Politics, open government, and safe streets. And the constant incursion of cycling.

Category: Society Page 50 of 69

Have you seen a Moots’ Moot-X YBB?

Short version: a bike was just stolen this weekend from someone who absolutely didn’t deserve it. If you ride in the DC/VA/MD area and see someone on a Moots’ Moot-X YBB, ask them about it. And if it doesn’t add up, get in touch with Rob Harrington at 571.225.2225. I don’t know him except by reputation, but I am sure he deserves our looking out for him.

Long version:

FROM: Leesburg Bakers Dozen
————————————————-

I am hoping somebody can help me. Someone decided it would be cool to steal my personal Moots Moot-X YBB that I had made available for demos.

I gotta tell you, at this point I am not interested in doing another race next year, or ever. I spent countless hours over the past 6 months to get the course and the race ready for YOU. What little compensation I thought I was going to receive is now gone. The feeling of accomplishment? Gone, too. I dont think I have ever been more disappointed in my life. I guess the notion of being a MTB family is dead, at least it now is for me. I lost money and the best bike I have ever owned to someone I hosted and hoped to provide a special and unique environment for.

I am not wealthy, in fact, the only reason I have a bike like that is because of a shop discount and the fact that cycling is my passion. I dont drink, go out, go to movies, nothing. My money goes to my bikes. I was set to pack the bike up for my long awaited trip to Arizona next week for a little punishment of my own at the Whiskey Off Road race in Prescott. Not sure what to do now. Cancel my vacation??

I do not care who stole it or why or where they live. I just want my bike back. Mail it, ship it to Plum Grove, I dont care how I get it back. I just want it back.

Its an 18″ Mooto-X YBB with full XTR, White bros 20mm thru axle fork, and Jones H-bars. If you have any information, please let me know.

Rob Harrington
Race director
571.225.2225
—–

Which was then followed up by this:

I just wanted to drop a quick note in here.

I have been overwhelmed with the support from everyone, whether it be emails sent to me, postings here and on other forums, and including offers of financial assistance to replace my stolen bike and offers to use other peoples bike for a while.

I genuinely appreciate everyones generosity, but I do not want to accept donations at this time. I still hope the bike will be returned or located through other means.

I also wanted to let everyone know that I sent the email out at 3:00 am while very distraught and tired. I know the MTB community is strong and supportive, now more than ever. I do not believe that any racers took the bike and want to believe that no crew or family members of racers are guilty either.

The Bakers Dozen will be back next year. I could not in my right mind end the race. I love the race and all the people that come with their family and friends for a weekend of mountain biking fun.

For those interested, I will be taking my single speed to AZ for the whiskey off road. I guess I will just have to suffer(on the bike) a bit more than I thought. I always did enjoy a challenge!!

Thanks again and hope to see you soon, new friends and old!!

The Company We Keep

Executions, by country, for 2007:

China: 470+
Iran: 317+
Saudi: 143+
Pakistan: 135+
USA: 42
Iraq: 33+
Vietnam: 25+
Yemen: 15+
Afghanistan: 15
Libya: 9+
Japan: 9
Syria: 7+
Sudan: 7+
Bangladesh: 6
Somalia: 5+
Equatorial Guinea: 3
Singapore: 2
Kuwait: 1+
Indonesia: 1+
Botswana: 1+
Belarus: 1+
Ethiopia: 1

“+” after a number indicates that the figure is a minimum one. The true figure is at least the figure shown. For example, “47+” means that there were at least 47 executions in 2007.

In Honor of Pope Benedict XVI’s Visit to DC

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKxnaMeOK20[/youtube]

Torquemada – do not beg him for mercy.
Torquemada – do not ask him for forgiveness.
Let’s face it – you can’t Torquemada anything!

Update: You know, I got Ratzinger’s code name wrong in the original post, which makes me feel kind of dumb.  But then I realized that all my readers must be indifferent heathens, because no one pointed it out.  So that makes me feel better.

