before that, through June 2003, Haass was director of policy planning at the State Department under President George W. Bush.)

Haass is particularly persuasive, in part because he does not pretend to have easy answers. After eight years of mismanagement and neglect, Haass says, every choice the United States faces in Afghanistan is dreadful. The weight of the evidence, he says, suggests that curtailing our ambitions is the option least dreadful.

“It’s not self-evident that doing more will accomplish more,” Haass told me. “And I’m skeptical about how central Afghanistan is anymore to the global effort against terror. I’m not persuaded that you can transform the situation there.”

The bulk of Al Qaeda’s leadership, Haass pointed out, is now in Pakistan. That’s where the United States should really be focused — in Pakistan, with a population six times larger than Afghanistan’s and with at least 60 nuclear warheads. “No one wants Afghanistan to become a sponge that absorbs a disproportionate share of our country’s resources,” he said.

Let's not let Afghanistan continue to be a sponge to soak up a never-ending flow of the blood of our young women and men.

How bad could that get? In August of 2008, Brandon Friedman pointed out:

Afghanistan is now deadlier than Iraq ever was.
When the Iraq War reached its deadliest peak during a 10-week period in April, May, and June of 2007, 308 coalition troops died. That was 1 out of every 575 troops on the ground at the time.* It was a terrible period in which even the most die-hard Bush supporters began to question the sense in continuing the occupation. By contrast, 105 coalition troops have died in Afghanistan during the past 10 weeks. But because there are only 52,700 troops in Afghanistan, this represents 1 out of every 502 troops on the ground.
The war in Iraq--at its most violent peak--was never as dangerous for our troops as Afghanistan now is. [...]
The fatality rate in Afghanistan during the past 10 weeks would be equivalent to 353 deaths in Iraq at the same time--a rate not even seen during the bloody crescendo of 2007.

Last week:

[...] In August 2009, a soldier in Afghanistan was more than 16 times as likely to get killed as a soldier in Iraq. So far this year, 242 soldiers have died in Afghanistan compared to 128 in Iraq though there are just over half as many troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

In fact, Afghanistan is overall the more lethal conflict for soldiers on the ground, according to the analysis of the ratio of troop deaths from 2002 to September 2009, with an average monthly ratio of more than 42 deaths per 100,000 troops compared to 39 in Iraq.

Though many more troops have died in Iraq -- 4349 compared to 873 in Afghanistan as of Monday -- the ratio remains higher in Afghanistan due to the far-smaller U.S. troop levels in that country. (The ratio still pales in comparison to previous wars -- by some estimates, the Vietnam War ratio of deaths per 100,000 was more than 10 times higher: 667.)

There are charts at that link.

How is our Army holding up, by the way? Sleight of hand semi-conceals the answer:

In fact, however, fewer people joined the Army this year than last year. The Army exceeded its recruitment goals not because recruitment went up but rather because recruitment goals were lowered.

See Kaplan's article for more details. Meanwhile, journalists prepare to say Goodbye Baghdad, Hello Kabul. And how's that drone war going in Afghanistan? Up to 320 Civilians Killed in Pakistan Drone War.

And we're still shaky on the intel -- not being so shaky is, you'll recall, one of the rationales for a large footprint in Afghanistan -- resulting in our killing al Qaeda leaders who inconveniently hold press conferences as to how they've alive.

If you'd like to consider an unconventional idea for the Afghanistan problem, how about turning it over to the Chinese?

[...] There's a fair bit to like in such a plan, for almost all concerned. The US gets out of a quagmire intact, China gets resources and the chance to act like a super-power. Russia gets regional stability, the other SCO nations get increased trade and the opportunity to act beneficially on the world stage. Pakistan gets strategic depth. The main losers would be Al Qaida, the Pakistani Taliban and India. The latter would need some pretty big economic carrots from China and America to swallow losing short-term influence in Afghanistan to its Chinese rival. But India would benefit too from removal of Pakistan's reasons to use proxies and in the longer term from the chance to grow into the super-power it should be without having to waste energy on Pakistan or China for at least a couple of decades.

Steve Hynd thinks the Chinese "will propose some solution along these lines sometime in the next 12 months." Check with him to see if he's taking bets. Another option:

[...] US and Western troops should leave. But because Afghanistan will remain dependent on international aid for development and security, troops cannot leave without something to fill the vacancy.

The solution? Muslim and regional states must fill the void.

[...]

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, the association of more than four dozen Muslim states, should set up an Afghanistan contact group, led by Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

The group would lead a coalition of Muslim states responsible for political reconciliation, peacekeeping, economic development, and governmental capacity building in Afghanistan. Wealthy Muslim states such as Malaysia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates can provide funding.

Members of NATO and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes China and Russia, can also contribute donations and offer expertise.

But the military presence must be limited to personnel from Muslim states. Given Afghanistan's problematic relations with its neighbors, peacekeepers should come from nonneighboring Muslim states, including Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, and Turkey.

Many of those nations have valuable experience to offer. Bangladesh, for example, is a leading troop contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions. Turkey (a NATO member) and the UAE already have a physical presence in Afghanistan. Peacekeeping in Afghanistan would be a natural extension of their present foreign missions.

Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey have the most developed bureaucracies and armies among Muslim states. They can help train the Afghan civil, foreign, and security services. A Muslim-led mission in Afghanistan would offer middle powers such as Egypt and Turkey an opportunity to revitalize regional leadership roles they once had. It would also provide regional rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia with a platform to constructively resolve a problem integral to their security concerns and interests.

And a number of international organizations, such as the Islamic Development Bank as well as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, should help continue to rebuild Afghanistan's economy.

Yeah, I'm not going to hold my breath on this, either.

But ultimately a huge American commitment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan is unsustainable.

The threat to the U.S. that we're allegedly suppressing is immensely unclear at best.

The cost that is being proposed we pay, in blood, and treasure, is far too high.

And fewer families should have to visit that chapel at Fort Carson.

ADDENDUM: October 20th, 10:36 p.m.: Thanks, digby!

Some other things to note: this Leah Farrall piece at All Things Counter Terrorism on the distinctions between Taliban and al Qaeda groups, that Steve Hynd pointed out to me, is quite fascinating. Newshoggers is a terrific blog, by the way.

Also, I agree with Spencer Ackerman here.

And I've written a bunch more comments on all this here.

ADDENDUM, October 22nd, 10:08 p.m.: Correction to a bit in my post: I cited Fred Kaplan on Army recruitment numbers. Kaplan now writes that he got the numbers wrong.

MY GOOD NAME

2009-10-16T23:15:00.000-04:00

MY GOOD NAME. Oh, great.

Old habits apparently die hard.

A former World Trade Center currency trader convicted of conning his clients out of $110 million is now accused of scamming the company that gave him a job as part of his work release program.

The owners of the Ahava ambulette service in Brooklyn said they gave Gary Farber an office job in 2007 so he could "start a new life" and he repaid them by starting a competing company that used the Ahava's ambulettes on the sly, according to their civil suit.

They said Farber even named his company Akiva, which is similar to Ahava's name. Farber, also known as Gary Farberov, was president of First Equity Enterprises, which was headquartered in the World Trade Center, and was a trading arm of Evergreen International Spot Trading. He was convicted in 2001.

Not even a relation, so far as I know.

And I don't even get a piece of the $110 million.

The actual me did this Mind Meld the other day, though, on the thrilling question of "Who are some of the best villains in science fiction, fantasy, and/or horror film?"

I should have gone for the funny, but I was apparently having a highly didactic day.

In some other random bits, I think Stargate Universe is turning out to have dialogue/bits that are as funny as SG-1 could be, but it's simply done more subtly and dryly than characters making quips.

Does this picture alone say "Seventies blaxploitation film," or what?

While procrastinating on working on A Serious Post, I ended up writing far too many comments on tv sf, and how it compares to text sf, and the pros and cons of Babylon 5, and related perennials, in Charlie Stross's comment thread here.

This has to work, because it's the most goddam science-fictional looking-and-sounding propulsion system I've ever seen or heard.

Besides, who wouldn't want to fly with a Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket? Tom Swift would want one!

[...] "It's the most powerful plasma rocket in the world right now," says Franklin Chang-Diaz, former NASA astronaut and CEO of Ad Astra. The company has signed an agreement with NASA to test a 200-kilowatt VASIMR engine on the International Space Station (ISS) in 2013. The engine could provide periodic boosts to the ISS, which gradually drops in altitude due to atmospheric drag. ISS boosts are currently provided by spacecraft with conventional thrusters, which consume about 7.5 tonnes of propellant per year. By cutting this amount down to 0.3 tonnes, Chang-Diaz estimates that VASIMR could save NASA millions of dollars per year.

