Is Your Brain Big Enough to Drive a Hydrogen Car? September 20, 2006March 5, 2017 WHO KILLED THE HYDROGEN CAR? Well, this video sure paints a hopeful picture . . . I doubt you will regret the six minutes spent watching it. But this link – the first I happened to hit Googling ‘whats wrong with the hydrogen car’ – suggests what I’ve heard from a lot of folks: that hydrogen is not the answer after all: Have you questioned anyone how much energy is needed to produce a hydrogen you’re going to pay for? You need electricity to run the equipment reforming hydrogen to the useable for FC form. And then, the hydrogen is going to be used to get back electricity to run a vehicle propulsion motor. What’s wrong with this picture? Isn’t it simpler, cheaper, more efficient and just plain makes more sense to just store initial electricity directly in a car’s battery in the first place? Hydrogen is an extremely clever scam. When you step back and ask, “Where will the hydrogen come from?” the house of cards falls apart. You will get hydrogen from fossil fuels. The most economic way to get hydrogen is to catalyze natural gas. When you do this, you throw away 50% of the fuel value. If you were to put that hydrogen into a fuel-cell car, it would only go 50% the distance (at best) that a hybrid car would, if fueled from the natural gas directly. The oil company loves it. They get to sell twice as much per mile driven. It is also twice as much CO2 per mile driven . . . I don’t know – though I hope to learn more this week, and report to you if I do. YOUR BIG BRAIN It must be big if you’re smart enough to come here every morning. Then again, I read that Einstein’s brain was 10% smaller than average. [Insert your own size-matters cleverness here.] But my point is that we are all probably a little interested in how we can keep from becoming really stupid. [Insert your own political jibe here.] Which is why you might want to receive Posit Science‘s monthly Brain Fitness News. [Click ‘join our mailing list.’] The latest letter reveals that mice that drink apple juice seem less likely to suffer from mouse Alzheimer’s . . . that getting out in the sun in the morning makes you brighter all day . . . and that the Finns have developed a screen to help determine the likelihood of developing dementia (step number one: do you live in a country where it’s practically pitch black six months of the year?). There are links to take a Brain Speed Test or to become a brain-fitness design consultant. And a special link between your wallet and mine if you wind up buying the product.
Hey Kids: Stay in School and Don’t Smoke September 19, 2006March 5, 2017 YOUR HOUSE – II Michael Nystrom: ‘Thanks for putting up a link to my article – the one about my uncle in Japan who overpaid for his house. I checked out the house next door that’s for sale and, in spite of what happened to my uncle in Japan, I walked away from the house thinking I should buy it! I guess this is the definition of irrational exuberance.’ ☞ Click here for the sequel. KEEPING YOUR HOUSE CLEAN This is beyond silly, of course – we are more than happy with Renee, who comes on Wednesdays – but imagine a few years ago (in geological time), when our ancestors were huddled in caves, dreaming of meat (I don’t think at that point they could imagine much more, except maybe the ability to fly like birds) . . . or, better for the purposes of the point I’m lurching toward, imagine a family in Sweeney Todd’s London trying to keep clean . . . or a family trying to make ends meet even in today’s increasingly squeezed America . . . okay? . . . and now click here. Ah, brave new world, for which now even Ajax and Fantastic and a first generation legal immigrant are no longer enough. A VIDEO FOR THE KIDS In keeping with my theory that the very most serious stuff on television these days is found on Comedy Central – specifically, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert – now comes this video from that same network and ‘The Mind of Mencia.’ (Thanks, Bill Spaced, for the link.) Chances are, you don’t know any kids who’d need to see it. Charles’ and my nieces and nephews certainly don’t need to see it. But there are about 50 million other kids I hope will find it somehow.