“And I approved.”

Bush admits to joining his senior advisers in approving torture:

President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.

“Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people.” Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. “And yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.” (emphasis supplied)

And yet it’s not a news story worth covering, if you look at CNN, the New York Times, or the Washington Post.  Even ABC, the organization that originally reported it, buried the story.  Funny, that.  Again, we need a jury.

Friday Notes: Is It Really Spring? Edition

Bruce Schneier’s been great this week, but I want to highlight his essay on the difference between feeling safe and actually being safe:

Security is both a feeling and a reality, and they’re different. You can feel secure even though you’re not, and you can be secure even though you don’t feel it. There are two different concepts mapped onto the same word — the English language isn’t working very well for us here — and it can be hard to know which one we’re talking about when we use the word.

This is an important distinction, and the confusion between the two concepts of security has undermined a lot of (stated) public policy. We’d all do better to remember and recognize the distinction the next time something is justified in the name of “security.”

~

RIP Sakhi Gulestan, one of DC’s good people.

~

The Unholy Rouleur helps us with a field guide to the seasonal species that will soon be invading our bike trails. Just yesterday I found myself in the midst of a flock of Vibrant Plumed Wannabes. Really worth a look.

~

Philosophy on the rise as a college major? Hmm.

~

Hmm. It’s already 66°F/19°C at 9am. And sunny. All that catch-up work and owed-email I’m sitting on and was hoping to push out late this afternoon? Sorry, all. I’ve got some other work to catch up on.

Forget History – Let a *Jury* Judge This

ABC News tells us that a group including no less than Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Powell met regularly at the White House to specifically discuss and approve torture techniques:

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of “combined” interrogation techniques — using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time — on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects — whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

It seems that those being asked to actually torture people weren’t comfortable with it, and repeatedly asked for specific approval, which this group repeatedly gave:

According to a former CIA official involved in the process, CIA headquarters would receive cables from operatives in the field asking for authorization for specific techniques. Agents, worried about overstepping their boundaries, would await guidance in particularly complicated cases dealing with high-value detainees, two CIA sources said.

Highly placed sources said CIA directors Tenet and later Porter Goss along with agency lawyers briefed senior advisers, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell, about detainees in CIA custody overseas.

“It kept coming up. CIA wanted us to sign off on each one every time,” said one high-ranking official who asked not to be identified. “They’d say, ‘We’ve got so and so. This is the plan.'”

Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved.

At least one of them had inklings that what they were doing was wrong:

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

Screw history.  I want this judged by a jury.

Does it Matter if the Attorney General is a Liar?

Because you probably heard more about Obama’s bowling or Chelsea Clinton getting accosted with Monica questions last week, you may not have picked up on this quote from Attorney General Michael Mukasey:

Officials “shouldn’t need a warrant when somebody picks up the phone in Iraq and calls somebody in the United States because that’s the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that’s the call that we didn’t know about,” Mr. Mukasey said[.] “We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn’t know precisely where it went.”

At that point in his answer, Mr. Mukasey grimaced, swallowed hard, and seemed to tear up as he reflected on the weaknesses in America’s anti-terrorism strategy prior to the 2001 attacks. “We got three thousand. … We’ve got three thousand people who went to work that day and didn’t come home to show for that,” he said[.]

So, here we have the Attorney General of the United States telling us that – for want of permission from the FISA court – the US was unable to listen on a call regarding the planning of 9/11 attacks. You know, I don’t remember hearing anything about that (in fact, most of what I remember hearing about involved the US ignoring the information it had already gathered). But honestly, I might just have missed that fact. You know who’s job it was to know that about that call? Lee Hamilton. Co-chair of the 9/11 Commission. What does Hamilton have to say about that?

I am unfamiliar with the telephone call that Attorney General Mukasey cited in his appearance in San Francisco on March 27. The 9/11 Commission did not receive any information pertaining to its occurrence.