Chang-Diaz has been working on the development of the VASIMR concept since 1979, before founding Ad Astra in 2005 to further develop the project. The technology uses radio waves to heat gases such as hydrogen, argon, and neon, creating hot plasma. Magnetic fields force the charged plasma out the back of the engine, producing thrust in the opposite direction. Due to the high velocity that this method achieves, less fuel is required than in conventional engines. In addition, VASIMR has no physical electrodes in contact with the plasma, prolonging the engine's lifetime and enabling a higher power density than in other designs.

More here:

[...] A 10- to 20-megawatt class VASIMR engine could propel human missions to Mars in as little as 39 days, he says, compared to the six months or more required with conventional rockets.

If nothing else, it'll make a great movie prop.

Read The Rest Scale: 0 out of 5 on the first; up to you on the second; I was kinda boring, actually. The rest: depends if it charges your plasma.

IT'S VIDEO THURSDAY, AND MORE!

2009-10-08T14:38:00.010-04:00

IT'S VIDEO THURSDAY, AND MORE! (You could take this to mean that: a) Gary is feeling lazy; b) Gary is hopelessly overworked; c) Gary is terribly ill and in pain; d) Gary is procrastinating; e) Gary has been called away on a mission to assassinate Facebook managers who run buggy servers and a horrible GUI. Take your pick!)

Remember, at Amygdala and our new corporate partner, Viridian Dynamics, we believe all our readers are special and individual:

We believe you like violence in vegetables; meet the Big Bertha of pumpkin cannons:

Did you realize that Eric Idle has recast Monty Python and is touring with Monty Python's greatest hits?

Among the cast: Alan Tudyk and Jane Leeves. If I attended the Ricardo Montalban Theatre, I'd have to restrain an urge to bellow "KHAAAAANNNN!" It would just seem called for.

At Amygdala, we believe in time-saving. Kill Bill Parts 1 & 2, in One Minute, in One Take (and titles):

Having saved those four hours, if you like, you can watch The History Channel's new documentary on Tolkien's mythology and Tolkien's personal history; they'll doubtless show this again several thousand times. I haven't seen all of it yet, but since part of it is on Tolkien's experiences in WWI, I expect Hitler will put in his mandatory History Channel appearance.

HISTORY'S Clash of the Gods: Tolkien's Monsters

Or you could go with their documentary on space wars.

Speaking of such, want your Star Wars without clunky George Lucas dialogue?

Lots more about that and lots more links here. All the beautiful SW visual art, and no wincing.

Still with your Amygdala, genre fans? Nathan Fillion explains why he takes off his pants to tell kids to turn down their radio:

I'm not sure if you can see this unless you're on Facebook, but if you can, you must check out this magnificent new USB attachment for delivering wine. C'est révolutionnaire!

Want to just get away from it all? I'm not a huge Disney fan, but this is definitely a feel-good, kewl, short video.

I had to look up what "tilt-shift" photography was, myself, but *you* probably already know.

Elsewhere in links Gary has been putting on Facebook: The Electro-Plasmic Hydrocephalic Genre Fiction Generator 2000. My first use of it generated:

On a coal-powered terraformed Mars, a milquetoast office drone stumbles across an otherworldly portal which spurs him into conflict with computer viruses made real, with the aid of a sarcastic female techno-geek and her wacky pet, culminating in a philosophical argument punctuated by violence. The title: The Metadroid.

Fred Pohl makes a Brooklyn-born-and-bred-boy's heart beat with pride.

Captain of her own spaceship, currently visiting Saturn, Carolyn Porco.

Via John Robinson, a lawyer letter typo classic. See paragraph 2, sentence 4. Lawyers rarely confess to actually doing this.

Also via John, Moserware: A Stick Figure Guide to the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). Exactly at my level. Until it gets to the math. No one told me math would be involved.

On an incongruously serious note, if you read this, you can keep a candle of memory flickering just a moment longer. And the moral questions it raises may, perhaps, flicker much longer within you.

Raising an entirely different sort of moral question, everything goes better with bananas. Or does it?

And other delicious banana recipes.

Facebook members may appreciate The latest updates from Barack Obama's Facebook feed and Superhero Facebook Status Updates. If you're not on Facebook, these two items will give you exactly the Facebook experience, but minus the FUBAR GUI and endless software/server glitches that make Facebook management so beloved.

Facebook members protest:

Thus provoking a lot of dirty words, causing Jesse Sheidlower of the OED to explain why it's so hard to put sex in the dictionary, and that question you've always wondered about: "Can a Woman 'Prong' a Man?"

Jesse, I'll remind you, is also behind the OED Sf Citations Project.

I'm sure you're feeling hungry after all this. Have some lollipops. Try maple-bacon.

Or absinthe, bourbon, chai tea, irish cream, lavender, pomegranate tangerine, wasabi ginger, or white russian flavored. Got questions? Read the FAQ; you won't be sorry. Includes such highlights as:

Are your absinthe lollys legal?
Yep. After a ridiculously long prohibition, absinthe has officially made a comeback. The US Government recently approved the sale of absinthe within certain guidelines, namely that there is less than 10ppm of thujone. Our Absinthe Lollipops contain an amount of thujone that is within the legal limits set by the US regulatory authorities and of the European Union.

Do you use real bacon in your candy?
Indeed we do. And across the board we only use the most high-quality ingredients available. So that bacon? It’s not just real- it’s sustainably farmed.

Will the absinthe lollipops get me wasted?
Our absinthe lollipops will get you as wasted as will beer-battered chicken, bourbon-infused BBQ sauce, or lasagna alla vodka- which is to say, no: they do not contain alcohol. Furthermore, the myth of thujone is just that.

Someone notify Herbie Popnecker immediately.

Now that you've eaten, you need sports entertainment. One black hole wrestles another! Two black holes enter NGC 6240 , one black hole leaves! Okay, stays.

Black Holes Go 'Mano a Mano'

And NASA Space Telescope Discovers Largest Ring Around Saturn:

In conclusion, my friends, remember: Amygdala believes in teamwork:

Stay gruntled.

Read The Rest Scale: make up your own mind; I'm tired.

EVERYONE PLAY THE HOME GAME

2009-10-06T14:58:00.005-04:00

EVERYONE PLAY THE HOME GAME! Make. Money. Fast. by playing the distributed Big Brother game! Can you say "government-sponored voyeurism"? I knew you could!

Britain, already one of the most snooped-upon nations on Earth, is about to become a nation of snoopers.

A network of citizen crimewatchers will be given the chance of winning up to £1,000 by monitoring CCTV security cameras over the internet.

The cameras’ owners will pay a fee to have users watch the footage. The scheme, Internet Eyes, is being promoted as a game and is expected to go “live” next month with a test run in Stratford-upon-Avon.

Subscribers will be able to register free and will be given up to four cameras to monitor.

Eventually the consortium behind the idea hopes to have internet users around the world focused on Britain’s 4.2 million security cameras, waiting to see and report a crime in return for cash prizes.

Losers get to play The Running Man.

But there's more to the game!

[...] In addition to camera footage, the Internet Eyes website will also feature a rogues’ gallery of criminals along with a list of their offences and which internet user helped to catch them.

Tony Morgan, who set up the site, said: “This could turn out to be the best crime prevention weapon there’s ever been. I wanted to combine the serious business of stopping crime with the incentive of winning money.

Yes. Yes, because everything is better if you can win money for it.

My follow-up idea, good only in the United States, China, and Iran (where I have patents pending): live electrocutions of prisoners sentenced to die, while home viewers compete for cash prizes as to who can click fastest to actually execute the prisoner before anyone else does! It's crime deterrence with the incentive of winning money!

Back in Britain:

[...] Subscribers will try to collect points by monitoring cameras in real time. If they see anything suspicious, they will click a button to send a still picture and text message to the camera’s owner.

The owner will then send a feedback e-mail to the person reporting the incident, indicating whether there has been a crime or suspected crime.

Users will be awarded one point for spotting a suspected crime and three if they see an actual crime. They can also lose points if the camera operator decides that the alert was not a crime.

I'm just sorry Phil Dick didn't live to read this stuff, and confirm for himself just how accurately he modeled Teh Future than _Analog_ ever did. (Where are my L5 colonies, Mr. Smarty-Pants Campbell? Eh? Eh?)

Regardless, what Britain needs are more CCTV cameras:

[...] Britain is one of the world’s most monitored societies, with one camera per fourteen people. It has 20 per cent of the world’s CCTV cameras, but only one per cent of the global population.

To be sure, David Brin would approve, and Charles Platt tells me on Facebook that: "The cameras aren't going to go away. Therefore, it's better to have equal access to them than access only by a privileged few."

So I'm not worried! I just want a cut of the profits! And I think my home execution game is going to earn me teh big bucks!

Does anyone here speak Mandarin? Farsi? I'll cut you in if you help me negotiate the deal!

But even if I just get a deal in the U.S.: profit!

Read The Rest Scale: 3 out of 5. Tip also to Cheryl Morgan.

ARE YOU THE "UNKNOWN LIBERAL"?

