Selections from a comment thread on TPMCafe.com

Note: I piped in when folks on this predominately liberal web site seemed to be casting about for a definition. Note how some of the posters address arguments and others become unbridled that not everybody thinks like them... I only put in the comments which I addressed and ones which answer my questions. Enjoy! Here is the link to the story and all comments: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/28/213621/867 Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#12) by JohnJMadison on Jul 29, 2005 -- 01:50:39 AM EST It's curious that Harlow said Plame was "undercover." Surely he knows that prosecutions under the IIPA require that an operative be "covert," according to specific, objective criteria that don't depend on the CIA's opinion. Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#14) by Bruce Webb on Jul 29, 2005 -- 07:35:57 AM EST I truly am confused by your post. By definition and by etymology "covert" means "covered", indeed they are the same word in origin. It seems you are drawing a difference without a distinction. There is an odd implication that attorneys at Justice know what "covert" means while CIA Spokesmen (who certainly have immediate access to CIA attorneys) are limited to "opinions". Rock the Vote: Don't get Played on Social Security [ http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#15) by davcbr on Jul 29, 2005 -- 08:35:13 AM EST JJMadisonGo back and read it again; maybe even read the whole thing. What you are point out is a quote from the Wash. Post, not a direct quote from Harlow. And, can you come up with anybody who can offer a better definition of what "covert" means than the CIA? Name him or her (or are they too covert to even talk about?) By the way, you guys continually cite that specific law. Go do some real reading about this and I think you'll find that any number of offenses can and will apply in this matter. I would put in some refs, but I don't think you're really interested. dc At this point I pasted in the entire statute with no comment... Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#26) by walt on Jul 29, 2005 -- 11:55:47 AM EST (4) The term "covert agent" means-- (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency-- (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States Now, I know it's tough for a conservative to understand this complex law, so I have made bold type of the relevant facts about Plame/Wilson. She is/was an officer whose status is/was classified and who has/had served overseas. Finally, "served outside the United States" does not mean "lived" or "resided" or "was assigned to the embassy" or . . . ? it just means served. For example, she could fly commercial air to Rome, attend an international show for weapons sales, spend a couple of days at the conference, and return home. Thus, she served. It really ain't that complicated--unless a person is working real hard at being a jackass. Below is my first reply--it is never really answered... Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#31) by dbp on Jul 29, 2005 -- 01:03:41 PM EST On what legal basis do you support your claim: "does not mean "lived" or "resided" or "was assigned to the embassy" or . . . ? it just means served. For example, she could fly commercial air to Rome, attend an international show for weapons sales, spend a couple of days at the conference, and return home." Please quote some case law which justify this odd interpretation of the expression "served outside the United States ". Also, what conferences or international shows did Ms. Plame attend in the 5 years before she was outted? Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#38) by sheerahkahn on Jul 29, 2005 -- 03:41:51 PM EST dpb,There are holes in which one will stumble into without realzing the magnitude or depth of said orifice.For your reading pleasure: http://www.careers.state.gov/general/work/index.htmlIt's really not about law, but rather the employers interpretation of one's job duties and the affixed title and expectation of said duties that define the term "service overseas."This is one such example, a little research should uncover more. Editorial note: I never seemed to get through to some of the posters that when a person is accused of breaking the law, it is really about the law and nothing else. Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#39) by dbp on Jul 29, 2005 -- 04:25:49 PM EST Hi sheerahkahn,The link you provided did not include any information re. the def of "residing outside of the United States".Perhaps this article from the Washington Post will be of value...The Plame Game: Was This a Crime? Note: I meant to say 'served' above, but nobody seemed to notice my gaffe By Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A21 relevant quote: "At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. " You can find the whole article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2305-2005Jan11btw. the authors of the Washington Post article were involved in the negotiation and drafting of the law, so I guess that would make them experts on the issue. Editorial note: It should be obvious that professional people would not in most cases be willing to risk ridicule from their peers. It is reasonable to conclude that their conclusions (which may not in the end prevail) are not unreasonable. Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#40) by walt on Jul 29, 2005 -- 05:12:21 PM EST This appears to be one of those stupid "he said," "she said" time-wasting discussions with a talking point barf-mobile cruising the blogs. Relevant quotes: Toensing & Sanford claim that Plame/Wilson was not covert. She was. Pincus & Vendehei nailed that one with the quotes from Harlow, former CIA spokesperson. And I'm not going to hand you references or links: any sentient being who follows this Plame Name Blame Game knows the relevent data. O, in case you haven't paid any attention, L. Johnson, the former CIA operative who started this thread, says that Plame/Wilson was covert, undercover, clandestine. So much for the Toensing & Sanford veracity. Toensing & Sanford question whether a crime took place. "It's time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed." A crime took place. Judge Hogan stated that J. Miller was in the bad situation of taking part in a crime when he approved the contempt citation. Hogan's decree is the only one that counts. Then the D.C. circuit agreed. Then the Appeals Court agreed. Yup, there's a crime. So now, your source article by Toensing & Sanford has two factual errors, or mistakes, or lies??? Yeah, even when their article was published, it was commonplace that a crime had been committed by outing a covert CIA agent. Finally, the comments by Toensing & Sanford about jetting off to exotic places doesn't apply. Horse crap. I'm not supposed to feed trolls. Anyway, it's not worth any time to rebut your reference point by dreary point. Service isn't based on case law, it's a function of employer assignments. And that was the point by sheerah's reference to employment in Foreign Service positions with the Federal government. If any government entity sends an employee to an overseas location, on duty, in his/her employment status, that means they "served." Whether it's a courier flying a bag in to an embassy, a hot-stick jet jockey flying over a war zone, a military office in mufti attending a seminar, a covert agent working undercover at an international weapons bazaar, etc. O well, I wonder what "is" is. Note: Walt, above gets bent out of shape because someone (me) is not on the same page as the rest of the group-thinking posters...He repeats the same assertion about what serving means lots of times, but never does find the time to back up the assertion with any logic or evidence. He also gets befuddled about the crime which landed Judy Miller in Prison--she is there because she refused to testify before the grand jury... Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#41) by dbp on Jul 29, 2005 -- 06:02:26 PM EST Hi Walt, The beauty of the law is that it is written down for all to see. The law in this case is quite clear (4) The term ''covert agent'' means -(A) a present or retired officer or employee of anintelligence agency or a present or retired member of the ArmedForces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or memberis classified information, and(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationshipto the United States is classified information, and -(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as anagent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence orforeign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation; or (C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whosepast or present intelligence relationship to the United Statesis classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency. Please, I beg of you: Show me where there is any ref. to "Service isn't based on case law, it's a function of employer assignments." As you have claimed. The law says "served outside the United States" not "set foot outside the United States" for a reason. All the wishful thinking in the world will not change that. Maybe better would be "Has at any time in the past 5 years been outside of the United States in an undercover capacity" but of course the law doesn't say that. Btw. Judy Miller is in jail for the crime of refusing to testify. And A crime does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for an Grand Jury investigation to order individuals to appear before it. The standard is, I think, probable cause. All of column A; none of column B (3.00 / 0) (#45) by walt on Jul 30, 2005 -- 12:02:29 AM EST Your references to the LAW are humorous. The B section is for persons who are not U.S. citizens, and they must "reside and act" outside the U.S. Those qualified under the A section need only SERVE. Now if this is a difficult distinction for you to follow, why not let it go because you're just not able to tell the difference between residency & service. Your point about "set foot in" is well taken--that's all of the requirement for "service." Boots on the ground will do, too; flew over works; ship sailed out of international waters & into designated zone will also get the entry in your SERVICE record. As per the law: I'm not an attorney. I do know how to discover what they know. If I tell you Judge Hogan decreed something, then it happened. But for your perusal-- His language today [Jul 6, '05], reported in the Washington Post, is nothing short of startling: [Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F.] Hogan said Miller was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press. He stressed that the government source she "alleges she is protecting" had already waived her promise of confidentiality. He said her source may have been providing information not to shed light on government secrets but to try to discredit an administration critic. "This is not a case of a whistle-blower" revealing secret information to Miller about "dangers at a nuclear power plant," Hogan said. "It's a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime. . . . This is very different than a whistle-blower outing government misconduct." And just for clarity, 7 reviewing judges agree with Hogan. Preceding per Mark A.R. Kleiman (good blog). I'll stop now, because I don't want to spend my time finding references for "service" as used by the U.S. government or in case law (like when was it ever part of a lawsuit?), and, of course, I couldn't possibly find the CIA definition. My earlier comments are sufficient: if you get off the plane in Baghad, you served in Iraq & get the medal & the payroll upgrade & the entry in your SERVICE record. When Plame/Wilson is wheels up with an NOC passport headed out of the USA, she's covert. When Plame/Wilson goes through paskontrol in a foreign country using her cover ID, she is "serving." When the secret agent gets back in the USA, he or she is still serving until de-briefed & released from the assignment. That's enough. And, as others have shown, the IIPA isn't necessary to support the arguments that Plame/Wilson was covert and that divulging her identity is very likely a crime. Other laws probably also apply and the blogosphere is full of posts about them. It's just that I have a personal distaste for people who attack application of the identities protection act as if they know for a fact that Plame/Wilson doesn't fit the definition. Based on the common knowledge of newspapers & weblogs, her situation seems to fit the definition pretty closely. And the CIA agrees with me (oops, I agree with the CIA) because one of their filings references the ID protection act (the Judge Hogan rulings, again, etc.). Re: All of column A; none of column B (3.00 / 0) (#46) by walt on Jul 30, 2005 -- 12:07:50 AM EST Sorry, lost a paragraph. The C section is for persons who are not U.S. citizens. The B section is for persons who are not officers or agents. The distinction still applies. Persons in category A need SERVE. Persons in cagegory B need reside & act. Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#44) by slb on Jul 29, 2005 -- 08:39:21 PM EST btw. the authors of the Washington Post article were involved in the negotiation and drafting of the law, so I guess that would make them experts on the issue. The opinions of Toensing and Sanford as people who were involved in crafting one of the laws in question are interesting, but not dispositive. And it is also perhaps of note that Toensing is apparently a close friend of Robert Novak--of course she's going to try to keep him from looking like a complete turd. There is an interesting analysis of the IIPA in regard to Rove here. It doesn't address the question of Plame's actual status, but I find it hard to believe that the CIA would have pressed so hard for an investigation, and especially hard to believe that the Ashcroft Justice Department would have (however reluctantly) acceded to one, had there been a serious question as to whether or not Plame was actually a covert agent. Even if turns out nobody actually violated the IIPA, that doesn't mean there might not have been other transgressions of law along the way. But for me, this is not so much a question of whether or not a law was violated as it is a question of standards of decency. Whether or not the people trying to "get" Wilson by blowing his wife's cover violated a law, they went way beyond the bounds of what should be decent behavior, even in Washington. And this in a White House that pledged on Day 1 to "restore honor and integrity" to the place. Some honor. Some integrity. Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#47) by dbp on Jul 30, 2005 -- 01:20:34 AM EST Hi slb, I like your comments and tone--it is a proper and good thing when folks can be civil. Just a couple of additional remarks: The most probable reason the Justice Dept. allowed an investigation into this affair is that they figured it would show that they have nothing to hide and want to get to the bottom of it. The press demands an investigation and so it is done. The alternative is to cement the impression of guilt. The same could be said about the fact that Rove and Libby both waived confidentiality. If they have something to hide, they made it pretty easy for whatever reporter they spoke to to spill the beans. They are smart and it is smart to not act guilty, but innocent people act innocent too. As for Judy Miller, she may just be standing on principle, but I find it very hard to believe that she went to jail to protect Karl Rove!Here is my personal theory:Andrea Mitchel has said Plame's CIA employment was a fairly well known fact in Washington. So it is safe to surmise that Rove knew about it the same as other insiders. If he told a reporter about Plame it was to convey that Wilson got the Niger gig because of his wife's recomendation, not to out the woman. As far as Rove knew, plame was just a CIA analyst working out of CIA HQ. If Rove knew about Plames 'covert' status, then he would have done something clever in response to questions about how Wilson got picked for the Niger trip: He would have said, "I don't know how he got picked, perhaps he knows somebody in the WMD division at CIA..." Any reporter worth their salt could have figured out that the person Wilson knew at WMD was his wife!Just a theory--could be wrong-time will tell I suppose. Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#48) by slb on Jul 31, 2005 -- 01:02:47 AM EST The most probable reason the Justice Dept. allowed an investigation into this affair is that they figured it would show that they have nothing to hide and want to get to the bottom of it. With this White House, which seems intent on raising the power of the Executive Branch of government above that of the other two? No, sorry, I don't buy it. And if what you claim was their reasoning, then why did they hold out for so long before responding to the CIA's request? The CIA had originally requested an investigation within days of the publication of Novak's column, but it was several months (and at least one additional CIA request) later before the Justice Department agreed to proceed. The same could be said about the fact that Rove and Libby both waived confidentiality. Until very recently, Rove had only executed the waiver that was required of all White House employees, which both Time and the New York Times (quite properly, I think) viewed as invalid because they considered them coerced. Rove could have picked up the phone any time and called Matthew Cooper to explicitly release him--but he didn't. Frankly, I think he was trying to have it both ways: to give the impression that he had released any reporters from promises of confidentiality, all the while relying on those reporters not to pay any attention to pro forma waivers. Matthew Cooper's ultimate "release" from Rove was actually the result of a statement by Robert Luskin (Rove's lawyer) to the effect that if Cooper was going to jail to protect a source, that source was not Karl Rove. Cooper's lawyer then convinced him to see that as an opening to the explicit release he was looking for. The NY Times reported that when Cooper's lawyer announced in court that Cooper had been released to testify, Luskin appeared suprised, and later he was quoted as saying that Cooper had burned his client. What did he mean by that except that his client didn't actually intend to release Cooper from his confidentiality agreement? Andrea Mitchel has said Plame's CIA employment was a fairly well known fact in Washington. I haven't heard any reporters but Andrea Mitchell who are not part of the Republican noise machine make that claim. And how would reporters be privy to that information if the Wilsons' neighbors and close friends didn't know? And Mitchell herself is not above suspicion; one of the subpoenas issued by Fitzgerald in January 2004 was for the guest list of a July 16, 2003 White House reception honoring Gerald Ford's 90th birthday, among whose guests were reported to be Andrea Mitchell and her husband, Alan Greenspan. She may not exactly be a neutral observer. If he told a reporter about Plame it was to convey that Wilson got the Niger gig because of his wife's recomendation, not to out the woman. As far as Rove knew, plame was just a CIA analyst working out of CIA HQ. (1) Wilson did not get "the Niger gig" because of his wife's recommendation; that canard has been disproved many times over. But even if Valerie Wilson had been the first one to say, when the CIA was looking around for someone to investigate the Niger uranium claims, "I think my husband might be able to help out with that," what would be the big deal? Why would Rove think that a point worth pushing? One look at Wilson's resume shows that he was eminently, even uniquely, qualified for that mission. So what was Rove's purpose in mentioning that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA except to out her? (2) If Rove knew that Plame was CIA but didn't know precisely what she did, then he should have had better sense than to be tossing her name around carelessly. Even I know better than that, and I don't have a White House security clearance. If Rove didn't know better than that, he's too stupid to hold a security clearance. [new] Re: KEY FACTS ON THE PLAME CASE (3.00 / 0) (#50) by dbp on Jul 31, 2005 -- 07:32:33 PM EST Hi slb, Again, good post. On point 1. from your post. Please see page 39 of the Senate Intellegance Report (page 39 on the scan, not the page ind. by adobe) http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf I would like to know where it has been "disproved many times over". I don't see it as any big deal really--his credentials were fine etc. On point 2. If Rove didn't know that Plame was covert, then it would be better not to look further into it: If he didn't know through official channels that she was covert, then he is not covered by the Id Protection Act. If he looked into it and found that she was covert, then his hands would have been tied as far as revealing how he was hired. Just looking into classified info on the spouse of an opponent of the admnistration may, in itself, be an abuse of power. (Anybody remember FBI filegate?)See the relevant part of the statute at the end of this post. Joe Wilson didn't say he was hired by the Vice President's office in his NYT op/ed, but clearly people could jump to that conclusion given the wording of the piece. Given the conclusions Wilson made in the op/ed, it certainly would not be in the interest of the administration for the public to think that one of their own people (Wilson) came to the conclusion that the President was untruthfull. The above would have more power to convince the public than the truth: Joe Wilson is a liberal Democrat (nothing wrong with that--just happens to be the case) who presumably had never favored the war in the first place. That someone like this would find evidence to confirm their own belief is not convincing to most people--no matter how good the evidence is. Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. [ Parent Reply to This ]

Outing gay Republicans and pro-life Democrats

I felt, for the last few days, like writing about something subtle. I wanted to pick a topic which would allow me to make a clear distinction on a subject which is often thought about in messy, non-rigorous ways. How about inconsistency between ‘personal views’ and public policy stands? There is first of all the classic inconsistency which is held by pretty much every Catholic who is a Democratic office-holder. It normally goes something like; ‘I personally oppose abortion, but will not legislate morality’. Now, I suppose this kind of statement is good enough since people who say things like this have won elections. I find it lacking in my new favorite word of the day, rigor. I think the following would be better and possibly result in more votes even!

The Catholic Church is very clear on the notion of abortion: It is in every case a sinful and evil act. As a practicing Catholic, I have faith in the leaders of my church and accept their interpretations of Holy Scripture. My role as a legislator is to make decisions based only upon reason. My personal feelings on any matter cannot be allowed to govern.

Okay, it is kind of a mouthful and the usual way is a lot shorter, but a politician really only needs to make this speech once, so why not be really clear about it? In most cases it seems really odd that politicians even bother to go through the motions of the ‘I personally believe X, but etc.’ I mean, who really thinks Ted Kennedy personally believes anything the Catholic Church preaches? That is to say, believes it because it is policy rather than just coincidentally? Now that I have done the grunt-work of deconstructing a common circumlocution used by the left to weasel-out of being accused of inconsistency or even the dread hypocrisy, now let us look at what the left considers inconsistency on the right. Shall we? Okay, it has happened lots of times so why not use gay outings as a theme? What exactly is proved when a conservative is found to be gay or has a close relative who is gay? I don’t mean to seem dense, but: How does having a gay relative make your political position inconsistent—whatever your position is? There are 4 possible permutations here: 1. Pro-gay agenda, no gay relative 2. Pro-gay agenda, have gay relative 3. Anti-gay agenda, no gay relative 4. Anti-gay agenda, have gay relative I use the term pro or anti-gay agenda, to reflect if one is for or against the demands made by gay activist groups. Numbers 1 and 3 will not be discussed here as they would be outside the scope of this subject. In the case of 2 (Pro-gay agenda, have gay relative) it is at least possible that personal feelings for the relative have affected one’s views on the subject. It is hard to see how the views in case 4 (Anti-gay agenda, have gay relative) can be impeached unless it is somehow wrong to know a gay person and not automatically believe that whatever changes in the law they want, they should get. There are two problems with this: 1. Who says that all gays want what the activists push for? 2. A representative must do what is best for all of the people, not just the few personally known to the politician. Isn’t it possible for a politician to understand the concerns of a minority and still find that the greater good requires voting against what that minority desires? I think it is rather obvious that the answer to this question is YES!

One can only be amazed at how much of a mess one 5 year old with one soft-serve ice cream cone can make on one 90 F day. 

Clear evidence that our little girl has used her pants in place of a napkin! 

The (short) history of our portable pool...

The first year we were in this house we set up a rectangular inflatable pool. It was set up on the deck and the kids seemed to enjoy it, but it was too shallow for me to even float in. There had to be a better way. The next year we got the self-supporting pool seen in the below pictures. It has plenty of depth for floating--which is good. We set it up on the deck. I sweated bullets while filling it up since it weighs a good 20,000 lbs. The deck stood up to the weight, but the pool took up too much of the deck space. Last year we put up the pool in the yard just below the deck stairs. It worked out fine except that all the dead grass stuck to the bottom of the pool and of course there was the unsightly ring of death left at the end of the season. An additional problem was that the yard is not perfectly level and so the uphill side of the pool was not as deep as the downhill side. This year we decided to put the pool in the same place as last year, but level the ground and put down a patio first. Here is the process:

1. Dig out the area and level it--the stones you see on the uphill side of the finished project are exclusively obtained from this excavation. It took about 20 wheelbarrow loads of dirt to be moved for this part of the work to be completed.
2. Put down some pulverized stone for a stable bed. I used 30 50lb bags of stone and I probably should have used 50 bags. I didn't want to spend too much on such a low priority project.
3. The stones: I had initially considered using stones from the field-stone wall behind our house, but these are not all that flat and it would have been difficult work. Next, we considered using tumbled blue stone. These are fairly flat and would have cost about $330 per pallet and it would have taken about 2 pallets. Finally, I remembered a place where I had gotten a granite slab for a table top. When I purchased the granite they had pointed out that they have a scrap heap behind their shop and I could take what I want. Bingo! Free! and perfectly flat AND all the same thickness! We brought home two truck loads of granite. Each time we took 6 layers of stone over the 6ft by 4 ft area available. The truck was visably weighed down and probably exceded the half-ton rating. I would guess 1500 lbs/load. The patio took about 1 1/2 truck loads.
4. The author's wife and I laid-out the stones and left about one inch of space between each one. We put about 4/5 of the stone with the rough side up so that the deck would not be too slippery. I wanted the space because I figured that concrete would be stronger than mortar and thinner gaps would be tough to get concrete into.
5. 10 80lb sacks of concrete later, the project was (almost) done. It took me an average of about 1 hr per bag of concrete. 7 of those hours were in the 90 F of July 4th. I did a lot of spraying with the hose between bags to wash away the cement from the tops of the quarry stones.
6. The only additional work was to make a drainage system: While the patio was under construction, there was always a place for water to wash away to--the unfinished parts. Once it was done I had to create a place for water to go. I dug a pit about 3 ft from the edge of the patio and put a 5 gal bucket (which was cracked and had holes in it) into the pit such that the top of the bucket was about 8 inches below grade. I then dug a trench from the edge of the patio over to the bucket and laid a spare bit of drainage pipe connecting the edge of the patio to the bucket. I laid stones and newspaper over the top of the bucket then the dirt and sod went back over the pit and trench. The whole thing bears my weight and has absorbed a good 15 minutes of continuous spraying with the hose. Note: Math practice with Surenna reveals that our hose puts out around 4 gal/minute, so my rudimentary dry well seems able to handle roughly 60 gallons in 15 minutes.

Daughters enjoying the first day the pool is set-up 

A little girl inspecting the pool site. She also acts as a living yardstick--giving some perspective to the size of the project. 

Jemma, finally enjoying the (quite cold) water. 

Beacon Hill to see John Kerry's crib.

Whiling-away the time waiting by skipping coins fished out of the fountain...

We waited for them at the Christian Science Mother Church in Boston--They came up from NYC by bus...

Relatives from India: The woman is my mother-in-law's aunt. Also pictured are her husband and son and our three girls. 

Ahh, the perfect dinner from a man's perspective--Meat and potatoes washed down with a strong drink! Please note the complete absence of salad. See below for how such a dinner was possible... 

Not long ago my wife had a "girls night out" Here she is just before leaving the house. 

Screed alert!

Back before the election I wrote a commentary on Daniel Drezner’s website regarding what I thought of as the short-sightedness of GWB opponents. Dear Mr. Drezner, I can't help but think that critics of GWB's foreign policy tend to focus on minor setbacks and failures at the expense of the big picture: Before 9-11 it looked as if sanctions against the Iraqi regime could not be sustained indefinitely. Our French, Russian and Chinese "allies" were pushing to end them and "human rights" groups were assailing the hardship it caused the Iraqi people. After 9-11, GWB had the choice of appearing to the world as weak in the face of Islamic assault or the opposite and in the process getting rid of the expense and trouble of maintaining forever our air patrols of northern and southern no-fly zones. WMD or not, the cost of not acting would have been incalculable in terms of American prestige and safety. We should also remember the state of the economy by 9-11: We had a recession which started before GWB took office, the tech bubble burst, corporate malfeasance was finally being brought to light and of course there was the freshly made pile of rubble smoking in Manhattan. Where are we now? 5 quarters in a row of excellent average growth and very strong employment numbers. dbp Posted by David Pecchia, October 15, 2004 05:38 PM I thought that I was being clear: Looting at a museum may be a horrible thing, but compared with the liberation of nations containing more than 50 million people, rather insignificant. But still I got this kind of response to my letter… Note: I left out the first part of this letter as it was just a quote from my letter. First, don't forget all of the US companies that were pushing to end the sanctions. Anyway, the big picture is that Bush's record on national security is pretty weak. He let the bad guys go in Afghanistan. That's not a minor detail, that's a huge one. We had the opportunity to take bin Laden and much of the Al Qaeda leadership out over there, but Bush let them all get away. He took our special forces out and diverted them to Iraq BEFORE Congress had even started to talk about giving Bush authorization for war. He replaced them with Spanish-speaking anti-drug agents. Terrible failure. In Iraq, he rushed us in with no strategy to win the peace. He's managed it terribly. And by all reports, terrorist recruiting has gone through the roof as a result. That's making us less safe. These aren't minor details, they're huge. Posted by Zip, October 15, 2004 05:59 PM Let us dissect this bit by bit: First, don't forget all of the US companies that were pushing to end the sanctions. Okay, which US companies? And if there were some, so what? My point was that sanctions could not be sustained forever and that they brought hardship to Iraqi people. Is the correspondent trying to attack US corporations as immoral? Or is he trying to defend the position of nations like France and Russia? He let the bad guys go in Afghanistan. That's not a minor detail, that's a huge one. We had the opportunity to take bin Laden and much of the Al Qaeda leadership out over there, but Bush let them all get away. He took our special forces out and diverted them to Iraq BEFORE Congress had even started to talk about giving Bush authorization for war. He replaced them with Spanish-speaking anti-drug agents. Terrible failure. GWB deprived Al Qaeda the use of Afghanistan as a safe haven and base of operations. This action was opposed by the left in the USA who predicted that it would be a replay of Vietnam. The Christian Science Monitor has a good report of how Bin Laden got away: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html The story—which takes place after the operation, is dated March 4th 2002. According to Wikipedia, the USA invaded Iraq March 20th 2003. Is it just me? Or does it seem fanciful to state that we moved special forces from Afghanistan to Iraq more than a year before we invaded that country! Again, the big picture: Freed a whole country, denied use of said country to enemy—of course it is a total failure since some of the enemy got away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq In Iraq, he rushed us in with no strategy to win the peace. He's managed it terribly. And by all reports, terrorist recruiting has gone through the roof as a result. That's making us less safe. There is a lot of just mush here, but I will try and make something of it… Supposedly the war has been managed terribly. Well then, why didn’t all the bad things the left said would happen actually happen? · There were not 100’s of thousands of refugees · There was not massive oil well fires · Saddam did not use WMD on our troops—yes, yes the left likes to forget that even they believed in WMD before the war and used it as a reason to avoid war. · Baghdad was not Stalingrad and we did not loose the tens of thousands of troops predicted by the left. There are no firm numbers available on terrorist recruitment, but let us just concede for the sake of argument that recruitment is up. I don’t think I am alone in the bias that I would rather have Saudi, Jordanian and Syrian terrorists going to Iraq to be killed by our troops and killed by allied Iraqi troops, than coming here to kill us! Again, big picture: The only nation to openly defy us in our anti-terror campaign has been régime-changed by US Force. We can not count on ever being loved by other nations, but by-God we can make sure that we are feared! And there is some value in that.

Since I'm not a conspiracy theorist, these pictures are wasted on me.

The below satellite pictures are from maps.google.com. I was exploring the Washington DC area in anticipation of a trip there later in the Summer and I noticed some strange aspects to the sat images. Sometimes they are deliberately blurred or distorted. I can see the reasons for this in some cases, but others are just odd. I can see a whole hobby springing-up: Spot the blurred-out sections on Google satellite images. I found the Capitol first, then I looked to see about the White House and Pentagon (which is not distorted). I found the Observatory Circle by accident. I was just exploring routes into and out of DC. Note: You can click on any of the images and you will get a full screen, higher resolution image.

Here is an unblurry picture of the Vice President's Residence from the Vice President's website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/vpresidence.html 

Is this a crop circle in the middle of Washington DC? No. It is Observatory Circle and where the residence of the Vice President is. Why blurry? I think I can make a guess. Please note: For the above picture (and all the others on this site) you can get a bigger and more detailed picture by clicking on the small picture presented here.

Do you see something odd about the roofs of the White House and the bldgs to either side? I do. Notice how all the other structures have complicated roofs? Lots of air conditioners and vents and stuff like that. The White house looks strangely uniform. Here the subtrafuge is understandable. No need for anyone out there to see the Patriot battery on the roof of the West wing!

The resolution is fairly low here, but clearly the US Capitol grounds and some nearby bldgs are blurred. It is not as if it is hard to find nor unknown how it looks, so why the cloak and dagger?