FMD, AK-47, and Balance September 18, 2006January 10, 2017 FMD So Friday‘s column ended with, ‘Don’t sell your FMD’ – and by the end of the day we were glad we hadn’t, because FMD closed up nine bucks at $61.45, putting our gain since March at 61%. A bird in the hand, and all that, but I plan to hold on, because my First Marblehead guru says: ‘I still believe FMD is a multi-bagger from here, in a fairly short time frame (three years?). If you believe that they will earn $5.00-ish this fiscal year, and you believe that they have a very strong position (and getting stronger) in a market segment which is quite large and growing at 25-30% a year, then you have to believe that it should be selling for $150 or so right now. If this were an early stage retailer or tech firm (with nowhere near the barriers to entry that shield FMD’s position), there would be no question. Once the Street starts to get proof that the residuals are solid and that banks actually WANT to use FMD’s services (as opposed to compete with them), multiples should start to expand nicely. Layer on a few years of 35-40% earnings growth and a rapidly increasing dividend, and you come up with a pretty good, easy to understand story.’ Easy for him to understand, perhaps. And no investment is without risk. But I am happily holding on. R’S WILL KEEP US SAFER? MACACA! Consider sending this to your uncle who votes Republican because he’s a military man. It comes from vets who think Congress should have passed Senator Mary Landrieu’s 2003 amendment to better equip our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment was voted down unanimously by the Republicans (plus one nominal Democrat, Zell Miller). The ad shows two dummies, one with old body armor and one with new, with an Iraq vet shooting an AK 47 at each. It’s worth a look just to see just how powerful a simple 30-second spot can be. The Republicans are saying it’s unfair – that of course they favor adequate protection for the troops. And I’m sure that, in theory, they do – just as they favor health care for everybody, an end to poverty, clean air, well-protected ports, world peace and honest government. Who doesn’t? But it’s widely acknowledged that many of our troops did not have adequate body armor. And no one would dispute which party controlled these funding decisions or that the vote on that amendment was 52-47 against. The ad makes the consequences clear. If I’m missing some larger point, let me know what it is. Speaking of which . . . BALANCE Fred: ‘I have to write you again to plead with you to try to be balanced and consistent. several years ago you really lambasted CBS for not showing the Reagan mini-series even though everyone admitted that it was full of things that didn’t actually happen (fictionalized, I believe is the word). I believe you called it ‘kow-towing to the right wing’ or something like that. Now, you are calling for the 9/11 film to be pulled. Do you only believe in selective censorship? I know your response will be that the subject matter of the Reagan series was not nearly as important as the 9/11 series, but this doesn’t matter. Either you allow the networks to show what they want, or you support censorship from both sides.’ ☞ Balance is important and you are right to ask for it. But just because there are two sides to every story doesn’t mean that each side is 50% right. I thought – and still think – CBS was wrong to cancel the broadcast of the Reagan documentary, for the reasons I expressed here and here. But the right shouted, and the broadcaster caved. Now, with The Path to 9/11, the left* has shouted, joined even by a former President and a former Secretary of State . . . yet the broadcaster (Disney/ABC in this case), stood firm. * Which has largely become the center – you will not find a centrist in the Republican leadership. So already there seems to be a lack of balance, but not necessarily from me. More to the point, the two cases are different. For one thing, the Reagan docudrama was to be shown a year before the next national election – not mere weeks. For another, the Reagan docudrama was not explosive in the way the 9/11 film was. The biggest criticism of the earlier docudrama seemed to be that it portrayed Reagan as having been too long indifferent to the AIDS crisis. A harsh charge to be sure (and true!), but not the kind of topic that, in 2003, was likely to affect the 2004 election. But mainly, the complaints