Repeat: the chair of the commission charged with examining all of the 9/11-related intelligence known to the United States has never heard of the call Mukasey just laid out as bringing about 9/11.  Nor had the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Nor had the Congressional representatives charged with overseeing US surveillance programs. I think the word we’re creeping toward here is “liar.” Maybe someone with a newspaper or cable station might be interested in checking it out? Anyone?

Anyone?

Probably not, for the reasons Glenn Greenwald captures so well:

[P]eople like McArdle and Drezner think it’s fine that we spend so much time talking about Obama’s bowling scores and Edwards’ hair because things are basically going well in our country. Sure, there are some problems here and there. But it hardly rises to the level of a crisis or anything where we need to be so serious and act as though there are things that ought to distract from our constant entertainment.

Things like war crimes, torture, aggressive and illegal wars, and the destruction of the rule of law are things that, by definition, don’t happen to or in the United States. Those are principles which only apply to the dark, dank, wicked places — not here. Thus, the Yoo memoranda and what they spawned are not a big deal because they don’t reflect anything fundamentally wrong and evil with our government, because, as America, we’re immune from anything like that ever happening. So even when conclusive evidence of those things emerges, there’s no reason to pay attention to it. They’re just isolated matters from the boring past, no reason to act as though there’s anything deeply wrong here and certainly no reason to distract us from the vapid, petty chatter in which they wallow.

Why worry about a lying Attorney General when we can talk about gutter balls and hair care?

Mike Wallace Interviews from 57-58

Boing Boing tips us off to this great online repository of television interviews conducted by Mike Wallace in the late 50s.  Long form interviews with thoughtful people speaking in full sentences as if there were an intelligent audience listening.   Lots of interesting people to pick from (Eleanor Roosevelt, Orval Faubus, Frank Lloyd Wright, etc), but I especially recommend the Aldous Huxley interview.

(The interviews are all conducted in a haze of Winston cigarette smoke.  I’d trade today’s clean screens for that in a heartbeat, if it meant we could get smart news and analysis back on the small screen.)

Forty Years After the Bullet

What’s there to say? I wish I could write a positive piece. About the progress made, about the things we can do, about the hopes I have. But the past couple of months – of seeing national networks let Pat Buchanan pontificate on someone else’s racism, watching Marvin Arrington attacked for doing his best to help young black men, and hearing Lou Dobbs get upset about those “cotton pickin'” black leaders who dare object to his ignorant emanations – I’ve got nothing. Sorry.

So I’ll just link back to this, the groundbreaking for the national MLK, Jr. memorial in DC.

Changes at Al Jazeera English

If you look to the right column and a little further down on this page, you’ll noticed that I’ve got Al Jazeera English linked. And I don’t link anything here that I don’t find useful and/or read regularly.  I’ve found it to be a good source of information and perspective,  not just on issues important to the Middle East, but globally.  For the most part, it’s been really top quality stuff, and I recommend it for regular reading/viewing.  So it’s with that background that I found this interview with Dave Marash so interesting.   Dave Marash, a former ABC correspondent (and occasional Nightline host) joined Al Jazeera English as an anchorman in 2006.  He recently left, and explains why in this interview with the Columbia Journalism Review:

[O]ver the first two years of the channel’s existence, I have made myself effectively the American face of the channel and vouched for its credibility and value. And over the last seventeen months there have been several changes at the channel which put things on the air that, frankly, I could not vouch for. If I had just been another employee I might have just dropped my head and let it all wash over, because it is the nature of our business that every place you work occasionally does things that embarrass you. But I felt an extra measure of responsibility.

He goes on to explain that he feels like the channel has retracted into being more of a regional voice, perhaps as a result of pressures to counterbalance the influence of the US.  If you’re like me, and you make a serious effort to draw your news from places with different perspectives, I think you’ll find it a fascinating (but short) read.

Page 50 of 69

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén