Tom Daschle's Ghost

DC's Next Big Emergency-Response Challenge: Aliens

2008-12-13T14:53:00.007-05:00

So I'm detouring again from the original thrust of this blog (politics, the occasional dabble into homeland security) and pontificating on something that came to mind last night. I actually plunked down $10 last night to see The Day The Earth Stood Still, which included one of the most hilariously unintentional scenes of racism I've ever had the fortune to watch. (Keanu Reeves, as alien-in-human-form, speaks stilted and uneven Chinese with other-alien-in-human-form James Hong, which sounds like Keanu imitating someone else's offensive parroting of Chinese speech.)

But TDTESS's lengthy scenes involving the military, secretive federal agencies, and local law enforcement responses to an alien landing seemed wildly inaccurate. Then I realized- how could someone define an accurate response to something so goofily improbable as an alien landing? So I have decided to try. Because that's what we need in times like this. Realistic assessments of the alien threat.

Before we get started, let's postulate a couple of things:
1) There are, in fact, no secret governmental or military agencies charged with handling extraterrestrial contacts, incidents or invasions.
2) There are, in fact, no plans, policies or procedures at the state, federal, local, municipal or military levels of government which specify how to respond to an alien landing.
3) The public arrival of an alien spacecraft would, for the sake of this discussion, not commence with immediate and overt hostilities on the part of either the aliens or humans.
4) The aliens would land in a location proximate to political leaders, military power, and population centers. For the sake of this discussion, it will be the site of the original TDTESS landing, the National Mall in Washington, DC.

The Arrival

All right. So how does this begin? Well, initially the spacecraft would be tracked by one of the multiple American or international institutions that participates in the "Spaceguard" program, sharing information and data on potentially dangerous asteroids approaching the earth. Once those folks communicated that information to the North American Aerospace Defense Command, we'd probably try to come up with some way to destroy it under the assumption that it was a piece of space junk. But, again for the sake of argument, let's say it began to slow down, change course, and exhibit obvious signs of intelligent guidance. I would suspect that, despite Hollywood's assumption, the instinctive response would not be for us to attempt to nuke it before it landed.

Of course, once it entered our atmosphere and began heading for the Baltimore-Washington area, our extraterrestrial visitor(s) would enter the Washington, DC Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ.) This is where things would begin to get tricky. It's doubtful that they filed a flight plan with the FAA, so this ADIZ incursion would trigger something called an ASA Mission- Air Sovereignty Alert. Air National Guard fighter jets (whose mission, since 9/11, has been air defense for major cities) would intercept the visitors as they arrived.

Regardless of what conveyance the aliens chose for this trip, our ANG pilots would probably be quick to realize that this was not the usual ADIZ violation (such as the May 2005 incident which forced the evacuation of the U.S. Capitol.) There have been over 3,000 of these incidents since 2001, but the rules of engagement for interstellar warfare are obviously a bit blurrier than those for forcing down a Cessna pilot who's gone wildly off-course. My suspicion is that unless the UFO made threatening moves or deployed some kind of weapon, they would escort and monitor the ship but stop short of attacking it.

The Response

So now the spacecraft lands on the National Mall, which is by far the best impromptu landing area in the National Capital Region. Concerned and confused citizens(who would inevitably swamp the DC 911 center with calls) would probably refer to it as an aircraft down. This would trigger an automatic specialty rescue assignment to the DC Fire & EMS Department, dispatching hazmat, heavy rescue , and mass casualty units to the scene, as well as a number of regular fire apparatus and ambulances.

But once it became obvious that nobody had been hurt, and that it was in fact a landing rather than an actual crash, DC Fire & EMS would have to hand over command to the primary law enforcement agency for the National Mall, the U.S. Park Police. They have fairly significant resources (including three medevac-capable helicopters, dubbed Eagles 1, 2 and 3, as well as a SWAT team and motor unit) so they would probably take over command. They'd have support from other agencies like the Secret Service Uniformed Division (who guard the White House) and DC's Metropolitan Police. In addition, since this would happen directly in front of the U.S. Capitol building, the Capitol Police would almost certainly respond.

Notably absent would be the military, with the exception of our Air Guard fighters. It's a staple, in the aliens-arrive genre, that heavily armed Guardsmen or paratroopers or Green Berets are awaiting the visitors on the ground, cocked, locked and ready to rock. But mobilizing the National Guard takes time, and it's a process that has to be worked out between state and federal governments. Unless they've been activated by the Department of Defense, the Guard is a state asset. Active-duty military troops, even in the Military District of Washington, might not be there immediately. The Marine Barracks near Capitol Hill would probably be the closest, but it's anybody's guess how long it would take to notify them and for them to subsequently suit up and respond in their full "battle rattle."

But there is one military unit which would, almost certainly, respond quickly and at their full capacity- the District of Columbia National Guard's 33rd Civil Support Team. CST teams are specially trained military hazmat squads, based in every state and tasked with the specific mission of assisting civilian government during a Weapons of Mass Destruction attack. They're on call 24/7, airmobile, and come with advanced radiation and hazardous materials assessment gear. Many have mobile command units as well. Any on-scene commander, concerned for personnel and public safety at the scene of an alien landing, would be well advised to call for a CST. Let's assume that this one did.

Another federal unit from the Department of Homeland Security would be quick to respond. The U.S. Coast Guard's Station Washington would probably dispatch air support to the Mall, adding to an already crowded sky but providing additional scene security. Their units would already be patrolling the Potomac River and helping to lock down the area. No sense in drunken boaters adding to the confusion.

And it wouldn't just be cops, firemen, Coasties and soldiers. Let's not forget that the arrival of alien visitors would create even more problems for DC's notorious traffic. The District D.O.T. and the National Park Service would have to divert traffic away from the National Mall, creating major detours around the center of the federal city. And the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, better known as Metro, would be forced to shut down its Smithsonian station to prevent commuters from inadvertently wandering into an interstellar incident.

The Mission

So with DC Fire, the 33rd CST, USCG, Park Police, Capitol Police, Secret Service, DDOT and MPD on scene, as well as onlookers and the inevitable media presence, the question would quickly become "who's in charge?" Federal, state and local responders are required to use the National Incident Management System, or NIMS, which emphasizes a concept called Unified Command. Instead of arguing over which agency is running the show at a big disaster, NIMS encourages the creation of Unified Command, where the major responders establish joint command and set incident objectives as a team. This is rarely as easy as it sounds, but at least they'd have DC Fire's mobile command unit as a safe location for the agency leaders to run the show.

The first priority would be establishing a perimeter around the scene. It wouldn't be easy, but it's been done before (and, during the upcoming Obama inauguration, they'll have to do it again.) The outer perimeter could be established fairly quickly, since there would be no shortage of police units to throw up checkpoints. The next step would be to establish communications. The federal government has authorized billions of grant dollars to ensure that cops, firefighters and other responders can talk on each other's radio systems, but it's not a done deal yet, and there are still problems.

Of course, once they'd established command, secured the scene, and set up communications, local, state and federal coordination centers would have to activate. Emergency Operations Centers, as they're called, serve as a place where different agency representatives can go to share resources and information as well as plan a wider response. While it would be nice to have Mayor Adrian Fenty and DC Homeland Security & Emergency Management Agency Director Darrell Darnell monitor the situation from the DC EOC, though, they'd probably show up to the scene.

So now we have elected leaders arriving at the scene. Fenty might be the first, and (since our UFO's inevitable Air Sovereignty Alert would certainly lead to the evacuation of the Capitol) members of the House and Senate (who hadn't already been evacuated to Mount Weather) would almost certainly wander on over. And good luck denying them access. Then the executive branch would show up- the quickest to arrive would probably be FBI special agents, the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security, and their entourages. My opinion is that the most important federal Secretary on scene would be the one charged with international diplomacy, and whose Foggy Bottom offices were a stone's throw a way- the Secretary of State. (Who would bring, as this blog has mentioned in the past, Diplomatic Security special agents.)

It would be very dependent on a President's personality, regarding whether or not he/she would choose to meet the aliens. Our current administration has shown a propensity to head for the hills (specifically, of Bluemont, Virginia and Waynesboro, PA) at the earliest hint of trouble. Not that I fault them- continuity of government is extremely important in matters of national security. I somehow think that our President-elect (while quickly sending Joe Biden to Site R) would choose to stay in the White House, most likely monitoring it from the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. He'd have the option of meeting E.T. if he wanted to, and of staying in a place of relative shelter not too far from the scene.

While all of this was going on, the 33rd CST (along with DC Fire) would probably suit up and enter the inner perimeter of the landing site. Most movies imply a lot of steam, smoke and dramatic concealment of the craft and its occupants, but I would imagine that any transgalactic civilization would be able to land their craft without making it look like a dry-ice trick on Halloween. At this point, our hazmat teams would start running the risk of encountering the alien flight crew. But if the aliens were still doing their landing checks inside the ship, the CST would probably detect slightly-elevated radiation levels from interstellar travel.