2009-10-05T20:56:00.025-04:00

ARE YOU "THE UNKNOWN LIBERAL"? Pick me, pick me!

Jerry Falwell's offspring of Liberty University, the Liberty Counsel, has a wonderful new idea!

[...] Liberty Counsel has therefore named this special new prayer-in-action program Adopt a Liberal. And that's exactly what we invite you to do -- adopt a liberal who is in authority for regular, intense prayer in accord with St. Paul's admonition to his disciple, Timothy. In fact, we expect that many of our friends and supporters will choose to adopt many liberals as subjects of regular prayer!

How does it work, you ask?

Here's How it Works...
Pick one or more of the liberals from the list we have posted online at www.LC.org, or choose your own liberal(s) to adopt. If you are led to choose one or more of the liberals we have selected for consideration, please read their brief biographical statement, including the reasons they stand in need of prayer.

Pray earnestly and intensely for them! Pray that the Lord would move upon them and cause them to be the kind of leaders who will encourage others to lead "a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence." We encourage you to seek the Lord's guidance on how to pray for your liberal(s), always allowing Him to temper your prayer with His love and mercy.

Join Us as We Pray for God's Powerful
Intervention in Many Liberals' Lives
Please pray daily for the liberal(s) of your choice, so each can become a good influence on our Nation's culture. Prayer is powerful! It allows God to change the minds of those for whom we are praying. In fact, we fully expect that many of our adoptees will "graduate" from this prayer program with vivid testimonies of God having changed their lives and worldviews!

I nominate myself as "The "Unknown Liberal."

No, really, that's a choice. You can't make this crap up.

The "Unknown Liberal"

There will likely be additional liberals the Lord may bring to mind who desperately need your prayers. Feel free to select your own unique liberal and adopt them for prayer, perhaps even nominating one or more liberals for listing on our website by emailing us at liberty@LC.org.

Here's something I bet you didn't know about one of their picks:

John Holdren, White House Director of Science and Technology

President Obama's 'Science Czar' is one of the administration's many unelected, unconfirmed, and unaccountable senior policy officials. Holdren has suggested compulsory sterilization and abortion as appropriate policies for population control. He is on record as calling for the national government dictating how large families can be. Dr. Holdren is a 'one world order' proponent, stating that, 'a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources.' In an article he co-authored, Holdren advocated sterilization through government-controlled tainting of the water supply.

I believe this with all my heart and soul.

Other picks, and terrifying facts about them: Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State:

[...] She advocated that homosexuals should be able to serve in the military without concealing their unnatural sexual preferences and she co-sponsored a bill that was intended to provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.

Barney Frank, Congressman, Massachusetts:

[...] Americans United for Separation of Church and State concluded that he is 100% committed to their stated goal of suppressing religious expression in public life

Yes. That is their goal, and Barney Frank is committed to it. As am I.

Then there's:

Barry Lynn, Executive Director of AU
Reverend Barry W. Lynn is the radical Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU). His group uses "whistle blowing" techniques to harass Christian groups and churches, trying to embroil conservative and religious organizations in legal battles over their tax-exempt status. AU conveniently overlooks abuses by leftist groups. [...]

Of course, that could because "leftist groups" don't try to get government to endorse their religion. That, I'm sure, has nothing whatever to do with it.

But enough of these small fry, you say! What about the true anti-Christ, Barack Obama? Aside from his other faults, it turns out that :

[...] His policy initiatives have favored socialism, the homosexual agenda, and the funding of infant genocide around the world.

I'd like to see a lot more of that socialism and advancement of the homosexual agenda, but I guess I'll just have to settle for "infant genocide." (And here I was previously unaware that "infants" were a distinct "national, ethnical, racial or religious group," but Liberty Counsel has much to teach all of us!)

You may have noticed that a lot of Liberty Counsel's claims are flat-out lies. Don't let that disturb you! There is, after all, nothing in the Bible/Torah about lying.

Right?

Read The Rest Scale: 2.5 out of 5. More if you want to know the others you should pray for, but they're the usual spawn-of-the-devil suspects.

Keep in mind that Liberty Counsel is "affiliated with":

EDUCATION:

Liberty University
Distance Learning
Liberty Theological Seminary
Liberty Christian Academy
Liberty Online Academy
Liberty Home Bible Institute
Wilmington School of the Bible

ORGANIZATIONS

Liberty Athletics
Thomas Road Baptist Church
Falwell Ministries
Tribute to Dr. Falwell
Elim Home
Liberty Godparent Home
LU Dining
Liberty Baptist Fellowship

EVENTS

Scaremare
College for a Weekend
Winterfest
Liberty Summerfest

MEDIA

Liberty Journal
Liberty Channel
Victory FM (WRVL)
90.9 The Light

More arms than any three cephalopods put together!

Oh, yes, you may have wondered what "Scaremare" is. Me, too. It's this. Wait, what the fuck is that?, you ask.

Aside from one hell a slow-loading animation, that is.

I'm glad you asked!

Since 1972, more than 300,000 people from several states have made the trip through the House of Death that you are about to take.

So, just what is the purpose of this House that everyone wants to visit?
Simply stated, Scaremare presents fun-house rooms and scenes of death in order to confront people with the question “What happens after I die?”

Groups of people are escorted on a 20 minute tour through the House. At the end of the tour, visitors are presented with an answer to this question and given the life-changing message of Jesus Christ. Approximately 26,000 people have made decisions for Christ over the past two decades. So you see, this House of Death really can show you the Way of Life!

Or you can visit Funny Or Die.

And go to hell.

ADDENDUM, 10:20 p.m.: Thanks, Andrew Sullivan!

Visitors, do please consider making even a tiny donation via the PayPal buttons on the left sidebar; I recently twice had to replace my computer, have to move soon, and have little income right now beyond people's subscriptions to, and donations to, this blog, while I'm waiting to see if my Social Security Disability application is approved. Thanks, and apologies for the commercial.

Also, please feel free to look around the blog, and also to come back again.

Stick around for, say, The Ig Nobel Prizes. Or Banned Books. Or Sesame Street does Mad Men or how Nabokov invented smilies, and the need for the Irony Mark. Some mad technology. Be aware of the classic Jack Chick Cthulhu tract. Funny geek news. And so on.

ADDENDUM, October 6th, 12:15 a.m.: Thanks, Digby!

ADDENDUM, October 6th, 1:12 a.m.: Thanks, P.Z.! Thanks, Liberal Values.

ADDENDUM, October 6th, 12:31 p.m.: Thanks, Bilerico Project! Thanks, Arizona Eclectic, for making my words "today's quote." Thanks, Memeorandum! Thanks, Spork In The Fork.

ADDENDUM, October 7th, 12:51 p.m.: Thanks, Avedon!

ADDENDUM, October 10th, 8:20 p.m.: Thanks, Washington Monthly (Steve)!

OCTOBER 11th, 10:40 a.m.: Thanks, Crooks and Liars!

DON'T WORRY, BLOGGERS

2009-10-05T14:17:00.007-04:00

DON'T WORRY, BLOGGERS. Some are already in the typical unnecessary tizzy that comes from not fact-checking a news item. Here is the actual FTC press release on their new policy:

[...] The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.

Background:

[...] The flooding of the Internet with "bogus product reviews," as the National Law Journal recently described, is known as "astroturfing."

The Federal Trade Commission wants to tighten up on it all. So the FTC is revising its "Guidelines Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."

The guidelines haven't been revised since 1980, so blog postings aren't covered. The feds want to incorporate blogs and tweak the language in the guidelines a bit to help consumers better understand what they can realistically expect from the advertised product and who exactly is reviewing the item.

So under the new guidelines, the bloggers and advertisers would be required to disclose compensation, such as payment or even that they received free samples (something the advertising industry opposes because, well, it's a sample, not a payment).

But the idea is that consumers should know the relationship between the blogger and the product manufacturer.

The FTC takes the position that a blogger who not only gets paid but receives free samples might be more inclined to speak favorably about a product.

The other question is about results. The FTC wants that clear, too.

So rather than "results may vary," consumers would more likely see something like "the average person will lose 2 pounds" instead of the 50 pounds that the now-perfect model in the picture says she lost.

Commissioners are expected to get a final version of the new guidelines and vote this fall — only the new guidelines won't carry any direct penalty.

So why craft guidelines that appear to be toothless tigers?

"They basically help advertisers stay out of trouble," said Betsy Lordan, a spokeswoman for the FTC.

But how?

Barry Reingold, a lawyer with Perkins and Coie LLP of Washington, D.C., and a representative of the advertising industry, says the FTC will be able to go after advertisers with the new guidelines. He says an advertiser that violates the guidelines would then be looked at for false advertising, which is illegal and punishable.

Italic emphasis mine.

So: bloggers, no worries. Advertisers that astroturf: worry.

Read The Rest Scale: 2.5 out of 5.

ADDENDUM, 3:07 p.m. the FTC’s Richard Cleland muddies the waters by being a dick, but the bottom line is still that no blogger can get fined, so it doesn't matter what Dick Cleland thinks.

Link via Elissa Malcohn on Facebook. (Who is, incidentally, my only fellow elementary school classmate and friend who went on to become a writer, let alone a fantasy, poetry, and fiction writer, among her many talents.)

ADDENDUM, October 8th, 1:08 p.m.: FTC Responds to Blogger Fears: "That $11,000 Fine Is Not True":

[...] Richard Cleland: "That $11,000 fine is not true. Worst-case scenario, someone receives a warning, refuses to comply, followed by a serious product defect; we would institute a proceeding with a cease-and-desist order and mandate compliance with the law. To the extent that I have seen and heard, people are not objecting to the disclosure requirements but to the fear of penalty if they inadvertently make a mistake. That's the thing I don't think people need to be concerned about. There's no monetary penalty, in terms of the first violation, even in the worst case. Our approach is going to be educational, particularly with bloggers. We're focusing on the advertisers: What kind of education are you providing them, are you monitoring the bloggers and whether what they're saying is true?"

Unless you're an advertising company, or a blogger for a major company, you still have nothing to worry about.

But this sort of thing is why the FTC is cracking down on big corporations and their bribes to big bloggers: Nestle’s Courting of Mommy Bloggers Off the Rails.

ADDENDUM, October 14th, 7:38 p.m.: See also: FTC Clarifies Blogger Guidelines: 'We've Never Brought a Case Against Somebody Simply for Failure to Disclose'.

[...] Meanwhile, FTC assistant director Richard Cleland tells PRNewser that even the $16,000 number doesn't apply. "It doesn't matter whether it's $16,000 or $11,000. The root problem here is that reports that there is a monetary penalty for violating these guidelines is untrue. The FTC does not have the authority to impose a fine for a violation to the FTC act," says Cleland who heads the FTC's division of advertising practices. "There is a provision that allows for a proceeding in federal court that allows for imposing of a monetary penalty for violation of trade regulation laws. The guidelines are not trade regulation laws."

Cleland also said the blogger or endorser would not be fined, but the advertiser would. "We have never brought a case against a consumer endorser and we've never brought a case against somebody simply for failure to disclose a material connection," he said. "Where we have brought cases, there are other issues involved, not only failing to disclose a material connection but also making other misrepresentations about a product, a serious product like a health product or something like that. We have brought those cases but not against the consumer endorser, we have brought those cases against the advertiser that was behind it. If people think that the FTC is going to issue them a citation for $11,000 because they failed to disclose that they got a free box of Pampers, that's not true. That's not going to happen today, not ever."

But this still won't stop some from the-sky-is-falling-ism.

ADDENDUM, November 5th, 2009: And this is why some regulation is needed.

PLEASE STOP, I'M BORED

2009-10-02T16:54:00.014-04:00

PLEASE STOP, I'M BORED was not the reaction I had to yesterday's 2009 Ig® Nobel Prize Ceremony, which I watched on their live video feed. (Sorry, Flash Forward: I had a better date.)

I did a bit of live-blogging in comments at my Facebook page, which probably about three people read. Hilarious ceremony!

There was a silver robot! Okay, a woman colored silver to look like a robot.

The official mechanism to deal with acceptors who went on too long? An 8-year-old girl who walks out and cries: "Please stop! I'm bored! Please stop! I'm bored! Please stop! I'm bored!"

Until the speaker stops. This works really well. All awards ceremonies should do this!

The Hugo ceremonies, I should say, could learn a lot from the Ig Nobel ceremony, although the King And Queen of Swedish Meatballs was purely Ig Nobel.

The Keynote Address (60 seconds long) was by Benoit Mandelbrot.

Various silly events happened, leading to:

[...] The Nobel laureates who physically handed the Ig Nobel Prizes to the new winners:

Rich Roberts (physiology or medicine, 1993)
Wolfgang Ketterle (physics, 2001)
Dudley Herschbach (chemistry, 1986)
Paul Krugman (economics, 2008)
Roy Glauber (physics, 2005) \
Frank Wilczek (physics, 2004)
Martin Chalfie (chemistry, 2008)
Orhan Pamuk (literature 2006)
William Lipscomb (chemistry, 1976)

Then:

The 24/7 Lectures, in which several of the world's top thinkers explained his or her subject twice:

FIRST: a complete technical description in TWENTY-FOUR (24) SECONDS*

AND THEN: a clear summary that anyone can understand, in SEVEN (7) WORDS.
The lecturers and their topics:
Wade Adams, director of the Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science & Technology, at Rice University. Topic: Nanotechnology.

Stephen Wolfram, creator of Wolfram Alpha and of Mathematica, and author of the book A New Kind of Science. Topic: Genius.

Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, and 2008 Nobel laureate in economics. Topic: Economics

Deborah J. Anderson, Professor of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Microbiology at Boston University School of Medicine, and 2008 Ig Nobel Medicine Prize winner. Topic: Contraception

Followed by "The Win-a-Date-With-a-Nobel-Laureate Contest."

Regrettably, it seems that the Ceremony will not be made available on the web any time soon. As a substitute, the Ig Nobel Tour of the UK, which was sponsored by the British Science Association as part of the National Science and Engineering Week, March 6-15, 2009, and is much much slower, far less zippy, and, hey, very long!:

And a short ABC News news report on the 2008 prizes:

He explains how they're not ridiculing science, which is very much true! (Charles Platt, for the record, has told me he disagrees; in turn, I respectfully disagree with Charles.)

You'll probably have a lot more patience with the short second video than the long first one.

I was hoping Betsy Devine would blog about the ceremony, given that her husband, Frank Wilczek, was a participant, but as yet, no such post.

The official list of Ignataries. (The website is, unsurprisingly, very slow today; you may want to come back later, if it's still slow when you try clicking.)

The actual honored winners (for real, and valuable, though funny, science):

VETERINARY MEDICINE PRIZE: Catherine Douglas and Peter Rowlinson of Newcastle University, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK, for showing that cows who have names give more milk than cows that are nameless.

REFERENCE: "Exploring Stock Managers' Perceptions of the Human-Animal Relationship on Dairy Farms and an Association with Milk Production," Catherine Bertenshaw [Douglas] and Peter Rowlinson, Anthrozoos, vol. 22, no. 1, March 2009, pp. 59-69. DOI: 10.2752/175303708X390473.

WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Peter Rowlinson. Catherine Douglas was unable to travel because she recently gave birth; she sent a photo of herself, her new daughter dressed in a cow suit, and a cow.

PEACE PRIZE: Stephan Bolliger, Steffen Ross, Lars Oesterhelweg, Michael Thali and Beat Kneubuehl of the University of Bern, Switzerland, for determining — by experiment — whether it is better to be smashed over the head with a full bottle of beer or with an empty bottle.

REFERENCE: "Are Full or Empty Beer Bottles Sturdier and Does Their Fracture-Threshold Suffice to Break the Human Skull?" Stephan A. Bolliger, Steffen Ross, Lars Oesterhelweg, Michael J. Thali and Beat P. Kneubuehl, Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, vol. 16, no. 3, April 2009, pp. 138-42. DOI:10.1016/j.jflm.2008.07.013.

WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Stephan Bolliger

ECONOMICS PRIZE: The directors, executives, and auditors of four Icelandic banks — Kaupthing Bank, Landsbanki, Glitnir Bank, and Central Bank of Iceland — for demonstrating that tiny banks can be rapidly transformed into huge banks, and vice versa — and for demonstrating that similar things can be done to an entire national economy.

CHEMISTRY PRIZE: Javier Morales, Miguel Apátiga, and Victor M. Castaño of Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, for creating diamonds from liquid — specifically from tequila.

REFERENCE: "Growth of Diamond Films from Tequila," Javier Morales, Miguel Apatiga and Victor M. Castano, 2008, arXiv:0806.1485.

WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Javier Morales and Miguel Apátiga

MEDICINE PRIZE: Donald L. Unger, of Thousand Oaks, California, USA, for investigating a possible cause of arthritis of the fingers, by diligently cracking the knuckles of his left hand — but never cracking the knuckles of his right hand — every day for more than sixty (60) years.

REFERENCE: "Does Knuckle Cracking Lead to Arthritis of the Fingers?", Donald L. Unger, Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 41, no. 5, 1998, pp. 949-50.

WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Donald Unger

PHYSICS PRIZE: Katherine K. Whitcome of the University of Cincinnati, USA, Daniel E. Lieberman of Harvard University, USA, and Liza J. Shapiro of the University of Texas, USA, for analytically determining why pregnant women don't tip over.

REFERENCE: "Fetal Load and the Evolution of Lumbar Lordosis in Bipedal Hominins," Katherine K. Whitcome, Liza J. Shapiro & Daniel E. Lieberman, Nature, vol. 450, 1075-1078 (December 13, 2007). DOI:10.1038/nature06342.

WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Katherine Whitcome and Daniel Lieberman

LITERATURE PRIZE: Ireland's police service (An Garda Siochana), for writing and presenting more than fifty traffic tickets to the most frequent driving offender in the country — Prawo Jazdy — whose name in Polish means "Driving License".

WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: [Karolina Lewestam, a Polish citizen and holder of a Polish driver's license, speaking on behalf of all her fellow Polish licensed drivers, expressed her good wishes to the Irish police service.]

PUBLIC HEALTH PRIZE: Elena N. Bodnar, Raphael C. Lee, and Sandra Marijan of Chicago, Illinois, USA, for inventing a brassiere that, in an emergency, can be quickly converted into a pair of gas masks, one for the brassiere wearer and one to be given to some needy bystander.

REFERENCE: U.S. patent # 7255627, granted August 14, 2007 for a “Garment Device Convertible to One or More Facemasks.”

WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Elena Bodnar.

MATHEMATICS PRIZE: Gideon Gono, governor of Zimbabwe’s Reserve Bank, for giving people a simple, everyday way to cope with a wide range of numbers — from very small to very big — by having his bank print bank notes with denominations ranging from one cent ($.01) to one hundred trillion dollars ($100,000,000,000,000).

REFERENCE: Zimbabwe's Casino Economy — Extraordinary Measures for Extraordinary Challenges, Gideon Gono, ZPH Publishers, Harare, 2008, ISBN 978-079-743-679-4.

BIOLOGY PRIZE: Fumiaki Taguchi, Song Guofu, and Zhang Guanglei of Kitasato University Graduate School of Medical Sciences in Sagamihara, Japan, for demonstrating that kitchen refuse can be reduced more than 90% in mass by using bacteria extracted from the feces of giant pandas.

REFERENCE: "Microbial Treatment of Kitchen Refuse With Enzyme-Producing Thermophilic Bacteria From Giant Panda Feces," Fumiaki Taguchia, Song Guofua, and Zhang Guanglei, Seibutsu-kogaku Kaishi, vol. 79, no 12, 2001, pp. 463-9. [and abstracted in Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, vol. 92, no. 6, 2001, p. 602.]

REFERENCE: "Microbial Treatment of Food-Production Waste with Thermopile Enzyme-Producing Bacterial Flora from a Giant Panda" [in Japanese], Fumiaki Taguchi, Song Guofu, Yasunori Sugai, Hiroyasu Kudo and Akira Koikeda, Journal of the Japan Society of Waste Management Experts, vol. 14, no. 2, 2003, pp. , 76-82.

WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY: Fumiaki Taguchi

Alas that you can't see the video of the ceremony; you'll just have to take my word, or not, that it was hilarious, very fast-paced, and a great show. With science!

To make up with this lack, a completely unconnected video that nonetheless, despite my being relatively indifferent to things Disney, made me feel good to watch:

Via the Disney Parks Blog, via Virginia Postrel on Facebook.

I like videos that make me smile, because I was born anxious. Which is why I keep putting off blogging about this latter piece, but you should read it!

Read The Rest Scale: 4 out of 5 for that last, if you want to know yet more about depressed and anxious people like me! Click on the other links as interested. Check the Disney video, which was made with tilt-shift photography, which you probably know all about, but I had to look up.

Full poster here, by the way.

The Annals of Improbable Research, in free low-res PDF, and higher-res versions you can pay for. The ceremony has among its co-sponsors the Harvard-Radcliffe Science Fiction Association (HRSFA), the Harvard-Radcliffe Society of Physics Students (SPS), and the Harvard Computer Society.

I also regret to report that my first experiment with using Blogger's New Editing software, and the "Compose" option did not go well; I had just about finished, and was back to editing final bits of spacing in "edit HTML" mode when the editor abruptly swallowed half my post, immediately saved the new "draft" over the old one, and that was that, leaving me to reconstruct the first half from scratch again. Wot. A. Time. Saver.

I'm still proceeding -- slowly -- through the process of switching to a new, more modern, template, and I hope it will go more smoothly than composing this post did.

By the way, does anyone have any tips as to how to create an account to comment on a Wordpress blog? There doesn't seem to be a damned thing here about it, and the help only turns up info on how to install comments on your Wordpress blog, and so on. Meanwhile, few Wordpress blogs seem to bother to explain the secret of how you create an account. They just ask you to log in, and offer to help you find the lost password for the account you don't have. Neither is this any use.

ADDENDUM, October 3rd, 2009, 8:41 p.m.: I more or less gained a general understanding of this via the distinction between wordpress.org and wordpress.com being pointed out to me, and also that some wordpress blogs use their own, unlabeled, system of registration to comment which requires owner approval. So I have an account now, but still have problems with certain blogs. Thanks to Keith Ivey on Facebook for help, and John Robinson via email.

I IS HAPPY MAN

2009-10-01T09:54:00.001-04:00

I IS HAPPY MAN. Sesame Street does Mad Men.

Actually, I'm rather anxious man; but this video helps for a few moments.

View The Rest Scale: probably only if you've ever enjoyed Mad Men, which I have to say I admire more than I'm all that mad for; I like it, but I don't lurve it; but that's good enough to post this.

YOU SAY NEWCLEAR, I SAY MORECLEAR, LET'S ALL SAY NUCLEAR

2009-09-30T12:32:00.014-04:00

YOU SAY NEWCLEAR, I SAY MORECLEAR, LET'S ALL SAY NUCLEAR, let's call the whole war off.

I just want to go on record with what I've elaborated at length upon in blog comments elsewhere many times in the past year or more, which is that this is what I believe is far and away most likely the case:

[...] Mr. Sick, like some in the intelligence community, said he believed that Iran might intend to stop short of building a weapon while creating “breakout capability” — the ability to make a bomb in a matter of months in the future. That chain of events might allow room for later intervention.

Without actually constructing a bomb, Iran could gain the influence of being an almost nuclear power, without facing the repercussions that would ensue if it finished the job.

Setting aside whatever difficulties might ensue in possibly backing down from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's fatwa forbiding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons as un-Islamic, reportedly saying "[w]e fundamentally reject nuclear weapons," there are huge downsides to Iran actually testing a nuclear weapon, were they to proceed with weaponizing sufficient Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) to High Enriched Uranium (somewhere between 20% and 85% enriched), which there are no actual signs of them doing, and yet almost all of the deterrent benefits of simply achieving break-out capacity, such as Japan maintains, are there by remaining in a state of being able to construct a nuclear weapon in short order, whether a matter of weeks or months, with far less downside than actually assembling a working weapon.

So unless Iran were to feel threatened enough, or otherwise see some major advantage to be gained that would outweigh the obvious downside of proceeding to enrich their LEU to HEU, and then further actually constructing and testing a fission bomb, it seems only logical to conclude that they would be most likely to, if not remain at their current status of simply producing LEU usable only for energy production, go no further than break-out capacity.

And let me also emphasize that while designing a constructing a basic fission device is relatively technically trivial nowadays, constructing one small enough to fit on a missile is not.

If you'd like to know more about how easy it is to construct a nuclear weapon, once you have fissionable material, just ask truck driver John Coster-Mullen, aka "Atomic John," or simply read the fascinating New Yorker piece on him from the December 15th, 2008 issue, which you should anyway, because it's a damn good reading.

Meanwhile, to restate the banal:

[...] Greg Thielmann, an intelligence analyst in the State Department before the Iraq war, said he believed that the Iran intelligence assessments were far more balanced, in part because there was not the urgent pressure from the White House to reach a particular conclusion, as there was in 2002. But he said he was bothered by what he said was an exaggerated sense of crisis over the Iranian nuclear issue.

“Some people are saying time’s running out and we have to act by the end of the year,” said Mr. Thielmann, now a senior fellow at the Arms Control Association. “I’ve been arguing that we have years, not months. The facts argue for a calmer approach.”

Meanwhile, for better or worse, sanctions are unlikely to work:

[...] If the West does impose “draconian sanction” they will shove Iran firmly into China’s orbit unless China is onside with the sanctions. It is unlikely China will be. China has very consistently supported the individual sovereignty of various countries the West tries to use sanctions against (both Burma and Sudan, among others), and they are willing to back it up with large amounts of aid, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but for cold hard pragmatic reasons.

One major arm of China’s foreign policy is to lock up as much access to natural resources as possible and helping Iran is part of that policy.

And in particular:

[...] Citing unnamed traders and bankers, the Financial Times said state-owned Chinese oil companies were selling the petrol through intermediaries and now accounted for a third of Tehran's gasoline imports.

[...]

Between 30,000 and 40,000 barrels of gasoline per day of Chinese petrol makes its way from Asian spot markets to Iran through third parties, the report said, quoting Lawrence Eagles, head of commodities research at JP Morgan.

This accounts about 33 percent of Iran's import of 120,000 barrels per day, the report said.

[...]

Shum said China this year added new refining capacity and in August exported 140,000 barrels of gasoline per day, the highest level this year, although the data did not give a breakdown of the destination countries.

He said one third of Iran's imports is "well within the capacity of China to supply" given the high volume of its gasoline shipments.

Not to mention that back in 2008:

[...] Iran is constructing seven refineries in an effort to boost its crude and gas refining capacity by more than 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd), a senior oil official was quoted as saying on Saturday.

"The construction of seven refineries has started with the investment of 15 billion euros ($23.22 billion)," Mehr news agency quoted Aminollah Eskandari, a director of the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company (NIORDC) as saying. "About 1.56 million barrels will be added to the country's capacity to refine crude oil and gas derivatives," he added.

[...]

Tehran, in 2006 started on a multi-billion dollar, five-year programme to expand and upgrade its domestic refining capacity to 3.3 million bpd from the current 1.65 million bpd.

Eskandari said all seven refineries would be on stream by 2012.

All further sanctions are apt to do is cause more Iranians to undergo some annoying gasoline shortages for a couple of years -- maybe -- and rightfully blame the United States, and cause them to further grudgingly support their government in defending their country's lawful right under Article 4, section 1 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes:

[...] 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.

Yes, we can get into the weeds of the various applicable UN Security Council resolutions, but you can read up on those for yourself, elsewhere; my point is as regards the likely effect of sanctions on the polity of Iran, and the considerable unlikeliness of sanctions keeping Iran from proceeding to nuclear weapons break-out capacity, if that's what the Iranian government decides is in its own national interest.

Incidentally, if Israel's government was crazy and stupid enough to attempt an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, they wouldn't have pass through Iraqi airspace, as I discussed in three comments in a row here, and in some comments following those, in Obsidian Wings comments back in early August.

Read The Rest Scale: 3 out of 5.

ADDENDUM: October 1st, 2009, 7:57 a.m.: Iranian Opposition Warns Against Stricter Sanctions:

As the United States and its allies consider further sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, opponents of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fear that such punishment could have unintended consequences, strengthening the government's hand against domestic dissent and triggering an even harsher crackdown on political foes.

[...]

Opposition leaders have denounced what they view as Ahmadinejad's antagonistic foreign policy, but they are in no position to criticize the previously undisclosed construction near Qom of a second uranium-enrichment plant -- the latest bone of contention between Iran and the West -- for fear of being targeted as traitors to a national cause: the pursuit of nuclear energy and technological advancement.

Like I said.

ADDENDUM, October 1st, 1:05 p.m. I should add that Iran started rationing gasoline in June 2007, and although there were a few riots initially, by November of 2008:

[...] Iran's Oil Minister Gholam-Hossein Nozari said on Saturday that gasoline rationing scheme has helped the country to curb the consumption as much as 20 million liters a day, Iran's Energy and Oil Information Network (SHANA) reported.

So it's not as if Iranians aren't used to gasoline rationing.

ADDENDUM, October 1st, 6:34 p.m.: Scott Ritter's view.

ADDENDUM, October 1st, 7:06 p.m. Startlingly:

GENEVA — Iran agreed in principle Thursday to ship most of its enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be refined for exclusively peaceful uses, in what Western diplomats called a significant, but interim, measure to ease concerns over its nuclear program.

[...]

Under the tentative deal, Iran would ship what a U.S. official said was "most" of its approximately 3,300 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be further refined. French technicians then would fabricate it into fuel rods and return it to Tehran to power a nuclear research reactor that's used to make isotopes for nuclear medicine

[...]

The State Department allowed Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, to visit Washington on Wednesday, waiving regulations that usually confine Iranian diplomats within a 25-mile radius of the United Nations in downtown Manhattan. Mottaki didn't meet U.S. officials, but visited Iran's interests section, which is overseen by Pakistan, because the United States and Iran have no diplomatic relations.

ADDENDUM, October 4th, 4:21 p.m.: Sensible advice worth considering from Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett. Via Juan Cole. Also an interesting report asserting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's family has Jewish roots.

ADDENDUM, October 5th, 2009, 3:24 p.m.: see also Fareed Zakaria on "They May Not Want The Bomb And other unexpected truths."

BAN A BOOK TOMORROW.

2009-09-29T15:16:00.006-04:00

BAN A BOOK TOMORROW. No, that's not right. Stop people from banning books! That's the ticket. It's the American Library Association's annual Banned Books week.

The ten most banned books of 2008:

And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell
Reasons: anti-ethnic, anti-family, homosexuality, religious viewpoint, and unsuited to age group

His Dark Materials trilogy, by Philip Pullman
Reasons: political viewpoint, religious viewpoint, and violence

TTYL; TTFN; L8R, G8R (series), by Lauren Myracle
Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit, and unsuited to age
group

Scary Stories (series), by Alvin Schwartz
Reasons: occult/satanism, religious viewpoint, and violence

Bless Me, Ultima, by Rudolfo Anaya
Reasons: occult/satanism, offensive language, religious viewpoint,
sexually explicit, and violence

The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky
Reasons: drugs, homosexuality, nudity, offensive language, sexually
explicit, suicide, and unsuited to age group

Gossip Girl (series), by Cecily von Ziegesar
Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit, and unsuited to age
group

Uncle Bobby's Wedding, by Sarah S. Brannen
Reasons: homosexuality and unsuited to age group

The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini
Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit, and unsuited to age group

Flashcards of My Life, by Charise Mericle Harper
Reasons: sexually explicit and unsuited to age group

Bring home a banned book this week.

What else You Can Do.

How widespread were events of books being banned in 2008-9? This widespread.

View Book Bans and Challenges, 2007-2009 in a larger map

Read more about Books Challenged or Banned in 2007-2008.

Read The Rest Scale: 4 out of 5.

ADDENDUM, September 30th, 9:33 a.m.: as I said to someone on Facebook yesterday, if the ALA had a sense of irony, and it was appropriate, all they need to do when listing the reasons for the banning of all these books is put down "satanic."

2009-09-27T18:36:00.006-04:00

SMILIES WERE GOOD ENOUGH FOR NABOKOV, so they're good enough for me.

[...] How do you rank yourself among writers (living) and of the immediate past?

I often think there should exist a special typographical sign for a smile-- some sort of concave mark, a supine round bracket, which I would now like to trace in reply to your question.

So said Vladimir Nabokov to the New York Times in 1969.

I've been pointing this out to folks since Usenet days in the mid-Nineties, but somehow never got around to blogging it.

Meanwhile, we still need the irony mark:

The irony mark or irony point (⸮) (French: point d’ironie; also called a snark or zing) is a proposed punctuation mark that was suggested to be used to indicate that a sentence should be understood at a second level (e.g. irony, sarcasm, etc.). It is illustrated by a small, elevated, backward-facing question mark. The irony mark has never been used widely. It appears occasionally in obscure artistic or literary publications.

There's more ؟!؟

And with ؟,I point out that this may be wrong:

[...] Strikethrough

Admen were the first to employ this method by crossing out the “old” price. A lower price would be written beside the old one, which kept standing there for comparison. Of course, the viewer sees both prices.

On the other hand, it was a common practice ؟humor؟ in sf fanzines since at least 1951, if not earlier. No ~~shit~~ fooling.

Meanwhile, all the kids have been talking this weekend about this strikingly accurate, for the most part, article from Life magazine issue of May 21, 1951 on sf fandom.

Remember to defy the deros with dianetics, kids!

It's nice to see the LASFS insurgents of Francis Towner Laney, Charles Burbee, Elmer Perdue, and others, who laughed at Forry Ackerman and friend's antics, referred to, if not by name. Ah, Sweet Idiocy!

And, yes, postcard fanzines were well-known in the Forties, when the leading newszine, the Ansible of its day, was Bob Tucker's FanewsCard, later carried on by others.

(Why, yes, that once famous sf fan, Joe Kennedy, did become vastly more famous X. J. Kennedy, famous poet, editor, and teacher.)

The article even works in a reference to the "true fan."

One particularly delightful aspect is the description of the then-super-hot controversy in sf fandom, the Shaver Myster, which was egged on by canny sf editor and former fan, Ray Palmer. Why, yes, that is who The Atom was named after by famous comic book editor and former fan contemporary of Palmer's, Julie Schwartz.

As I blogged not all that long ago, I recently had an exchange with Roger Ebert about the Shaver Mystery.

Read The Rest Scale: 4 out of 5 for Life, or it isn't worth living.

Irony mark ☞ Vanessa Schnatmeier on Facebook.

Any ?, anyone?

ADDENDUM, September 28th, 2009, 12:10 p.m.: Bonus link: Francis Towner Laney's account of meeting Clark Ashton Smith.

2009-09-27T17:51:00.009-04:00

CAN YOU Say "Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication" five times fast?

A group of engineers working on a novel manufacturing technique at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., have come up with a new twist on the popular old saying about dreaming and doing: "If you can slice it, we can build it."

That's because layers mean everything to the environmentally-friendly construction process called Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication, or EBF3150, and its operation sounds like something straight out of science fiction.

Not quite a digital fabricator, apparently, but:

[...] To make EBF3 work there are two key requirements: A detailed three-dimensional drawing of the object to be created must be available, and the material the object is to be made from must be compatible for use with an electron beam.

First, the drawing is needed to break up the object into layers, with each cross-section used to guide the electron beam and source of metal in reproducing the object, building it up layer by layer.

If you take a slice through a typical truss, you can see a couple of dots in each cross-section that move as you go from layer to layer," Taminger said. "When complete, you see those moving dots actually allowed you to build a diagonal brace into the truss."

Second, the material must be compatible with the electron beam so that it can be heated by the stream of energy and briefly turned into liquid form, making aluminum an ideal material to be used, along with other metals.

In fact, the EBF3 can handle two different sources of metal—also called feed stock—at the same time, either by mixing them together into a unique alloy or embedding one material inside another.

Useful!

[...] Future lunar base crews could use EBF3 to manufacture spare parts as needed, rather than rely on a supply of parts launched from Earth. Astronauts might be able to mine feed stock from the lunar soil, or even recycle used landing craft stages by melting them.

But the immediate and greatest potential for the process is in the aviation industry where major structural segments of an airliner, or casings for a jet engine, could be manufactured for about $1,000 per pound less than conventional means, Taminger said.

Environmental savings also are made possible by deploying EBF3, she added.

Then you can destroy the stuff you make with this rail gun.

To quote Gizmodo:

[...] The US Navy has just completed a 10-megajoule test fire of their huge rail gun. For the first time ever, they fired a projectile with a velocity of 8,270 feet per second. That's an amazing 5,640 mph, and the gun is only firing at a third of its potential power.

[...]

Yesterday's test firing at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division used just some of the potential 32-megajoules the laboratory test gun is capable of, and that's only half the 64-megajoules the Navy is aiming at for the final weapon. Expect even more dramatic videos, sometime soon.

Not fictional.

Previous model:

Modern Mechanics, June, 1932

Eventually, this.

If only the Raiders of the Lost Ark (1951) trailer had had a railgun! You'd think they could have, given the 1932 model:

Read The Rest Scale: 2.5, but 3.5 out of 5 to click on the videos, silly.

Bonus link! Return with us to the Modern Mechanix blog's cover archive! (The actual content is better. Especially some of the categories. I'm sure I've linked here before, but forget when.)

ON THE INTERNET, NO ONE KNOWS YOU'RE ONE OF THE GREAT OLD ONES

2009-09-27T16:33:00.007-04:00

ON THE INTERNET, NO ONE KNOWS YOU'RE ONE OF THE GREAT OLD ONES. Via all over:

If anyone knows the original artist and site, please let me know so I can credit them.

And it's never too late to relink the classic Jack Chick Cthulhu tract.

Read The Rest Scale: if you haven't clicked the latter, do so or be eaten. You'll be eaten anyway, but best get it over with.

ADDENDUM, October 1st, 2008, 6:09 p.m., via Laura Haywood-Cory on Facebook: this shirt; page also has text:

ADDENDUM, October 12ath, 6:55 p.m.: 14 Cthulhu toys: because you just can't have enough cute unspeakable horror.

2009-09-24T11:33:00.004-04:00

PUNCTUATE OR DIE. It's National Punctuation Day!

Which reminds us of The Blog of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks.

And Apostrophe Abuse.

My personal bête noire is misuse of ellipses. It's perfectly simple, people!

An ellipsis is three dots.

No more.

No less.

Three. Dots.

When you use an ellipsis at the end of a sentence, or to indicate the end of a sentence, you, of course, add a period.

That's all there is to it.

How hard is it to get this?

It's not five dots. It's not six. It's not some random number of dots you make up depending on your personal sense of length of time of a pause.

Three dots. No more. And add a period if called for.

And never use ellipses... just... because... you like them... so much.

Here concludes the lesson. Celebrate National Punctuation Day with your loved ones!

Next National Punctuation day: em dashes, en dashes and hyphens! An advanced course!

Read The Rest Scale: 3.5 out of 5.

2009-09-22T18:09:00.025-04:00

NOT A SIDESHOW. Mitch Wagner interviews Avedon Carol on politics, dancing in Second Life, health care reform, and such like.

I have enough trouble keeping up half of a First Life.

I have to hire on more writers to post under my name, here, and elsewhere.

That Avedon Carol is articulate, and a credit to her race; you'd almost think she'd done tons of tv and radio interviews, or something.

She's also worth listening to. Fans might listen to how she explains the relevance of Jerry Jacks to health care reform. Anyone interested in American politics, human rights, or health care reform, should listen to her.

Avedon, of course, famously blogs at the invaluable Sideshow, which I assume you all read.

Read Avedon's blog; listen to her interview: yes.

While we're mentioning people who are also crucial figures in the development of feminist sf fandom, let me get a head start on something I'll be blogging more about later, which is that Susan Wood's Aspidistra is now available here in PDF form.

Shortly the same will also be up at efanzines.com. I'll let you know. [Now available here.]

The Best Of Susan Wood, Jerry Kaufman's long out of print collection from 1982 of Susan's work, will also soon be up at both sites.

Kudos to Taral for doing the scanning from his own copies. Scanning Aspidistra was his own initiative, after I've spent many weeks of various kinds of work to be able to get "The Best of Susan Wood" finally put online; again, thanks to Taral for the last-minute scanning.

Thanks go to Joe Siclari at fanac.org, and Bill Burns at efanzines.com, for their hosting and responsibility for uploading, and, of course, respective care of both invaluable sites for science fiction fanhistory and classic fanzines. Thanks also to fanac.org webmaster Jack Weaver!

Again, I'll be doing a more elaborate post about the Susan Wood collection and postings, with more context, and more people to thank, soon. (Thanks, Debbie Notkin! Thanks for encouragement, Steve Davidson and Cheryl Morgan; thanks for help and encouragment, Moshe Feder! Thanks, Jerry Kaufman, for all your original work!)

Back on health care: at last, Hollywood liberals speak up to defend the most powerless Americans.

ADDENDUM, September 23rd, 2009, 4:31 a.m.: links to the Aspidistras and The Best Of Susan Wood, along with a Foreword by Taral can be found here at efanzines.com; thanks to Taral for his work and help.

ADDENDUM, September 23rd, 2009, 1:39 p.m.: I have now created the Facebook Group Page, "Friends of Susan Wood," open to any and all people interested in Susan Wood. It should be globally readable by everybody, not merely members of Facebook. Various links now there. It is not a page just for people who personally knew Susan!

ADDENDUM, September 23rd, 2009, 5:37 p.m.: See also all of Energumen, Hugo-winning fanzine co-edited by Mike Glicksohn and Susan Wood Glicksohn.

ADDENDUM, September 23rd, 2009, 6:01: p.m.: Feminist sf fans might find particularly worthwhile, starting on Page 55 of Best of Susan Wood, her Aussiecon (1975) report, "Propeller Beanie," which also talks a lot about the GOH, Ursula Le Guin, whose book of essays, The Language Of The Night Susan went on to compile, edit, and see published, which has been through a number of editions and publisher. Google books link here.

(See links at Facebook page for more info on that, and how to obtain copies.)

On page 61, "Tidepool" begins, one of Susan's fannish accounts of being one of the early University professors first teaching sf.

The fanzine she refers to that she did, Genre Plat, she co-edited for a couple of years with Allyn Cadogan, then of San Francisco, and with a third fan, a longtime fan, who had gafiated for a number of years and recently become active again in the mid-Seventies; first in Toronto, then in Vancouver.

His name was and is "William Gibson," aka "Bill Gibson," and he later sold some science fiction. You may have heard of him.

What might most interest you is the article beginning on page 68: "People's Programming."

Susan founded feminist sf fandom in that article.

It's that simple. Go read it.

That's the piece that I'd like to first get put into text, HTML, form.

Susan won the Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer 1974, 1977 (a tie) and 1981, and was nominated in 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, and 1978. She was co-Fan Guest of Honor at the World Science Fiction Convention in Melbourne, Australia, in 1975.

More to come in a fresher post.

ADDENDUM, September 23rd, 6:35 p.m.: Thanks, Crotchety!

2009-09-21T21:27:00.011-04:00

WHEATON BANGS INTO LIZARD PEOPLE. Why most geeks who have noticed it (and don't utterly disdain television) have learned to like The Big Bang Theory:

[...] Prady said that he and his writers made it an early goal to write these four guys as real people, which meant including idiosyncrasies that sometimes come with being a geek.

“One of the tasks of creating a series is to create interesting characters that are distinct from each other,” Prady said. “We think very carefully about why one character might have a particular reaction that another character doesn’t share. The four of them have very different backgrounds. They have had very different paths through life that affect who they are. There are things they love in common and there are things they don’t share. That also extends to their fandom. I think they are generally game to indulge each other’s passions but I don’t think it’s uniform. By making them distinct, you make them people you are interested in knowing.”

[...]

Prady said that the reason Leonard, Sheldon, Wolowitz, and Koothrappali may resonate so well is because they all reflect many of the loves that live within the actual “Big Bang” writers’ room.

“In terms of their non-work passions, they come from the passions in the room,” Prady said. “For example, the deep and abiding love this writing staff has for Ron Moore’s ‘Battlestar Galactica.’ It is deep and rich and profound, and that’s why the characters love it. And there is their love of ‘Star Trek,’ which by the way is not uniform in the room. There are people like me who know every episode of every single series and then there are people where ‘Trek’ is not their thing.

The subject header:

[...] “In episode six, Wil Wheaton (Wesley Crusher on ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’) is going to be here and will play himself,” Prady revealed. “Because Wil lives very close to where our characters live in real life, it’s not inconceivable that they share a comic book store and they would encounter each other. Given that Wil is going to play himself, we are going to discover that Wil Wheaton is the one member of the ‘Star Trek’ family that Sheldon hates,” he said. “We will learn that he loved Wesley Crusher but there was a moment between them in the past and ever since then Wheaton is his third most hated person.”

Also:

[...] “One of the things we decided from the beginning was that the science would be accurate and when the characters talked about their work it would be legitimate,” Prady said.

It's a good piece.

Meanwhile, every good geek should be aware of, or learn to, play rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock:

Read The Rest Scale: 3.5 out of 5, or more if you're a geek.

I don't know why you'd be reading this blog if you were a geek, though. I mean, what are the odds?

Oh, wait, you must be one of these people.

Elsewhere: Nigeria 'offended' by sci-fi film.

Nigeria's government is asking cinemas to stop showing a science fiction film, District Nine, that it says denigrates the country's image.

I'm tempted to make jokes about being offended by "sci-fi," rather than "sf" films, myself, but that would date me.

And I already have hairy enough palms.

It's good to know that:

[...] But Mr Khumbanyiwa said Nigerians in the cast did not seem worried by the portrayal of their country.

He suggested that the film, which depicts people wanting to eat aliens to gain the superhuman powers, should not be taken too literally.

"It's a story, you know," he said. "It's not like Nigerians do eat aliens. Aliens don't even exist in the first place."

But aliens are so delicious!

Michael Dirda reviewed THE COMPLETE STORIES OF J.G. BALLARD. Digressively, I recently argued that New Worlds under Michael Moorcock holds up pretty damn well, and a lot more so than Analog from the same period.

Mike Glyer pointed to more stories about J. R. R. Tolkien's immensely brief "career" at Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

Those Google doodles explained:

Google has admitted that recent UFOs in its logo are designed to mark the 143rd birthday of author HG Wells.

Details!

New Scientist brings us a Sci-fi special: The fiction of now, but don't blame Stan Robinson for the headline:

US science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson thinks British science fiction is in a golden age. It's time it won some literary awards – and for everyone to give it a go

Stories by KEN MACLEOD, IAN MCDONALD, GEOFF RYMAN, NICOLA GRIFFITH, STEPHEN BAXTER, PAUL MCAULEY, and JUSTINA ROBSON, they shout at us! And rightfully so!

I wouldn't count links to Dr. Horrible at the Emmies not rotting, but we'll give it a try:

For more literary tastes, watch and listen as Margaret Atwood explained to the PBS NewsHour earlier this evening that she writes speculative fiction, not science fiction, because people think of science fiction as "Attack Of The Lizard People." [CORRECTION: "Lizard Men"; Amygdala apologizes to Margaret Atwood for misquoting her on this extremely important distinction!]

You should probably try sex with Lizard People, because P. Z. Myers warns us that Sex With Robots is Always Wrong.

If only they'd known that back when Fred Pohl was there for the Science Fiction League.

Get your Star Wars Mimobot Thumb Drives:

Those are all very fine, but I'm concerned that Disney's acquisition of Marvel could interfere with The 21 Awesomest Superhero Mods for My Little Pony.

And apparently Han Solo is a super-hero!

He wouldn't have had to shoot first if he was a super-hero.

More Marvelly:

19 more to go! Slave Leia Little Pony is just terribly terribly wrong.

To cure that ill feeling, you need to read, via Laura Cory-Haywood on Facebook, lots of Uncomfortable Plot Summaries:

[...] ALIENS: An unplanned pregnancy leads to complications. [...] BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER: Teenage serial killer destroys town in fit of semi-religious fervor. [...] CONAN THE BARBARIAN: Petty thief murders religious leader. [...] DOCTOR WHO: Elderly man serially abducts young women. [...] SUPERMAN RETURNS: Illegal immigrant is deadbeat dad.

You get the idea.

Now, get out of here to those links, before I uncomfortably summarize why you come back here: because you can't resist.

ADDENDUM, 9/22/09, 12:24 p.m.: Jeannette Winterson reviews Atwood in the Sunday Times Book Review, noting:

[...] That’s what happens in Margaret Atwood’s new novel, “The Year of the Flood,” her latest excursion into what’s sometimes called her “science fiction,” though she prefers “speculative fiction.” If we have to have a label, that’s a better one, since part of Atwood’s mastery as a writer is to use herself as a creative computer, modeling possible futures projected from the available data — in human terms, where we are now.

So it's not all like science fiction, then.

2009-09-20T12:09:00.003-04:00

DON'T WASTE ANY TIME IN MOURNING. Organize.

Crystal Lee Sutton, whose defiance of factory bosses invigorated a long-running battle to unionize Southern mill workers and formed the dramatic heart of the Academy Award-winning movie "Norma Rae," died Sept. 11 in Burlington, N.C. She was 68.

[...]

In 1973, Sutton worked at the J.P. Stevens textile plant in Roanoke Rapids, N.C. Fed up with the poor pay and working conditions, she joined the Textile Workers Union of America and became an organizer whose activism quickly earned the wrath of management.

Moments after being fired, she wrote "UNION" on a piece of cardboard, climbed onto a table in the middle of the factory floor and raised the sign for co-workers to see. Stunned by her courage, they switched off their machines and focused on the 33-year-old mother of three who earned $2.65 an hour.

Some raised their fingers in a V for victory, but a union contract was still years away.

The victory that day was over fear.

"Stand up for what you believe in, no matter how hard it makes life for you," Sutton, reflecting on her iconic protest, told the Burlington Times News last year. "Do not give up, and always say what you believe."

Word.

Read The Rest Scale: 3.5 out of 5. Support good jobs: buy union.

ADDENDUM, 4:20 p.m.: D. brings this to my attention in comments:

[...] Crystal Lee Jordan, the union activist from North Carolina that inspired Sally Field’s Oscar winning performance in Norma Rae, died on Friday because her health insurance company delayed her cancer treatment. Sutton was diagnosed with meningioma but waited two months to begin taking needed medication because her health insurance refused to cover it. While they debated about whether or not the medicine was included in her policy, the cancer spread through her nervous system making the medicine ultimately ineffective. Sutton herself openly criticized the U.S. health care system as an abuse of the power and potentially murderous for the working class. Her criticism got her insurance company to ultimately approve the medicine she needed, too late.

Based on this, which I'd actually read earlier, but entirely forgotten had crucial info.

D'oh! Thanks, D.!

2009-09-19T20:17:00.007-04:00

WE'RE NUMBER 37. Be proud to be an American.

At least we still know how to do rock and roll. While we're dying, we can rock our way out.

What we're number one at:

Another number:

[...] The total of America's military bases in other people's countries in 2005, according to official sources, was 737.

But:

[...] These numbers, although staggeringly big, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2005 Base Structure Report fails, for instance, to mention any garrisons in Kosovo (or Serbia, of which Kosovo is still officially a province) -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel built in 1999 and maintained ever since by the KBR corporation (formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root), a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation of Houston.

The report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq (106 garrisons as of May 2005), Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, even though the U.S. military has established colossal base structures in the Persian Gulf and Central Asian areas since 9/11. By way of excuse, a note in the preface says that "facilities provided by other nations at foreign locations" are not included, although this is not strictly true. The report does include twenty sites in Turkey, all owned by the Turkish government and used jointly with the Americans. The Pentagon continues to omit from its accounts most of the $5 billion worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases overseas, but no one -- possibly not even the Pentagon -- knows the exact number for sure.

Some other numbers:

[...] According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, their latest data available.

[...]

# The large majority of the uninsured (85 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.
# Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006.
# Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families

Do Your Own Math Scale: 5 out of 5. Rock on, USA.

Think of the video as a rockin' adult version of Sesame Street. With a beat you can dance to.

Video via Robin Postal White at Facebook.