about the Reagan docudrama concerned matters of tone – for example, some were offended that President Reagan was portrayed as having been a second-rate actor when, to their mind, he had been a first-rate actor – rather than of fact. Knowingly fabricating crucial historical events, it seems to me, is quite different. And this was not done in the Reagan docudrama. So I agree with you on the importance of balance. But I hope it was not unfair to call for accuracy on a topic so central to the upcoming election. The program was broadcast over two nights without commercial interruption except for a 20-minute Presidential address sandwiched into the middle of the second night. I mean, come on. Footnote: Few would accuse Dallas-based American Airlines of being a left wing enterprise, but even they had a bone to pick: September 11, 2006 FORT WORTH, Texas — American Airlines today issued the following statement regarding the ABC-TV program The Path to 9/11: “The Disney/ABC television program, The Path to 9/11, which began airing last night, is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. “A factual description of those events can be found in the official government edition of the 9/11 Commission Report and supporting documents. “This misrepresentation of facts dishonors the memory of innocent American Airlines employees and all those who lost their lives as a result of the tragic events of 9/11.” FINDING YEMEN Mark Willcox: ‘Spleen, heck! Where’s my brain?‘
Independents Day September 15, 2006March 5, 2017 TO MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS One of the things you believe (‘don’t tell me what I believe!’) (‘okay, but if you don’t believe this, and so many of the other Republican positions, why not consider yourself an independent?’), is that gay Americans should not be allowed to serve in the military. My friend Aaron Belkin, who runs the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, thinks you’re on the wrong side of this one. Change is inevitable, he thinks. Polls show that 60% of the public now favor repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ That may not surprise you. But did you know that last year’s winning senior thesis at West Point argued for allowing gays and lesbians to serve without hiding their identity? Did you know that we are practically alone among our NATO allies in not allowing gays to serve openly? Did you know that in Britain, according to the New York Times, the Royal Navy has called on a gay rights group to help recruit gay sailors? Did you know that our own military has allowed tens of thousands of convicted felons and drug abusers to enlist in recent years? Which, done smart, is probably a good thing – people deserve a second chance, and the military often does a terrific job of molding character. But, gee . . . as we search for the best available talent to keep us strong, should we really exclude people like Justin Hager, 20, ‘a self-described Republican from a military family’ gung-ho to enlist? Republicans who think we’re making a mistake in excluding Justin Hager should ask why only 5 Republicans in the House have joined the 114 Democrats who currently co-sponsor a bill to lift the ban. And then they should consider relabeling themselves Independents. Republicans who think it’s a mistake to cut all federal ties with universities that conduct stem cell research should consider relabeling themselves Independents. Republicans who think it’s a mistake to have amassed $10 trillion of National Debt by the time the White House changes hands in 2009 – of which fully $8 trillion, since our nation’s founding, will have been racked up under just three presidents, Reagan, Bush and Bush – should consider relabeling themselves Independents. Republicans who think it’s a mistake to have misled so many Americans into thinking Iraq was an ally of Al-Qaeda should consider relabeling themselves Independents. Republicans who think it was a mistake to reconvene Congress in special session to interfere in the Terry Schiavo case – trumping her doctors, her husband, and the courts – should consider relabeling themselves Independents. Republicans who understand that the whole point of America is that you can burn her flag without fear of arrest – which is why almost none of us ever would – should consider relabeling themselves Independents. Have a great weekend. Send in your third quarter estimated tax. Don’t sell your FMD.
Your Spleen, My Spleen, We All Scream for . . . Oh, Never Mind September 14, 2006March 5, 2017 Give it up for Chris Buckley – gentleman, conservative, author of the delicious Thank You for Smoking, son of William F. He writes, in part: Who knew, in 2000, that ‘compassionate conservatism’ meant bigger government, unrestricted government spending, government intrusion in personal matters, government ineptitude, and cronyism in disaster relief? Who knew, in 2000, that the only bill the president would veto, six years later, would be one on funding stem-cell research? […] On Capitol Hill, a Republican Senate and House are now distinguished by—or perhaps even synonymous with—earmarks, the K Street Project, Randy Cunningham (bandit, 12 o’clock high!), Sen. Ted Stevens’s $250-million Bridge to Nowhere, Jack Abramoff (Who? Never heard of him), and a Senate Majority Leader who declared, after conducting his own medical evaluation via videotape, that he knew every bit as much about the medical condition of Terry Schiavo as her own doctors and husband. Who knew that conservatism means barging into someone’s hospital room like Dr. Frankenstein with defibrillator paddles? In what chapter of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom or Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind is that principle enunciated? [ … ] George Tenet’s WMD “slam-dunk,” Vice President Cheney’s “we will be greeted as liberators,” Don Rumsfeld’s avidity to promulgate a minimalist military doctrine, together with the tidy theories of a group who call themselves “neo-conservative” (not one of whom, to my knowledge, has ever worn a military uniform), have thus far: de-stabilized the Middle East; alienated the world community from the United States; empowered North Korea, Iran, and Syria; unleashed sectarian carnage in Iraq among tribes who have been cutting each others’ throats for over a thousand years; cost the lives of 2,600 Americans, and the limbs, eyes, organs, spinal cords of another 15,000—with no end in sight. But not to worry: Democracy is on the march in the Middle East. Just ask Hamas. And the neocons—bright people, all—are now clamoring, “On to Tehran!” What have they done to my party? Where does one go to get it back? One place comes to mind: the back benches. It’s time for a time-out. Time to hand over this sorry enchilada to Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid, who has the gift of being able to induce sleep in 30 seconds. Or, with any luck, to Mark Warner or, what the heck, Al Gore. I’m not much into polar bears, but this heat wave has me thinking the man might be on to something. ☞ Time, indeed. YEMEN Dazza: “Wow! That was six minutes of my well educated brain I will never get back. Time to break out the geography books. I wonder if there is a similar website and test for human body parts? Now for $5,000 where is your spleen?” ☞ Here. YOUR HOUSE Housing prices have not gotten as nuts here as they did in Japan, so this is not offered as a direct analog. But it sure makes interesting reading. And speaking of your house . . . If they made a movie about YOUR HOUSE, would you go see it? Well, they have.
Maps September 13, 2006January 10, 2017 ELECTORAL-VOTE.COM This terrific site is running again. It has tons of election data (click successively on all the icons below the map to see what is there) and a “nonpartisan” (but enlightened) blog about the state of the mid-term elections. Click on the “Previous report” link at the top of the page to see previous blogs. In 2004, I’m told, this was the most popular election site in the country, pulling in 700,000 visitors a day. CAN YOU FIND YEMEN? No? Well, how about Libya? Pakistan? Iraq? Click here. MORE ON WARREN BUFFETT AND GOLF Yaakov Har-Oz: ‘[Picking up from your recent post], this story appears in Rick Reilly’s book Who’s Your Caddy?‘ Warren Buffet gave $100,000 in order to caddy for Tiger Woods at a charity golf event. ‘It wasn’t the hardest job,’ Buffet told the Omaha World-Herald. ‘I mostly rode in the cart.’ Woods suggested making a wager for ‘serious money’ on the 18th hole, to which Buffet replied, ‘All money is serious, Tiger.’ The bet was for $5.00, and Woods had to play the hole from his knees. Woods made bogey, and won the hole and the bet. After Buffet gave Woods the $5.00, he cleared his throat and said, “Aren’t you forgetting something?” Woods couldn’t imagine what it was. “My [caddy’s] 10%. You owe me 50¢.”
Corrections September 12, 2006March 28, 2017 The reason I love writing this column, other than the pay, is that I learn so much from you. We have a deal (implicit, but a deal nonetheless): I’ll do my best to be fair and accurate; but – because my fact-checking staff was distracted by the sound of a Good Humor truck eight summers ago and left me, never to return – you’ll correct me when I’m wrong. Example of when I’m wrong: GOLF If you read Friday’s column before 9:36am, Eastern Time, when I amended it – well, I amended it. Turns out, the golf story (that a golf course has 18 holes because there are 18 shots in a fifth of Scotch) was entirely untrue. But that doesn’t hurt it in the least. Jim Arient: ‘My law school son, Matt, who was a college All America golfer, sent me this from the USGA:’ Why are there 18 holes on a golf course? The links at St. Andrews occupy a narrow strip of land along the sea. As early as the 15th century, golfers at St. Andrews established a customary route through the undulating terrain, playing to holes whose locations were dictated by topography. The course that emerged featured eleven holes, laid out end to end from the clubhouse to the far end of the property. One played the holes out, turned around, and played the holes in, for a total of 22 holes. In 1764, several of the holes were deemed too short, and were therefore combined. The number was thereby reduced from 11 to nine, so that a complete round of the links comprised 18 holes. When golf clubs in the UK formally recognized the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews as the rule-making body for the sport in the late 1890s, it became necessary for many clubs to expand or reduce the length of their course to eighteen holes. Prior to this time, courses ranged in length from six holes to upward of 20 holes. However, if golfers were to play by the official R&A rules, then their appointed round would consist of 18 holes. Ed Hassell: ‘Technically, there are either 17 shots or 25.6 shots in a fifth of Scotch. The traditional ‘shot’ was an ounce and a half, leading to 17 shots in a ‘fifth’ of a gallon. Today’s more socially responsible shot is only one ounce, leading to 25.6 shots in the fifth. Either way, the golf course story is (ahem) shot full of holes.’ Example of when we can all learn a little something from my mistake: NOVOCAIN Alex: ‘I am completing a Doctor of Dental Surgery at The University of Melbourne (Australia). As I was reading your article two things struck me: how many people still refer to Novocain as the local anaesthetic they were injected with, even though Novocain was abandoned back in the 1950s due to its associated increased incidence of systemic toxicity and anaphylaxis. The standard anaesthetic (and the one you probably received) is Xylocaine 2% with 1:80000 Adrenalin, and a secondary dose of Marcaine 2% with 1:200000 Adrenalin (which would have kept you numb for about seven hours). The other thing was your acknowledgement of how lucky we are to have painless dentistry. This is far too often underappreciated in developed world countries, and I thank you for making the point. Keep up the good work, and rinse with .02% Chlorhexidine for the next week to prevent infection!’ ☞ Ah. When it’s ‘Novocain,’ it’s the abandoned anesthetic. When it’s ‘novocaine’ (small n, final e), it’s become the vernacular for the general category, like – despite the best efforts of the legal staff at Kimberly-Clark, makers of Kleenex® brand facial tissues “… thank goodness for Kleenex® Brand Tissue”) – kleenex. Semi-example of when I’m wrong: MEDIAN INCOME Peg: “I thought that you might like to read this [esoteric but delightful] post about the same graphic that you showed recently.” ☞ Seems that while, yes, median income has declined over the Bush years, the Detroit News mixed apples with oranges and overstated the decline in producing its map. (This is a “semi-example” both because the main point – tough times for average folks – was right and because here I did not commit the blunder directly, I merely compounded it by passing it on. Again: we have a deal. Our deal is that I can pass things on without checking them as thoroughly as I would for PARADE or a book or something, knowing that you will (a) keep this grain of salt handy on your mouse pad at all times and (b) let me know when I’ve goofed – and then I’ll pass that on as well.) Incidentally, USA Today recently reported: The nation’s median household income rose last year for the first time since 1999, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Median household income climbed 1.1% to $46,326 in 2005. That means half of U.S. households earned more and half earned less. Per capita income rose 1.5% to $25,036, the Census Bureau said. The income jump hid some somber news. Earnings actually fell for people working full-time. Household income rose because more people worked in the households, albeit at lower paying jobs. Example of when I’m not wrong: THE “DOCUDRAMA” Not sure how ABC will edit “The Path to 9/11” I decried – I’m writing this before either half aired – but this blog post makes the same point with more links and a better sense of humor: A lot of people have been getting all worked up about ABC’s “The Path To 9/11” $30 million RNC contribution docudrama, claiming that it makes s–t up in order to blame everything on Clinton. True, some of the people who are criticizing the miniseries were high-level counterterrorism officials in the Bush administration, and some wrote the official report on which the show claims to be based, and one was a terrorism expert hired to work on the production, but have any of them actually seen the show they are criticizing? Of course not – only Rush Limbaugh and right-wing bloggers have been allowed to see it! Example of when I’m right: THE MOVIE Mike Lynott: “Twenty-five of us saw ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ at The Flicks in Boise last night, where it’s been running for almost a month. I know you’ve been encouraging people to see it. Let me add my encouragement. It’s amazing.” Example of when I’m right – so far: FMD Suggested March 3, when unusually nimble readers could have bought it for $38.11, FMD closed Friday at $52.98, up a buck and a half on this news: First Marblehead Announces Planned $1.56 Billion Securitization of Private Student Loans Should we take the money and run? Free advice being, as ever, worth what you pay for it, my answer would be . . . no. Writes my guru on this stock: “I suspect that this is very good news, but we’ll have to wait a few days until the deal terms are released to see whether there has been any margin compression, improvement in business mix (partner concentration, etc.), or decrementing of forward residual opportunity due to accelerated paydowns. If all goes well, this could be very painful for the shorts. We should know by Thursday or so.” I plan to hold FMD well past Thursday, hoping that its earnings continue to grow in the coming years and, with them, the stock price. Example of when I desperately hope to be right: BOREF I share your disappointment this did not take off as I thought it would when the plane moved – or when the iron ore financing and off-take deals were announced. But I continue to think this preposterously unconventional company is an irresistible lottery ticket, even though it now feels as though the drawing may be years, rather than months, off. But only, as always, with money you can truly afford to lose. Best example of when I’m right: MONK-E-MAIL I told you Web Boggle would wreck your life, and I was right. I told you to put your e-mail PS’s before your e-signature, and I was right. But have I ever been as right as I was about Monk-e-Mail? You cannot tell me it doesn’t crack you up to compose one. The only thing more fun is to get one. All free.
Jujitsu September 11, 2006January 10, 2017 MARRIAGE ‘Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able.’ – Brad Pitt, in the October Esquire TERROR Strength is only as good as the strategic thinking behind it . . . and according to a bipartisan collection of foreign policy experts, America has been acting like an idiot, playing right into Bin Laden’s hands. Think jujitsu. Afghanistan – yes. Absolutely. But invading Iraq just confirmed Al Qaeda’s line that America wants to occupy the Mideast and steal its oil . . . (and invading it without adequate planning – invading it incompetently – has proved a complete, uber-tragic fiasco) . . . Guantanamo negatively affects the war on terror, 81% of the more than 100 conservative, moderate, and liberal foreign policy experts polled say . . . (not to mention Abu Ghraib) . . . And framing the enemy as Islamo-fascism (accurate though that may be) turns it into the global holy war Bin Laden so desperately hoped to start. Seventy-one percent of the conservative experts polled (and 90% of the moderates) disagree with the President’s assertion that we are winning the war on terror. The Administration has sapped our nation’s military and financial strength, turned much of the world against us, and, in the process, created tens of millions of passionate new Islamo-fascists. We are likely to hear a different view from the President tonight. But what the world needs to hear November 7 (and had so hoped to hear two years ago) is that Americans are not comfortable with the strategic thinking of our current leadership. We need a new direction. Tomorrow (which through the marvels of modern time travel you can click today): Corrections (Golf, Median Income, Borealis . . . )
Toothless Grin at the 18th Hole in Kabul September 8, 2006January 10, 2017 IT’S LIKE PULLING TEETH Specifically, tooth #31 in my head. This was much easier than pulling tooth #32, which was a huge and perfectly healthy wisdom tooth, decades back, when I was a wise guy, before Novocain, and they had to tie a rope to it and tie the other end of the rope to a horse standing outside the dentist’s office window and then SLAP the horse – and out it popped. Boy was that painful. This one involved my choice of flavored topical anesthetic (I went with mint; “piña colada” struck me as trying too hard), followed by a shot of Novocain (made mintily painless) to numb me up for the serious shots of Novocain, which I also did not feel – and then a quick SLAP of the horse and some sutures and I was on my way. In my pocket, I had a prescription for an antibiotic; four Advil; and the advice to chomp down on a tea bag if needed (it’s like gauze, but the tannic acid in tea is a great coagulant). In his pocket, the oral surgeon had enough to buy warrants on 2,000 shares of ALBA. More power to him. Might we pause to consider how unbelievably fortunate we are – at least those of us with access to it – to have painless dentistry? Can you imagine the untold millennia of misery our forebears endured? GOLF I don’t often write about golf. That one time, with Warren Buffett, was the beginning and end of it. But one of you sent me an anecdote recently I just love – even though it’s not true – and I felt the need to pass it on. The question: why do golf courses have 18 holes? Why not 12? Why not 20? The answer: they were sitting around the St. Andrews golf club in Scotland back in 1858 debating this very thing. The president of the club listened to the discussion for a while and then cut it off: “There will be 18 holes in a game of golf,” he said. Because there are 18 shots in a fifth of scotch, and when you’ve finished the bottle, it’s time to stop. Forgive me if I have butchered that, or if it’s entirely untrue. I still love it. (And no, do not feel compelled to send me the story of why the width of the space shuttle was determined by the width of a horse’s ass – we’ve all seen that one by now.) (And, yes, this golf story apparently is entirely untrue.) HOPEFUL NOTES Here is an interview with Rory Stewart in Salon. You may need to sit through a short ad – or even pay something – to read it. (I don’t know; I subscribe.) But he had to walk 500 miles through Afghanistan. In the winter! Well, didn’t “have to,” actually – chose to. And then, at 33, chose to spend a year governing a province in Iraq. He says the Afghanis are better off than they were – they are more secure and the economy is growing at 18% a year – and he thinks that, even after the coalition forces withdraw, Iraq will not descend into full-scale civil war, bad though things will be. These days, that opinion qualifies as “hopeful.” (Pat Davies: “Our economy could grow at 18% too if we legalized growing opium. The longterm worldwide effects of the spike in opium production in ‘our’ Afghanistan are staggering. With oversupply comes lower prices and inevitably more addicts.”)
Earn Cash in Your Spare Time: Be a Poll Worker September 7, 2006March 5, 2017 CAN YOU VOTE? This is the place to find out how to find out . . . . . . whether you’re registered – and where to vote if you are . . . what kind of ID you’ll need . . . and how to become a poll worker. (Hey: think about it!) This one lets you know your state’s deadline for registering. Spread the word. ARE YOU SIGNED UP AT DEMOCRATS.ORG? If so, you probably got word yesterday of ‘The Path to 9/11,’ an ABC ‘docudrama’ set to air Monday, supposedly ‘based on the 9/11 Commission Report.’ And yet, according to the DNC e-mail: Richard Clarke – the counterterrorism czar for the Clinton administration, now himself a consultant to ABC News – describes a key scene in “The Path to 9/11” as “180 degrees from what happened.” In the scene, a CIA field agent places a phone call to get the go ahead to kill Osama Bin Laden, then in his sights, only to have a senior Clinton administration official refuse and hang up the phone. Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor,called the same scene “a total fabrication. It did not happen.” And Roger Cressey, a top Bush and Clinton counterterrorism official, said it was “something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.” Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder — contrary to “The Path to 9/11” — rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times. The former National Security Council head of counterterrorism says that President Clinton “approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda,” and the 9/11 report says the CIA had full authority from President Clinton to strike Bin Laden. Yet chief “Path to 9/11” scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh, a friend of Rush Limbaugh, says the miniseries shows how President Clinton had “frequent opportunities in the ’90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks — but lacked the will to do so.” This is a a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11 to blame Democrats, just in time for the election. Tell Walt Disney president Robert Iger that you hold his company responsible – and that this community demands that ABC tell the truth: http://www.democrats.org/pathto911 ☞ I haven’t seen “The Path to 9/11,” but I hope it opens with the scene at Blair House, January 7, 2001 – 13 days before he was even Inaugurated – where the President-elect (and the Vice President-elect and Condoleeza Rice) were told that America faced a “tremendous,” “immediate” threat from Osama Bin Laden – and then ignored the threat, focusing on Iraq instead. A nice place to end it would be with shots of the President clearing brush intercut with Secretary Rice trying to recall for the Senate the title of the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing. (“Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S.”) But that would still not excuse the distortions that Clarke and Berger and Cressley appear to have identified. Which brings me back to the importance of registering to vote, finding out what kind of ID you’ll need, and maybe even signing up to be a poll worker.