The Media

DC would be a luckier landing site for the responders than many other places. If they touched down in New York or Los Angeles, emergency response units would be plagued by buzzing and hovering news helicopters. They'd have to establish a temporary flight restriction, which can take time, but DC-area TV stations don't even use helicopters (they'd never get clearance to fly in the first place.) But the Mall has long, open lines of sight, and it wouldn't be long before the print and broadcast media would be howling for some kind of information about what had just landed on the Mall.

This is another situation in which the Unified Command would be smart to break out their NIMS training and set up a Joint Information Center somewhere outside of the hot zone. By sending spokespersons from different agencies to staff the center, they could coordinate their messages before opening their mouths. For example- the Washington Post asks, is it an alien ship? The Coasties could say no, the military could say yes, and DC Fire could say maybe. With a JIC, responders can can get their stories straight without contradicting each other a la Hurricane Katrina.

Regular briefings, reasonable access to the scene and honest information would go a long way towards making news media coverage of the response run smoothly. As smoothly as possible. Let's not forget, we're dealing with aliens landing on the freaking Mall here.

Making Contact

So now that the scene has been secured, the Civil Support Team has assessed the situation, the media is being managed, and the President is monitoring the situation, who would be sent to make the first contact? Who would be our emissary to the interstellar visitors? What kind of a message would we send? For God's sake, we're talking about aliens landing on the Mall. I have no freakin' idea.

But it does make planning for the January 20th inauguration seem a lot easier, doesn't it?

Please feel free to leave comments and let me know (if you've got experience in public safety, emergency management or the military) if I've missed anything, or if you think it would be managed differently.

Four Years

2008-11-03T20:09:00.002-05:00

It's four years (give or take a couple of hours) since I started this blog out of frustration at the way the world looked after Bush's re-election in 2004. I've posted inconsistently at best, and not always on the topic of politics (see: iPhone, Customs & Border Protection officers, etc.) But I've been focused, on the whole, on looking ahead at how this country gets past the fact that it elected (and re-elected) George W. Bush to be President of the United States.

And from the way things look tomorrow (note that I say this crossing my fingers whilst knocking on wood) our country has turned in the direction that we could only dream about four years ago. To paraphrase Aaron Sorkin's commentary in the New York Times, we've got a black guy with a funny name running a strong campaign against a genuine war hero and a pretty evangelical white woman. Doesn't that tell us something about how far we've come?

(By no means am I taking this for granted, since the ghosts of the Bush mistakes are everywhere. No, seriously- I saw Donald Rumsfeld walking down Connecticut Avenue today and it really freaked me out.)

But we can't forget how we got here. The last eight years have been, without question, some of the hardest this country has ever seen. We've had our foreign policy mismanaged to epic proportions, witnessed the rise of a news organization that promotes the alternate conservative interpretation of reality over, um, the TRUTH, and seen federal funding for lifesaving science and technology efforts slashed for idiotic ideological reasons. Oh, don't forget that we've had our economy flushed into the toilet through the worst of both worlds; massive growth in government programs combined with tax cuts and deficit spending.

That's what drives me insane about this administration. (One of the things.) At least Democrats have the courage of their convictions; at the end of the day, they may tax and spend, but at least they recognize that you have to HAVE money to spend it. Is cutting taxes to artificially low levels and borrowing against the dollar (supported by China and Saudi Arabia, who really have our best interests at heart) somehow more honorable? Be honest about where the money comes from, at a minimum.

Here's the thing. Bush polarized this country to an unparalleled degree, and Democrats could have selected a dyed-in-the-wool standard-bearer to ride the usual anti-administration wave that crests after a two-term President leaves office. (That would be Hillary, those of you who still have the guts to call yourselves PUMAs.) But Democrats, as well as unprecedented new voters and independents, selected Barack Obama, a visionary with an inclusive and inspiring plan to move the country past the wounds of the Bush years.

And that guy has been running campaign circles around John McCain. So, no pun intended regarding Obama's catch word, I have hope. Not just for how tomorrow will go (at least I know I'll have a few drinks onboard; I'll be in a bar within view of the U.S. Capitol watching the returns) but for how liberals have managed to appeal to the great undecided middle, and how unlike 2004, people are beginning to vote their hopes and not their fears.

Watch the attack ads aimed at Obama in the last few hours, if you're in range of (or living in) a swing state. The Republican Party wants the world to be afraid of Obama, either because he's proven himself to be too liberal or because he hasn't proven himself enough. (They don't seem to mind the inherent contradiction.) The point is not that their guy is a good candidate; it's that our guy is somehow, amorphously, intangibly bad.

The point is, Obama is not out for the kind of revenge upon the Republican party or the federal government that even a guy like me would want. And I'm going to vote for him because of his judgment- because he won't do what I would do, set out to systematically reverse everything Bush did. He's looking forward, and that's the right attitude.

If you'll excuse me, the SNL Presidential Bash is on, and I'm planning on laughing tonight, voting tomorrow, and smiling on Wednesday.

Also, if McCain wins, I will resurface in a week or two with a red-state-sized hangover.

CIA Research Budget Expands; Now Checking Google AND Amazon

2008-09-17T20:38:00.002-04:00

America's top spies have divined the following shocking revelations after taking advantage of the very latest in tea-leaf and tarot card technology. Among their research-intensive findings, the most brilliant minds of our vaunted intelligence community have determined:

-The world will get warmer.
-The population will grow and age.
-New forms of energy will be important.
-American power and prestige will shrink.

Let's just set aside the fact that these things have already happened. I mean seriously, guys, you're not even trying any more. Are we honestly just paying American intelligence agencies to sit around and read the next Tom Friedman book?

The CIA's next groundbreaking work products: "Non-English Speakers Remain Difficult to Understand," "Japanese Cars Represent Ongoing Threat to GM," and the page-turner I can't wait for, "Mideast Political Future Appears Sandy."

Charles Rangel, You Deserve It

2008-09-16T14:49:00.001-04:00

I can't say that, as a liberal, I feel any sympathy for Charles Rangel whatsoever. Between using taxpayer dollars to build himself a monument at City College of New York, using rent-controlled apartments as offices, and apparently evading his taxes here and there, he'd be your average slimy politician.

But the man went one step worse than that. He, alongside Louis Farrakhan, helped the men who murdered New York City Patrolmen Phillip Cardillo to evade justice. As I mentioned in a previous post, in April of 1972, Cardillo and his partner were called to a mosque in Harlem for a report of an officer down. It was a fake call that drew them into an ambush. Cardillo was shot and died a week later in the hospital, but when a crowd of local citizens saw the commotion, they were angry only that the police had entered a mosque.

Rangel, aided by Louis Farrakhan, denied the police officers the ability to investigate the crime scene using the threat of a riot. They assured the cops that the perpetrators would turn themselves in at the local precinct, and because of Rangel's influence, the New York City police had no choice but to accept this travesty and leave the scene. In addition, Rangel helped twist the deputy police commissioner's arm into apologizing for the incident in the first place. Neither the mayor nor the police commissioner attended Officer Cardillo's funeral, but Cardillo's widow and his three children certainly did.

Representative Charles Rangel helped a cop killer to go free, and we're surprised that the guy might cheat on his taxes? He's a disgrace to the Democratic Party. The sooner someone has the courage to drag this pond scum into the light of day, the better.

YouTube Fights Back

2008-09-14T00:31:00.004-04:00

Just out of curiosity, why did this little blow to international terrorism take so damn long? I'm all for keeping this little series of tubes open and free from unreasonable restriction, but the idea that YouTube has been removing videos for copyright violations but not violent, hateful and potentially murderous messages...along with education viewers on how to act on those messages? Why did it take Joe freaking Lieberman to get people's attention?

It's very similar to child pornography; everybody recognizes, internationally, that that material both stems from unacceptable, repugnant activities, and that it also helps perpetuate them. In one case it's child molestation, and in another, it's hate speech and try-this-at-home walkthroughs on bomb-building. The scope of damage is obviously different, but they both clearly represent a public menace.

That's what allows me to advocate a restriction on free speech, especially over the Internet, which is something I'm not ordinarily prone to doing.

There's a good argument to be made that keeping such videos out in the open permits intelligence agencies to track who's viewing them. But that tends to get into privacy issues, and is within spitting distance of the PATRIOT Act. Furthermore, if you take that initial easy access to the material away, that starts to narrow down the number of people who are willing to put in the effort to find the stuff. The truly dedicated ones were going to find it anyway, and if they didn't find the extremist material, they were going to make their own. But this helps with the low-hanging fruit...the bored or disaffected who might have come across the stuff casually.

And the "whack-a-mole" point is valid. If you shut them down off YouTube, they'll go somewhere else. But that goes back to the child-porn example. If it becomes progressively more difficult to find using mainstream websites, all but the most dedicated searchers will give up and do something (hopefully) more lawful with their time. It's the same theory that leads China to use basic obstructive techniques on their "Great Firewall." Any decent hacker can get around the Chinese net controls, but they're not doing it for hackers. They're doing it to help corral the general population.

Not that I'm advocating corralling anybody. But big enterprises like YouTube have an obligation to parse the most offensive and dangerous material out there, and I remain surprised that they didn't have any restrictions on it until now. You couldn't stand on a streetcorner and pass out how-to flyers on bomb-building. Someone would call the police and you would be out of luck.

This will obviously not stop people who want to hear violent hate speeches, see attacks on American troops, or learn how to build a bomb. But it does force them to take additional steps and expend additional effort. This additional time and effort is the cornerstone of the three D's- Deter, Delay, Disrupt. Making it tougher- even if only a little- to find the videos that they want will help deter the half-hearted, delay the committed, and provide a little more time to help disrupt their activities.

Pick Your Reality

2008-09-13T17:07:00.003-04:00

Reality #1: Since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security and its dedicated personnel, contractors and partners have made significant advances in securing our homeland. They have been responsive to Congressional inquiry, accepting of criticism, willing to reform after debacles like Katrina, and fastidious in their stewardship of American tax dollars. For confirmation of this version of reality, see here.

Reality #2: The Department of Homeland Security is a pigheaded, bloated bureaucracy that is barely competent enough to tread the party line under the toxic leadership of Still-President George W. Bush. They ignore Congressional requirements, cozy up to private contractors, engage in vicious turf battles and generally leave America less safe. For confirmation of THIS version of reality, see here.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Why My iPhone Rules

2008-09-07T19:30:00.002-04:00

This is my first post in a while and it's wildly off-topic. Why, in a time of more exciting political developments- nay, the most exciting political developments in four years- would I choose to write about my consumer electronics purchases? One purchase, specifically? Because, to be perfectly honest, that purchase is worth the time.

The iPhone (and its latest incarnation, the 3G) already has enough of an aura or a stigma, depending on your point of view. People who have them tend to be characterized as early-adopter, techno-hipster types who see Steve Jobs' and Sergei Brin's creations as divine masterpieces on par with the Himalayas or the platypus. The iPhone's detractors tend to fall into the Blackberry-using, suit-and-tie drone category, or the disenchanted lot who had some lousy experience with an iPhone and threw up their hands. This crowd tends to have three major gripes- the reception/3G network service sucks, it's disgustingly expensive on a monthly basis, and the battery life is infinitesimal.

I can safely say that both sides are right.

The iPhone 3G is an amazing toy, with blatantly obvious flaws, but those flaws- in a weird, perverse way- actually make it even more worthwhile. I'll explain, but first I have to remind you of the iPhone's primary capabilities. (I'm not going to mention everything it does, because that would be goofy. But it's worth pointing out the things that it does do, that one actually uses.)

1.) Phone. Duh. 'Nuff said.
2.) iPod. Also duh. Video capabilities, 8GB or 16GB of storage depending on model, and its trademark white earbuds double as a headset for the phone. Lets you buy music on the go.
3.) Camera. Not the world's greatest camera, but when I forget my real camera and HAVE to snap a picture, it can do the job 95% of the time.
4.) Mobile email platform. It syncs up well with GMail, which is all I care about, as well as a number of other clients. Not as straightforward of an interface as a Blackberry, but it still works just fine.
5.) Internet browser. Between the Safari application and all of the other web-based programs you can get specifically for the iPhone (Twitter, Wikipedia, Google Maps, and Facebook, to name a tiny few) it's got good mobile Internet for most of the stuff you waste time on at the office.
6.) GPS/locator service. You need directions somewhere, this thing's got you covered.

Obviously, it does more than what I mentioned there, but the point is, that's what you use it for on a regular basis.

Keeping that in mind, let's address the battery problem. It is not unreasonable to imagine a modern person carrying different devices for just about all of those different functions. A Blackberry for their work e-mail, an iPod for music, a PSP for video, a TomTom for GPS, a personal cell phone, and a laptop computer. Six devices, about 25 pounds worth of electronics, and God knows how many jigawatts of power. (Yes, I'm deliberately using a Marty McFly unit of electrical measurement.) Now you've got one that weighs less than a pound that can do a B+ job at all of those functions. Wouldn't you rather be recharging its battery on a daily basis than toting around a big ol' collection of the other devices I mentioned?

Moving to the next problem, the crotchety network access (including 3G, which saps the Chihuahua-esque battery even further). First, turn off the 3G unless you really, really need it. The difference in speed is not as significant as you'd think. And to be honest, I think the patchy network and cell coverage is a blessing in disguise- in fact, almost an Apple safety feature. If you had good, fast coverage on this thing's network 24-7, you would be so utterly glued to its screen that you wouldn't pay attention to oncoming traffic, walls, or overweight tourists. Cursing the AT&T network forces you to look away from the screen occasionally.

And on the last note, there is no way to excuse the fact that the iPhone is expensive on a monthly basis. It just is. But once you get one, you'll realize that its capabilities can fundamentally change how you interact with the world around you; it really does make you into a more wired person. My best example: I was recently in a new city, looking for a particular monument that a friend had told me to check out. Without ever needing to call someone or use a traditional computer, I:

-Got directions from my current location to the monument
-Checked up on its history on Wikipedia
-Took a picture of myself in front of it
-Mailed it to my friend
-Wandered through the rest of the park listening to music
-Checked out restaurant reviews for places in the area to get dinner.

That's a level of plugged-in I had never imagined. And this guy, who recently gave up his crappy, 2005-era flip phone, thinks it's worth it.

Tonight's Debate

2008-02-26T22:18:00.002-05:00

First of all, I think it's funny how the cable news networks hosting presidential debates market them in the same way the broadcast networks hype American Idol or Lost. When CNN hosted the last one, their website's front page was entirely devoted to slavering coverage of every moment of back-and-forth. You can't even find a peep regarding tonight's MSNBC debate on it now. Same deal with MSNBC; this 'rhetorical slugfest' (their words) covers a main page that didn't deem the CNN debate worthy of a few lines a while back.

I'm not linking to them on GP.

Clinton's histrionics about healthcare (16 full minutes) ended with a big ol' group hug by the end of the night, and Obama's calm and reasoned response was borne out as the right response by Clinton's gradual toning-down of her rhetoric. And her shrieking about being asked the first question complemented her poorly-placed sarcasm about the Obama SNL skit, asking him if he'd like another pillow.

At this point, Clinton has to be coming around to the unpleasant reality that nobody really wants to go back and fight the old battles of the 90s. He's not going to polarize the electorate the way Clinton will. The country has suffered enormously under the Bush administration in every conceivable way, and Obama is the only one,, in my opinion, who has the ability to heal the country while moving it forward in the right direction.

But they're both right when you look at their Cuddly Comments at the end of the debate. Both of them would be light-years better than McCain and their differences are minor at best, and both Clinton and Obama will put America back on track.

This is bound to get consumed by the spin cycle and analyzed until it's been bled white. Personally, I'm just looking forward to next Tuesday.

Consider My Gut Wrenched

2008-02-03T23:42:00.001-05:00

There is one point of hope that came out of tonight. A friend asked me, "Would you be willing to sacrifice a Patriots win tomorrow for Obama sweeping Super Tuesday and marching on to the White House?"

The sad thing is that I had to think long and hard about my answer. But it was yes- I'd be willing to let my dreams of a Patriots 19-0 season die if it meant our ship of state would be captained by Obama.

And now the Pats have lost, so clearly, Obama is on the march to the White House.

If you'll excuse me, I've got some more throwing up to do.

Horse Race

2008-01-09T19:29:00.000-05:00

I don't agree with the common sentiment that seems to be echoing around, that the networks had been hoping for Obama to run away with the New Hampshire primary and lock in the Democratic nomination before it even started getting warm in New England. I think the networks are in much better shape right now. There are a dozen different storylines to track for them, and a weekly horse race all the way through mid-February. This is cable-news gold.

I don't think anyone really expected Barack Obama to take New Hampshire by storm as was widely predicted. Unlike Iowa, the Democrats and Republicans are fighting for the same pool of independent voters, and a sudden shift to a candidate in one party can have a pretty irritating ripple effect on candidates in the other.

Another note: Lou Dobbs excoriating "the arrogance of the pundits" makes my head spin. If Lou Dobbs is sick and tired of hearing from pundits, he should probably start by shutting up. Actually, the sound of his voice is turning my stomach, too. Everybody wins.

I also don't think that Hillary Clinton's little display of emotion the day before the primary had much of an impact. Yes, women figured prominently in her success, but I think it's damn near an insult to assume that a couple of tears are going to sway adult Americans to vote one way or the other. If it's actually true, then I am truly saddened.

Finally, I retain my distaste for Iowa and New Hampshire having such an disproportionate role in selecting a president. Think about it. Less than four million people in a country of 300 million have a massively larger say in selecting that nation's leader than the other 296. I understand the goal of having early primaries in small states (less cost to reach voters, gives more people a chance to meet the candidates proportionally) but I regard that as a convenience.

In the end, a primary voter in New York is valued less, courted less and generally pandered to far less than one in Iowa or New Hampshire. What makes the Iowa or NH voters more valuable? What makes their sacred position so valuable that it's worth punishing voters in Florida or Wyoming to protect it? Tradition and convenience do not outweigh the fundamental rights of voters in the other 48 states.

Okay, now I'm gonna watch me some Stewart and Colbert.

The Handshakes

2008-01-05T22:22:00.000-05:00

The only other thing I want to say about tonight's dual Democratic and Republican debates is about the "crossover episode" where the Republican and Democratic candidates were onstage together, shaking hands. What an interesting moment. They weren't just being cordial and perfunctory. They were having legitimate conversations with each other. Is it too much to hope that the winner will recruit from that group, within and without their own parties, to fill high-level positions?

(Yes, I've been stealing a friend's copy of "Team of Rivals." Is it that obvious?) Also, the president who will take the oath of office on January 20th, 2009 needs to appoint Mike Gravel as our first Secretary of Being Hilarious.

I'm going to give Hillary a compliment on one point. She had to defend herself against a poorly-phrased Charlie question about how she's not likable enough. (What a dumb and insulting thing to say, "Why don't people like you more?") She responded well, by saying "That hurts my feelings," and I think she's right to say so. I met the woman once, and she really was quite likable and friendly. I don't think she's a bad person and if it were between her and any of the Republicans, I'd vote for her. I just don't think she's the best Democrat available, that's all.

Did anybody notice that during that moment, Ron Paul wasn't doing too much gladhanding? I'm still holding out hope that he can play the spoiler in any close election, running as an independent, and pull a Nader on the Republican Party. That would be pretty exciting.

Change!

2008-01-05T21:36:00.000-05:00

The two candidates I like the least in this debate have been quite thoroughly tag-teamed by the four candidates I like the most. Apparently taking a cue from the Huckabee-McCain playbook, John Edwards and Barack Obama re-enacted the Iceman-Maverick dogfight from Top Gun and drove Hillary Clinton out of her sanguine, I'm-a-sure-thing demeanor. They forced her into a caricature of herself, damn near screeching about how she's been effecting change for the last 35 years. When this thing is over, Edwards is going shake hands with Obama and yell, "You can be my wingman any time!"

Let me just say that I don't agree with ABC's decision to exclude Kucinich and Gravel. It doesn't speak well, in a democracy where airtime is the lifeblood of a candidate, to exclude those considered "marginal." Their finish in one primary or their level of funding shouldn't determine whether or not the public is permitted to hear their message. Mainly, I am upset that I've been denied another gut-busting episode of the Mike Gravel Show.

And she deserved the attack, too. Accusing Obama of switching positions on Iraq (which was abundantly untrue) reeked of the hyper-simplistic, telegenic attack politics of the 2004 Bush campaign. Remember the "flip-flop" crap?

I just think that predicating the entire 2008 election on the amorphous term "change" might not be entirely advisable. Isn't that why we vote for political candidates? We want to change something about the status quo? Nobody ever won an election based on "stay the course" (or at least, on that alone- Reagan won on a lot of other points, and Bush 41 lost on it.)

Obama has gotten a little flustered in some cases too, but he looks like he chugged a Valium milkshake compared to Hillary. The only thing on which I disagree with him, is his knot choice for his necktie. It's just done wrong. He needs to be tying a full Windsor knot, not some mangled half-Windsor. Maybe that can be his next joint project with Edwards, who's sporting a perfect example of the Windsor.

Excellent hair and tie-knot aside, I'd like to point out that I'd take Edwards and Richardson ahead of Clinton. I don't think Richardson would be a bad choice, but for me, Edwards' anti-corporate agenda makes him a good choice. What bothers me is his trial-attorney past and some of the shenanigans he used during his ambulance-chasing days.

And Bill Richardson needs to stop pounding on the table. I don't think he realizes how obnoxious it is, and how loudly it's reverberating in his microphone. Maybe he can look over at Hillary and pound on the table with a shoe yelling about how he'll bury her.

Is Facebook still sponsoring this? My head is spinning. This just in: the New York Times and eBay will be hosting an online auction, where candidates will bid on five minutes of uninterrupted airtime. (Except for Mitt Romney, who will be forced to bid with Monopoly money.)

Facebook Sponsors Debates?

2008-01-05T20:51:00.000-05:00

I'm watching the WMUR/ABC/Facebook debate right now, and I'm more than a little surprised to learn that Facebook has taken an active role in politics. I mean, I understand the YouTube participation in the CNN debates. A candidate having a "YouTube moment" became a political catchphrase after the George Allen "macaca" scandal, but Facebook?

I don't know, it just sounds weird to me. Maybe college students are playing drinking games while watching the debates (I did it in my day) and then posting boozy pictures of it on Facebook. Who knows. I'm just waiting for the NBC/GMail debates, where candidates will GChat snarky messages about what everyone else is wearing to Brian Williams.

Speaking of snarky messages, Mike Huckabee and John McCain are clearly making good on their threats to gang up on Romney. Romney mentioned his positions and Huckabee jumped in to say, "Which ones?" to laughter. And when Romney characterized himself as the candidate of change, John McCain said that he agreed with that to more laughter, obviously pointing to Romney's inconsistent positions. Romney got defensive and hurt, and spent most of the night this way.

If you hadn't heard of these threats, the New York Times quoted Huckabee campaign manager Ed Rollins as declaring that he and the McCain campaign were "going to see if we can't take out Romney." This is exactly what needs to happen. Mitt Romney is electable, telegenic, financially loaded, and the worst possible candidate for the Democratic nominee to have to battle. If McCain (too old and too liberal on immigration) and Huckabee (way too Christian and populist) are the big winners in New Hampshire, the Republican base is gonna stay home.

And if you want to keep the fired-up Democratic base home, the best thing you can do is convince them that the old Clinton administration is coming back. Hillary did a great job of that after Iowa, with a tableau that included Wesley Clark (I think) and Madeleine Albright as well as ol' Bill himself. A lot of Clinton supporters (some of whom have posted responses on my site) have claimed that she's the only one who can take on the Republican attack machine. And they're right- only Hillary Clinton can stand up to the Republican attacks of George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. The problem is that it's 2008. We have bigger battles to fight than the ones of the late '90s.

Okay, the Democrats are talking now. I'm going back to the TV.

I Am So Happy

2008-01-03T23:20:00.000-05:00

I just can't express how excited and happy I am for the direction this country's taking tonight. Seeing Obama win, and make an eminently Presidential victory speech on TV, led to screeching and cheering at my house. And the selection of an eminently defeatable Mike Huckabee by Iowa voters led to my house's moderate Republican admitting that he would rather vote for tonight's blue option than the red.

This is the first night that I've felt legitimately hopeful about the direction of American politics in a really long time.

The Republican Debate

2007-12-01T16:20:00.000-05:00

This is ungodly sad.

At the exact time when political candidates need the wind taken out of their sails, the writer's strike has wiped late-night comedy off the map. It's just not there anymore. And for someone who loved Colbert and Stewart even at the cost of a decent night's sleep, who relied on those pundits for reassurance that I wasn't the only one who thought about that stuff...I don't know. It just feels lonely.

Not that I think they ought to come back without getting their demands met. I'm not going to delve too deeply into the WGA strike in this post, but what they're asking for is eminently reasonable. For example, if a network shows a rerun of a show they wrote on TV, they get a small cut of the ad revenue. But if they stream that same show online (supported by banner-ad revenue) the writers get nothing. Theoretically, networks could stream the entirety of their programming online and would, under the current contract, be obligated to pay the people who wrote it nothing. Yeah, that sounds fair.

But apparently Mike Huckabee has decided he's going to take over in the absence of comedy writers. Let's be clear. I'm not voting for a Republican, especially him. He's a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay Southern Baptist minister, for God's sake. (No pun intended.) Short of being a paid spokesman for a conglomerate that sells oil, pharmaceuticals and cigarettes, he pretty much couldn't get any worse.

Except for the fact that Mike Huckabee is freakin' hilarious. If you didn't watch the YouTube Republican debate last night, you missed out on some pretty funny stuff. (A lot of people didn't watch the Republican debate for the same reason they won't watch their hometown teams play the New England Patriots; there's no sense in worrying about the roster when your squad's gonna get bulldozed anyway.)

Ummm, I keep comparing politics to the New England Patriots. I should probably dial that back a little.

Anyway, aside from the fact that Huckabee is nuts, he told some killer jokes last night. I'm sure they're all up on YouTube, so you're welcome to check them out. But the highlights were, in my opinion:

1) Jesus being too smart to run for public office
2) Hillary being a good candidate for the first rocket to Mars
3) Being willing to take his support from Log Cabin Republicans because in his position he needs "anybody and everybody I can get"
4) Mitt Romney's tryout for the Pro Bowl of being a dipshit.

I guess Huckabee can't really take credit for the last one, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. The rest of the country is rapidly discovering what us Bay State residents (and expatriates) have known for the last ten years: Mitt Romney is a hypocritical neo-conservative goofball with just enough political acumen to leave everyone angry and divided without actually getting anything done.

Consider this: Mitt Romney was openly touting the benefits of sending people to Guantanamo last night and wouldn't condemn waterboarding, even to the face of John McCain, who got tortured for five years in a Vietnamese prison camp. His excuse was that he didn't want to discuss which methods we did or didn't use, as that'd help the enemy to prepare accordingly. A cop-out answer that was delivered poorly.

Giulani had some intentional humor that went over pretty well. Each candidate got to air one of their own videos, and Giuliani (apparently hitting back at the Biden comment that to make a Giuliani sentence, you just needed a noun, verb and 9/11) took credit for defeating King Kong and reducing the annual snowfall.

Even Ron Paul had a funny line. He said something to the effect of how he was "struggling to learn how to spend money" because he suddenly had a ton of it. I actually have a lot of respect for Dr. Paul, but kinda like the Yankees, the fans give the organization a bad name. Good Lord. All you need to do is mention Ron Paul somewhere on the interwebs, and if you dare call him a fringe candidate, your blog or MySpace page or Italian-recipe message board will get swamped in angry posts demanding that you "look at the data" and inevitably mentioning that he raised $4.2 million in one day.

They're right on one thing. He's not a fringe candidate anymore. But he's not going to win, either. The irritating thing about the Paul supporters is that they're using information that proves one thing (he's not a fringe candidate or a joke, he's got actual support) and trying to convince you that it actually proves something totally different (he's really gonna win.) They've been so busy trying to prove he's not fringe (successfully, in my opinion) that their data has far outpaced their new message (that he can win.)

Oh, man, I just said something not-quite-complimentary about Paul supporters. This blog is probably going to suffer a DDOS attack within about an hour. Look, guys, I respect your candidate and I don't think he's "fringe." He's got a clear and principled message. Just.....try to keep things in perspective, and easy on the Kool-Aid, okay?

Back to Huckabee: He didn't just crack me up at last night's debate. The guy has made repeated trips to the Colbert Report, and Colbert even made him promise that if Huckabee won, Colbert would be his VP. (Which was hilarious to think about last night, because Huckabee spent five minutes listing qualities he'd want in a VP and I kept thinking of how I would have no choice but to vote for them.)

But best of all has been Huckabee's Chuck Norris ad. I'll let you watch it and then spend a couple of minutes recovering from the laughter-induced seizure.

*pause*

Okay, you're probably back up off the floor now. I know it's not a good idea to vote for someone just because they're likable or funny. This isn't high school (although it does look like it occasionally, John Edwards.) And I know that having Mike Huckabee as President would basically be four years (no way he'd get re-elected) of President Ned Flanders.

If I suddenly woke up tomorrow and had Gregor Samsa'd into a flaming Republican, I'd wear out my PayPal account giving Huckabee money. As I don't see that happening anytime in this century, I'm going to stick with trying to decide between Edwards and Obama.

In closing, someone should remind the Cleveland Plain Dealer that it's not a good idea to eat the brownies at Dennis Kucinich's house, because they make you write articles like this.

Bill Belichick = Hillary Clinton

2007-11-14T19:27:00.000-05:00

I don't quite understand why everyone is so surprised that Hillary Clinton's staff were pre-staging friendly questioners in the audience at "town hall meetings." Has anybody ever watched footage of these events and thought, "Hmm, what a frank exchange of ideas that provides raw, unfiltered insight into the candidate and their vision for America!"

(Has anybody ever watched footage of these events, period? That's the better question. When they're not spiced with a YouTube moment or a particularly nasty comment about an opponent, they're a visual substitute for Ambien.)

My problem with the whole Hillary operation is that she's actually painting herself as an underdog. The woman is the 800-pound gorilla on both sides of the aisle, and she and Giuliani have been itching for a rematch ever since he dropped out of the 2000 Senate race after his cancer diagnosis. (Okay, maybe Rudy has. Hillary, I doubt.) She's got a double-digit lead over Obama and Edwards and commands the vast majority of the political resources that got her husband elected, plus more that she's marshaled on her own. The unofficial Hillary website hillaryis44.com raises an outcry about an "anti-Hillary mob."

The whole point is that Hillary is playing the underdog, and doing it as part of a calculated strategy. This woman is the Bill Belichick of the Democratic field; she's in it to win no matter what and, if challenged, will retaliate with overwhelming and borderline inappropriate force. When anyone criticizes her, her campaign lashes out brutally. It's the political equivalent of running up the score against the Redskins.

(Also, I should point out that I'm a huge Pats fan, but I'm not such a huge Hillary fan.)

Anyway, my point is that we shouldn't be surprised that Hillary would pull something like this. In the pantheon of dirty political tricks, it's not really that dirty. Kind of like using a video camera to steal signals during a Jets game. Everybody does it, it doesn't garner that much of an advantage, and in the end, the only thing remarkable about Hillary planting questions in the audience is that she got caught.

Finally, I will end this blog with a link to a truly amazing campaign sticker. You can buy t-shirts and stickers with that emblazoned on it at townienews.com, which also features the funniest New England sports fan to get overpaid by ESPN since Bill Simmons.

Happy 232nd Birthday

2007-11-10T13:27:00.000-05:00

If you know anyone who is actively serving in the Marines Corps (or who used to) you ought to wish them a happy birthday today. (I say "used to" because to the Marines, there are no ex-Marines, with the possible exception of Lee Harvey Oswald.)

Anyway, on November 10th, 1775, the Continental Congress authorized the creation of the Marines, and since the late 1800s, the Marines have recognized 11/10 as their collective birthday. New recruits are encouraged to adopt this date as "their" birthday, symbolizing their new identity as Marines.

The tradition doesn't end there. At Marines Corps birthday celebrations, they cut the cake with a friggin' sword. (How awesome is that?) The oldest Marine in attendance gets to sample the first piece of cake, followed by the youngest. This symbolizes the continuity of the Marine Corps tradition.

Anyway, if you know any young or old Marines, today would be a good day to wish them a happy 232nd birthday.

Mark Warner

2007-11-05T20:24:00.000-05:00

I think Mark Warner is a good guy. He's a good example of a business-friendly Democrat, a guy who used his millions made in the private sector to affect Virginia politics for the better. I think his heart's in the right place and his politics reflect where America needs to be going.

But the guy will never get a dollar of campaign contributions from me, nor will he get a supportive vote or even so much as a honked horn at a traffic circle. Why?

Because the guy was one of the early investors in Nextel, and those phones suck. Oh, my God, they suck. Four guys from my office once stood on the roof of a building that had Verizon and Nextel antennae on top of it. Their personal Verizon phones got full bars, while their Nextels had one bar or no service at all.

Who's to say he's not going to invest political capital, as a senator, in a program that will leave us saying, "Can you hear me now? Dammit!"

In (Grudging) Defense of Blackwater

2007-10-05T16:29:00.000-04:00

I am really conflicted about this whole mess with Blackwater. As a center-left Democrat, the idea of a private military corporation spawned with Republican seed money whose owner (and his family) chuck hundreds of thousands of dollars to the likes of Gary Bauer and Ralph Reed, is sickening. On the other hand, if you put Erik Prince's personal politics aside, what he's done is pretty damn impressive.

He took his family's money (his dad made billions in the lighted car mirror industry, I guess?) and set up a little security training company in a North Carolina swamp with his buddies from the SEALs. Post-9/11, the U.S. government needed a lot of people protected by experienced folks but didn't have the resources to do it in all war zones, all the time. So Blackwater got the $27 million contract to protect Paul Bremer. (Based on the job he did, I think Bremer deserved the protection of mall rent-a-cops, but that's just me.) And it went from there.

Anyway, I looked at the New York Times' coverage of the attack on the Polish ambassador to Iraq on Thursday, after all of this stuff was coming to a head. Democrats in Congress were declaring how Blackwater wasn't accountable, they were out of control, and they needed to be reigned in. And then I saw this NYT article.

Take a look at the first picture. The guys in the black helmets are Polish troopers. The dude with the bandaged face is clearly the ambassador. And the guys in the back are U.S. Army soldiers. So who's the helicopter pilot guy in the blue t-shirt? Was it Casual Thursday at the local firebase? No. That's a Blackwater pilot. The Polish ambassador's evacuation was set up, carried out and protected by Blackwater.

With Congress calling for fewer and fewer troops in Iraq, leading to an eventual pullout, the U.S. military very well might not have had the personnel available to get the Polish ambassador out in the first place. And when Congressional delegations come to Iraq, as Erik Prince politely pointed out in his written testimony, who protects them? It's not the U.S. military. It's Blackwater. Apparently Congress doesn't trust Mr. Prince to safeguard Iraqi innocent Iraqi lives, but they sure as hell trust him to safeguard their own.

More accountability is a good thing. Jesus, even Prince supports the bill that Congress passed tightening accountability on private contractors. But using Blackwater as an example of the Bush administration's mismanagement of Iraq and claiming that it's some kind of rogue mercenary army is crap. They've completed thousands of successful protective missions where they've never fired their weapons. One mismanaged incident where civilians were needlessly killed- while undeniably horrible- does not constitute proof of systemic private-sector mayhem.

And while the Department of State is the client who's been taking the heat, I know for a fact that they're not the only federal agency with whom Blackwater contracts. You better believe that those other agencies aren't just letting Blackwater run loose for the fun of it.

Look, Iraq was a bad idea. Staying there for any real period of time remains a bad idea. But since Bush has put us there, the U.S. government needs certain short- and medium-term capabilities that they can't get from the current system. The Diplomatic Security Service doesn't have anywhere near enough agents to meet the demand, but you can't just hire a bunch of them overnight- let alone fire them all once we finally get the hell out. Contractors, like it or not, meet a need.

Yeah, I know. I excoriated private contractors in the last post. I remember. But unlike the domestic need for experienced civil servants, or Customs & Border Protection officers, DSS probably won't need the volume of personnel that Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp provide in 2007, by 2012. Scalable provision of specialized services is where contractors, like it or not, tend to shine. And that, in part, is why it costs so much to send a Blackwater guy over to protect someone- they gotta feed, clothe, arm, transport and pay their own way over to the most dangerous place in the world, without any support from our military.

And that's what can't be argued. Blackwater, 99.9% of the time, does a really good friggin' job. You may not like Erik Prince, and you may not like his politics or what he does with his money. (I sure as hell don't.) Most thinking people now realize that the only way to salvage something worthwhile out of Iraq is diplomacy, and that's not going to happen if our diplomats aren't safe. So while Blackwater (and the other guys) should be held more accountable, it remains a question of supply and demand. These guys supply a needed service, and the current situation in Iraq creates a major demand.

Second-Class Law Enforcement?

2007-09-14T19:25:00.000-04:00

Okay, I'm going to show you two pictures and ask you to answer a very important question: Which one of these two men are federal law enforcement officers?

1) This is a Customs & Border Protection (CBP) Officer. He carries a gun and handcuffs, wears a bulletproof vest, and drives a police cruiser with lights and sirens. He has full arrest powers, can seize evidence, and can execute search warrants. He received his training at the U.S. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. He and his fellow CBP officers conduct inspections and provide security at 326 American border crossings, searching for smuggled drugs, weapons, contrabands and illegal immigrants.

2) This is Matt Hasselbeck. He's the quarterback for the Seattle Seahawks. He received his training playing football for BC. He threw 222 passing yards against Tampa Bay in the season opener and occupies the second-string QB slot on my fantasy football team (since I'm not going to sit Donovan McNabb. What am I, crazy?)

So again, the question is- which one of these guys is a federal law enforcement officer?

You may be surprised to learn that the answer is, neither one. The CBP officer, even though he receives full law enforcement training, carries a firearm and has arrest powers (criteria which otherwise define 'police' under government personnel regulations) doesn't receive the classification, and therefore retirement benefits, as other federal law enforcement officers.

(Also, Matt Hasselbeck probably is not any sort of law enforcement official. To the best of my knowledge he’s a decent, but not outstanding, NFL quarterback. But I’m not certain- there was that Tommy Lee Jones movie where he was a cop and had to protect a bunch of cheerleaders, so you never really know.)

Now federal law enforcement officers aren't the same as federal special agents, like those employed by the FBI, DEA, or DSS. Agents have nationwide jurisdiction and investigate federal crimes (as well as other duties) while federal law enforcement officers provide police service for various federal assets and personnel. For example, the Federal Protective Service is responsible for providing police protection to almost 9,000 federal office buildings nationwide. Other organizations with special requirements, such as our friends at No Such Agency, maintain their own police forces for their facilities.

But all of these various federal police officers are treated under similar personnel classifications. These ensure that they get comparable retirement and pay benefits. (Although the benefits packages do vary sometimes- for example, only the Capitol Police have the on-the-job privilege of hauling Code Pink nut jobs off to the pokey.) These benefits are incredibly important if you want to retain the talent and experience within your own workforce, instead of hemorrhaging freshly-hired personnel to better jobs. Which is exactly what CBP is facing right now- its officers are leaving after a year or two on the job. Sometimes less than that.

The problem is that the Bush administration doesn't think CBP officers deserve the status of federal law enforcement officer. In their Statement of Administration Policy on June 12th, they strongly objected to a bill that would fixed this, claiming that the definition of “law enforcement officers” under the federal retirement system differed from the "commonly understood" one. The real difficulty here, to which they admit, is that giving CBP officers the retirement package (called "6c retirement') and benefits they deserve, will cost a lot of money. I should point out that t he U.S. Postal Police and Veterans' Administration Police are in the same boat as the CBP officers.

Again- these guys make arrests, execute search warrants, carry firearms and handcuffs, drive police cruisers and are trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Honestly, what the hell else can you call them?

Granted, a few CBP officers actually like this setup. Since they’re not technically law enforcement officers, they can rack up “double-time” in a way that the other federal cops can’t. However, the majority is dissatisfied with the situation. They don’t like getting screwed on their benefits, but more importantly, they (rightly) feel marginalized and under-appreciated by the refusal to recognize them as law enforcement. It’s this kind of administrative behavior that has CBP officers voting with their feet, and it’s endemic throughout the Department of Homeland Security. A survey of federal employees ranked them rock-bottom for job satisfaction.

This all comes back to the basic Republican philosophy. (Yeah, I’m going to make this political. Tough.) Their core claim is that they put their trust in people, and not in government. Well, that's nice. But it fuels the kind of lunatic thinking that outsources unholy amounts of federal work to private contractors while slashing the civil service, eventually spending the same money for inferior work so they can cynically claim to have cut the federal bureaucracy. How does that put trust in their people?

Well, it's the same thing here. A major component of the Presidential plan for border and homeland security is to vastly expand the size of CBP. He wants to add agents and officers, as well as millions of dollars in equipment and fencing for the SBInet (Secure Border Initiative) program. This would be the much-vaunted 'virtual fence' out there in the desert incorporating security cameras, motion sensors, and gee-whiz gadgets like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, better known as Predator drones.

Bush has no problem advocating an avalanche of funding to expand and improve CBP's capabilities. But when it comes to the costs of maintaining them, and ensuring that they can retain experienced personnel, the Bush White House expects us to believe that they're poorer than churchmice.

You see, there's nothing sexy about federal retirement programs. No one can point to them as a massive homeland-security victory and they're not going to get anyone re-elected. But these men and women literally put their lives on the line to keep drugs, weapons, terrorists, contraband and human traffickers out of our country. Hiding behind a technicality and claiming that 6c retirement for these officers isn't a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars....that's crap.

And I think developing an experienced and professional workforce to protect our nation's border crossings really is a homeland security victory, albeit a small one. That is, if anyone in the White House had the foresight to recognize it.

Betray-Us

2007-09-10T15:19:00.000-04:00

A few somewhat-related comments on the Petraeus/Crocker hearings of yesterday and the day before. I was fortunate enough to have both days off work, so I got to sit on the couch and geek out while watching almost the entirety of the hearings on C-SPAN. I'm not blessed with a Congressional press pass, like some folks I know, so C-SPAN is the next best thing.

-The room in which the hearing was held is the same one where the old House Committee on Un-American Activities (better known as the McCarthy hearings) used to hold court. I'm searching for a connection but not quite finding one.

-The MoveOn.org ad, using the term "General Betray Us," was so counterproductive I can't even think straight. It did the same thing that those crazies who screamed and shouted and protested from galleries did- associated thoughtful people on the left who have legitimate questions about the war, with the nutbags who write "Troops Home Now" in fake blood on their dresses. Ugh.

Although to be fair, the nutbags who get dragged out of the House chambers do make for some pretty good entertainment value. Maybe that's why C-SPAN hasn't adopted the same policy of pro sports leagues; if you illegally disrupt the proceedings, you're not going to get shown on TV. I think it should be the same way. There are legal and illegal ways to protest Congressional action, or the actions of those before Congress. If you engage in illegal activity during your protest, you shouldn't have the PR benefit of airtime. Period.

Also, this would be kinda self-serving because then progressives wouldn't have their legitimate dissent visually associated with those Code Pink wackos.

-While watching the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Tom Lantos (D-CA,) I decided to use Google Image Search to try and figure out to which one of the Star Wars cantina scene aliens he was most closely related. I'm currently thinking the T-headed dude.

-Joking aside, my overall concern with the way the hearings went (and this is abbreviated, trust me- the site crashed and I lost a much longer version of this post) was that everyone except for two New Yorkers (Gary Ackerman, a Dem, and John McHugh, a Republican) seemed to be asking the wrong questions. Everyone else wanted to know how soon the troops would come home, what strategy we would use, or how the war would be prosecuted. Our New Yorkers were asking the one question that really seemed to matter to me- is it worth it? Petraeus didn't have much of an answer.

-Perhaps the most telling moment of the rounds of hearings, for me, happened while I was listening on the radio. (So I have no idea who asked the question.) But someone asked Petraeus, "General, is this war making America safer?" And after some pro-caliber hemming and hawing, he said, essentially, that his mission was to ensure stability and democracy in Iraq and he couldn't honestly say yes or no.

Wow.

DSS and Godzilla

2007-07-19T00:25:00.000-04:00

Two things that I'd like to point out, if briefly:

1) I received a number of comments, mostly positive, on the last piece, some of which I've published. Three sub-things I'd like to address to the folks who responded:

a) To the DSS agents who posted responses, thank you. I take it as a compliment that you took the time to read this, let alone respond. You do a difficult job exceptionally well and I (as well my other readers, I'm sure) thank you.
b) Thanks to everyone, DSS and others, who provided clarification on my facts regarding the agency. I may not always get it right the first time, and I appreciate your input.
b) The DSS folks will probably get a laugh out of the fact that my girlfriend had actually been campaigning to see "A Mighty Heart" (which I've since learned has an accurate portrayal of DSS.) I, however, managed to sell her on "Live Free or Die Hard" that day (which has an accurate portrayal of absolutely nothing.)

It seems that the Diplomatic Security Service, and my girlfriend, share a taste in movies that is superior to my own. I'm okay with that. On to the next item:

2) Japan recently had a natural disaster where an earthquake tipped over "hundreds" of barrels of nuclear waste, dumping 317 gallons of radioactive goo into the Sea of Japan. I will give you a few moments to consider the implications of this, and to reach the abundantly and painfully obvious conclusion.

WE ARE WATCHING THE FIRST TEN MINUTES OF A GODZILLA MOVIE.

How has this not been all over the media? The Internet? This is how every Godzilla movie starts! Radioactive goo or Gamma rays or some shit gets into the Sea of Japan. The government covers it up (badly.) The local populace goes about their lives. Then Navy submarines start to disappear. Someone starts to put the pieces together, but by then it's too late; we already see a giant monster climbing radio towers and flipping tanks over with his fiery breath.

(These rules go out the window when Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno are involved, however.)

I work in the National Capital Region, and I can say from firsthand experience that most federal agencies, some state governments and even a few local jurisdictions have contingency plans for everything. Absolutely everything. There has got to be some team of experts, maybe within the Wildlife Service or something, that can be sent over to help the Japanese manage rampaging, 50-foot-high dino-monsters. And if no such team exists, then we need to start putting one together. Right the hell now.

I'm kind of kidding, but if I see something on CNN about missing submarines, then I am buying dinosaur insurance and heading for the hills. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Making a DSS Agent

2007-07-05T10:43:00.000-04:00

In the intelligence and law enforcement community, getting "made" means that you did something that identified your agency affiliation to the general public, or to the bad guys. Getting into a Suburban with Department of Homeland Security plates would "make" you, for example, as working or being associated with DHS.

Cut to Sunday evening of this week. My girlfriend and I are in line at a Chipotle in Washington, having just finished watching the new Die Hard movie. Which is totally sweet, by the way. As a side note, without spoiling the movie, there's a moment in it, in which FBI agents stress about their inability to reach a secret federal facility in Woodlawn, Maryland. They can't find helicopters and the roads are blocked, so it'll take them a while. Here's the funny thing: Having been there, I know for a fact that the FBI's Baltimore field office is IN (drumroll) Woodlawn, Maryland. All they'd have to do, would be to walk down the street.

Okay, so, back to DSS. Actually, I should say "Bureau of Diplomatic Security," but they used to be the Diplomatic Security Service, so, I'm allowed. The Discovery Times channel did a big special about them. They're like the Secret Service, except they protect the Secretary of State, key foreign dignitaries (like in NYC at the UN) and provide security services abroad to State Department personnel. They're in the weird position of being federal law enforcement agents who are often assigned overseas.

Essentially, Diplomatic Security/DSS is the Secret Service working in semi- and non-permissive environments. The President does not go to Gaza. But the Secretary of State sure does. So DSS has to train with military special-ops types as well as all kinds of shadowy intelligence agencies to get the right cooperation and information. They're like an indie Secret Service, except all the more badass.

So when I saw a few black Suburbans and Crown Vics with U.S. government and D.C. tags outside the Chipotle, and a few late-20s, early-30s guys in suits with bright green pins and clear earpieces, I figured they had to be some kind of federal protective agents. They couldn't be Secret Service (wrong kind of lapel pins.) But a minimal motorcade, guys in suits, and federal tags on black law-enforcement-style cars? Probably DSS.

So my girlfriend and I made a plan (okay, she made it, I got onboard with it.) We walked across as they waited outside for their protectee, I assumed, and I strode up to one of them. They instantly turned and the lead one fixed me with the kind of probing, penetrating and unnerving stare that you apparently get issued at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia.

I tried not to wilt. "Okay, so my girlfriend and I have a bet going. She thinks you guys are Capitol Police, and I think you're Diplomatic Security." There was a pause just long enough to make me worry that they wouldn't tell me, but finally, the agent uncrossed his arms and pointed a finger at me.

"You're right," he said, not exactly wasting any words. I turned to my girlfriend, grinned, and slapped her five.

"Knew it!" I turned back to the agent and said, "Thanks," and she and I strode away without looking back.

Here's the thing. Very few people are familiar with DSS. Most of the ones who are, either worked for them or watched the Discovery Times special (which doesn't get many reruns.) I imagine- in fact, I am almost positive- that we made those DSS special agents say, "Uhh, that guy in the jeans and his girlfriend made us as DSS. Are we really obvious?"

And that's what I call fun.

What Would You Pay?

2007-06-18T14:46:00.001-04:00

So my girlfriend told me about an event that's being held in DC tonight called "Small Change for Big Change." Held at the swanky 1223 Club in DuPont Circle, it's a John Edwards fundraiser which would be unremarkable except for the price of admission. Which is kinda the story; getting in the door costs you a distinctly non-presidential $15. This the the Edwards campaign site that referenced the last one:

It looks a lot less McNeil-Lehrer News, and a lot more Happy, Hour, than most of the presidential fundraisers you see. Hillary Clinton has been doing them too, but in her case, it's only a couple hundred bucks in the door. She's got a little more star power and commands a little more cash, but in the end, if you're a starving college student who just has to meet her, well...you can most likely afford it. If you don't mind skipping a meal or three.

It's a new strategy fueled by the "netroots" movement, which can move a lot of money by getting a lot of people to contribute small amounts. MoveOn.org is the 800-pound gorilla of this whole thing, but it works well and it seems to work particularly well for Democrats. If you can't get the big money out of politics, you can at least organize the small money in a way that'll counterbalance.

But this got me thinking. You're essentially paying $15 to get a wave, a hello, and possibly a handshake from John Edwards, who might possibly be the next President of the United States. If you're lucky, you might get a minute or two of Face Time chatting with him. On the far other end of the spectrum, you have $12,000-a-plate "executive donor" dinners in Washington with Republicans and the President, where you can bend ol' George's ear on just about anything you like. (I'd suggest Iraq, but I doubt he would appreciate it.) And on the Democratic side of the aisle, you could pay about the same for a big dinner in Hollywood and chat up Nancy Pelosi. If you weren't too busy trying to get Kevin Spacey's autograph.

Here's my question. What would you pay for "face time" with any of the candidates? What's the asking price vs. the actual demand? I know that I'd pay more or less, based on how much they interested me. Obama would be at the top, around $120, followed by Edwards and Clinton at maybe $80, and then down until you hit Dodd, Biden or Bill Richardson (probably $20 or $30.)

Of course, here's where the fun starts. Once we descend into the depths of Dennis Kucinich or Mike "Crazy" Gravel, my personal offering price goes back up because of the entertainment value they add. (Just so you know, I would actually be willing to contribute to the Republicans, too. I don't think that my $100 would actually affect the outcome of the election, whereas the hilariousness would last a lifetime.)

With that in mind, I now offer my current index of dollars I'd be willing to pay, for the opportunity to ask certain questions of, or say certain things to the candidates. Hopefully without being arrested. And so, in no particular order:

Rudy Giuliani: $105 to talk for fifteen uninterrupted minutes on any topic of his choosing, without once referencing 9/11.

Mike Huckabee: $30 to talk for ten minutes about evolution, intelligent design, sex education and the form in which they should be taught in schools. And then I get to put it on YouTube.

Dennis Kucinich: $390 to pinch his cheek and say, "You're such a cute little pwesidential candidate! Yes you is! Yes you is!" (Hands down, this is the one I would jump at. No shame whatsoever. If I get a call from the Kucinich campaign on this, I will take off work tomorrow, hit the ATM on my way to the airport, and write about it the next business day. That is a solemn blogger's oath.)

John McCain: $58 to talk for ten minutes on the contributions of Asian immigrants to American society.

Hillary Clinton: $112 for a straight answer on the question, "At what point after your election to the Presidency will you allow Bill to bring his dates back to the White House?"

John Edwards: $194 for a singalong to any AC/DC or Guns 'N Roses tune. (Excluding November Rain.) The goal of this would be to let him retaliate for the "I Feel Pretty" video that went up on YouTube. The man deserves a shot, and not that weak "it's good for democracy" crap that went up as the video response. The link's here:

Fred Thompson: $44 for him to do the Law & Order "dum dum" sound effect, a cappella. An additional $44 if he hums the whole theme song.

Bill Richardson: $29 to explain to me how a guy with the whitest name of all time is "the Latino candidate." I just really want to know.

Mike Gravel: $299 for a one-hour Q&A where he addresses any burning issues of national import identified by yours truly. These would include: whether men's trousers should be hiked up to the rib or the nipple line, whether rock 'n roll is the Devil's music, and what he thinks should be done about his neighbor, Dennis the Menace.

A note to my readers. If you can find examples of the candidates doing any or all of these things on YouTube (especially Clinton's) I will be quite grateful. In addition, should you have any other proposals for what would be worth your contribution to a candidate's coffers, put them in the comments. I'd love to hear them.

And if you're from any of the campaigns, I'm not kidding. I can probably organize some more people to make contributions if you'll let us get away with this. Not that you will.

The Beast Needs Feeding

2007-06-05T11:37:00.001-04:00

Why the heck do we have political debates going on in June of a non-election year? Why did we have them in May? Is there some special election, some Constitutional amendment being considered, some issue that just can’t wait? Nope. It’s just another manifestation of the American Electoral Process, Sponsored By CNN.

A caveat. I am not a person who likes bashing the media. (Fox News doesn’t count. They barely count as propaganda pushers.) Usually, if you’re bashing the media, you’re upset about an uncomfortable (inconvenient?) truth that they’re covering. And while they demonstrate an astronomical degree of apathy when it comes to the nuances of homeland security, journalists, especially print media, tend to get it right sooner or later. It’s like driving a delivery truck through a tunnel with the headlights out. Might get a little banged up on the way, but the product will get there.

(Also, I am dating a journalist and any perceived media-bashing could have monstrously unintended consequence for yours truly.)

So with that said, we are having presidential debates a full 17 months before the general election (and seven months before the first primaries) because CNN needs to make money. As does MSNBC, and Fox News. Turning the vast field of primary candidates into a lengthy horse race (slash marathon) represents an endless treasure trove of stories to fill up airtime on the 24-hour news networks.

The news channels have both the ability, and the solemn mandate, to manufacture stories. They don’t have the luxury afforded print media, to spend hours, perhaps entire days, looking for stories that might actually be worth covering. No, the flickering blue light of television is always on, and can never be silent, and so if there are no major stories to cover, they have to create them.

Referring to 24-hour news networks (and the media in general) as “the Beast,” an instructor for a Public Information Officer class once told me, “The Beast is always hungry, and the Beast requires constant feeding.” The thing about the Beast is that it’s the only animal that has the ability to make its own meals. It’s just a question of with what ingredients it chooses to prepare them.

Take Wolf Blitzer’s “Situation Room.” The name is expertly borrowed from a room in the White House where the President and his senior staff go to manage national emergencies. It just oozes urgency. And so, instinctively, you assume that whatever is going on “in the Situation Room” must be emergent and of the highest importance. But the Situation Room is a regularly scheduled show that airs five days a week. They have to fill up that airtime with exciting, breaking-news “situations,” even when that day’s news might actually be pretty lame.

The obvious answer would be for them to drop the insistence on constantly covering “breaking news” and to actually go into a little more detail. Breaking news, by its nature, is sketchy and unreliable, but it’s also the biggest selling point. It’s exciting, and going into the history, background, and complexities of a news story simply doesn’t hold the average television viewer’s attention. The whole goal is to hold their attention through the commercials, and if you bore them beforehand, the game’s over. So you have to fill up 24 hours worth of news stories, but they have to be entertaining news stories. Nothing too boring or intellectual, or they’re going to switch to Oprah.

It sounds like I’m harshing on television itself, and I’m not. I think television is a great medium for hour-long chunks of news, like the old nightly news broadcasts or 60 Minutes or the like. But the more airtime you have to fill up with engaging, exciting, and most of all entertaining news stories, the lower your standards are going to be.

So what do you do, short of bringing zoo animals and Carrot Top into the Situation Room? (Which would be AWESOME.) You try to spin up controversy, you goad newsworthy persons into saying controversial things, or you just invent your own stories. Which is exactly how the presidential race kicked off so early, and which is why we’re having debates in May and June when it’s not even an election year. The news outlets grant their most precious incentive- airtime and coverage- to potential candidates, and hang off every word from ones who have already declared.

And believe it or not, the Iraq war has actually created something of a backlash against “bad news.” Five years ago, a car bombing that killed 20 people in the Middle East would have been major, major news. 17 U.S. servicemen murdered by Islamic terrorists (anyone remember the U.S.S. Cole?) isn’t a national tragedy anymore, it’s a rough week in Iraq and gets maybe a 30-second sound bite. “If it bleeds, it leads” and “There’s no news like bad news” are losing just a little bit of their luster, because people want to hear about something- anything- other than the war.

Astutely tapping into this desire for change, and using it to address the bottom line of their business, cable news networks can just talk about What’s Next. And the only venue in which you can run news stories about stuff that hasn’t happened yet, is the political venue. No race is bigger than the presidential race, and no candidates are more interesting than presidential candidates. The answer is to start hyping the race now, stir up controversy, stir up stories, and most of all, stir up ratings.

Hillary Clinton didn’t want to declare her presidential run until much later. Commendably, she wanted to focus on her duties as a United States Senator. She figured that public interest and private money could wait while she built up a little more authority on legislative issues. Nope. This had about as much chance as Barack Obama’s promise to stay out of the race until his first Senate term was up. Nobody wanted a Hillary Vs. Everyone Else story. There had to be a somewhat-equal competitor, a Happy Gilmore to her Shooter McGavin. And the pressure- through media coverage of rumors and innuendoes- landed on Obama.

So here we are. Nothing meaningful has happened in the primary races, even though the inordinate coverage devoted to fundraising results would have you think otherwise. And with nothing meaningful having happened, we have to endure debates to create something meaningful. But without any real developments, the size of those debates is limited only by the size of the damn stage. So we have to listen to goofballs like Mikes Gravel and Huckabee or Dennis “The Lost Keebler Elf” Kucinich as the camera grants them fictional equality with Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, and anyone else who actually has a chance next November.

On November 8th, 2006, a CNN correspondent said, “This is Day 1 of the 2008 Presidential campaign.” I thought it was an exaggeration. It wasn’t. So my complaints about why we’re having political debates in June of 2007 aren’t really killing the messenger. Well, not killing the messenger because of his message. More like killing the messenger because he’s showing up so damn early.

(Am I going to watch the Republican debate tonight anyway? With my journalist girlfriend? Bet your ass.)