Tuesday, November 13, 2007

An Endless Tragedy, Brought To You By Our Leaders And Their Big Media Water-Carriers



The young marine lighted a cigarette and let it dangle. White smoke wafted around his helmet. His face was smeared with war paint. Blood trickled from his right ear and the bridge of his nose.

Momentarily deafened by cannon blasts, he didn't know the shooting had stopped. He stared at the sunrise.

His expression caught my eye. To me, it said: terrified, exhausted and glad just to be alive. I recognized that look because that's how I felt too.

I raised my camera and snapped a few shots.

With the click of a shutter, Marine Lance Cpl. James Blake Miller, a country boy from Kentucky, became an emblem of the war in Iraq. The resulting image would change two lives -- his and mine.

I was embedded with Charlie Company of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, as it entered Fallouja, an insurgent stronghold in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, on Nov. 8, 2004. We encountered heavy fire almost immediately. We were pinned down all night at a traffic circle, where a 6-inch curb offered the only protection.

I hunkered down in the gutter that endless night, praying for daylight, trying hard to make myself small. A cold rain came down. I cursed the Marines' illumination flares that wafted slowly earthward, making us wait an eternity for darkness to return.

At dawn, the gunfire and explosions subsided. A white phosphorus artillery round burst overhead, showering blazing-hot tendrils. We came across three insurgents lying in the street, two of them dead, their blood mixing with rainwater.

The third, a wiry Arab youth, tried to mouth a few words. All I could think was: "Buddy, you're already dead."

We rounded a corner and again came under heavy fire, forcing us to scramble for cover. I ran behind a Marine as we crossed the street, the bullets ricocheting at our feet.

Gunfire poured down, and it seemed incredible that no one was hit. A pair of tanks rumbled down the road to shield us. The Marines kicked open the door of a house, and we all piled in.

Miller and other Marines took positions on the rooftop; I set up my satellite phone to transmit photos. But as I worked downstairs in the kitchen, a deep rumble almost blew the room apart.

Two cannon rounds had slammed into a nearby house. Miller, the platoon's radioman, had called in the tanks, pinpointed the targets and shouted "Fire!"

I ran to the roof and saw smoldering ruins across a large vacant lot. Beneath a heap of bricks, men lay dead or dying. I sat down and collected my wits. Miller propped himself against a wall and lighted his cigarette. I transmitted the picture that night. Power in Fallouja had been cut in advance of the assault, forcing me to be judicious with my batteries. I considered not even sending Miller's picture, thinking my editors would prefer images of fierce combat.

The photo of Miller was the last of 11 that I sent that day.

On the second day of the battle, I called my wife by satellite phone to tell her I was OK. She told me my photo had ended up on the front page of more than 150 newspapers. Dan Rather had gushed over it on the evening news. Friends and family had called her to say they had seen the photo -- my photo.

Soon, my editors called and asked me to find the "Marlboro Marine" for a follow-up story. Who was this brave young hero? Women wanted to marry him. Mothers wanted to know whether he was their son.

I didn't even know his name. Shell-shocked and exhausted, I had simply identified Miller as "A Marine" and clicked "send."

I found Miller four days later in an auditorium after a dangerous dash across an open parade ground in the city's civic center. Miller's unit was taking a break, eating military rations.

Clean-shaven and without war paint, Miller, 20, looked much younger than the battle-stressed warrior in the picture -- young enough to be my son.

He was cooperative, but he was embarrassed about the photo's impact back home.

Once our story identified him, the national fascination grew stronger. People shipped care packages, making sure Miller had more than enough smokes. President Bush sent cigars, candy and memorabilia from the White House.

Then Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski, head of the 1st Marine Division, made a special trip to see the Marlboro Marine.

I was in the forward command center, which by then featured a large blowup of the photo. "You might want to see this," an officer said, nudging me to follow.

To talk to Miller, Natonski had to weave between earthen berms, run through bombed-out buildings and make a mad sprint across a wide street to avoid sniper fire before diving into a shattered storefront.

"Miller, get your ass up here," a first sergeant barked on the radio.

Miller had no idea what was going on as he ran through the rubble. He snapped to attention when he saw the general.

Natonski shook Miller's hand. Americans had "connected" with his photo, the general said, and nobody wanted to see him wounded or dead.

"We can have you home tomorrow," he said.

Miller hesitated, then shook his head. He did not want to leave his buddies behind. "It just wasn't right," he told me later.

The tall, lanky general towered over the grunt. "Your father raised one hell of a young man," he said, looking Miller in the eye. They said goodbye, and Natonski scrambled back to the command post.

For his loyalty, Miller was rewarded with horror. The assault on Fallouja raged on, leaving nearly 100 Americans dead and 450 wounded. The bodies of some 1,200 insurgents littered the streets.

As the fighting dragged on for a month, the story fell off the front page. I joined the exodus of journalists heading home or moving to the next story.

More than a year and a half would pass before I saw Miller again.

Back home, I immersed myself in other assignments, trying to put Fallouja behind me. Yet not a day went by that I didn't think about Miller and what we experienced in Iraq.

National Public Radio interviewed me. Much to my embarrassment, the Los Angeles City Council adopted a resolution in my honor. I became a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. Bloggers riffed on the photo's meaning. Requests for prints kept coming.

In January 2006, I was on assignment along the U.S.-Mexico border when my wife called. "Your boy is on TV. He has PTSD," she said. "They kicked him out of the Marines."

I'd spoken with Miller by phone twice, but the conversations were short and superficial. I knew post-traumatic stress disorder was a complicated diagnosis. So once again, I dug up his number. Again, I offered simple words: Life is sweet. We survived. Everything else is gravy.

As the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion approached, my editors wanted another follow-up story.

So in spring 2006, I traveled to Miller's hometown of Jonancy, Ky., in the hollows of Appalachia. I drove east from Lexington along Interstate 64, part of the nationwide Purple Heart Trail honoring dead and wounded veterans, before turning south.

Mobile homes and battered cars dot the rugged ranges. Marijuana is a major cash crop. Addiction to methamphetamine and prescription drugs is rampant.

Kids marry young, and boys go to work mining the black seams of coal. Heavy trucks rumble day and night.

Miller showed me around. At an abandoned mine, he walked carefully around a large, shallow pool of standing water that mirrored the green wilderness and springtime sky. He picked up a chunk of coal.

"Around here, this is what it's all about," he said. "Nothing else.

"It was this or the Marines."

Often brooding and sullen, Miller joked about being "21 going on 70," the result, he said, of humping heavy armor and gear on a 6-foot, 160-pound frame.

Before he was allowed to leave Iraq, he attended a mandatory "warrior transitioning" session about PTSD and adjusting to home life.

Each Marine received a questionnaire. Were they having trouble sleeping? Did they have thoughts of suicide? Did they feel guilt about their actions?

Everybody knew the drill. Answer yes and be evaluated further. Say no and go home.

Miller said he didn't want to miss his flight. He answered no to every question.

He returned to Camp Lejeune, N.C. His high school sweetheart, Jessica Holbrooks, joined him there, and they were married in a civil ceremony.

Then came the nightmares and hallucinations. He imagined shadowy figures outside the windows. Faces of the dead haunted his sleep.

Once, while cleaning a shotgun, he blacked out. He regained consciousness when Jessica screamed out his name. Snapping back to reality, he realized he was pointing the gun at her.

He reported the problems to superiors, who promised to get him help.

Then came a single violent episode, which put an end to his days as a Marine.

It happened in the storm-tossed Gulf of Mexico in September 2005. His unit had been sent to New Orleans to assist with Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Now a second giant storm, Hurricane Rita, was moving in, and the Marines were ordered to seek safety out at sea.

In the claustrophobic innards of a rolling Navy ship, someone whistled. The sound reminded Miller of a rocket- propelled grenade. He attacked the sailor who had whistled. He came to in the boat's brig. He was medically discharged with a "personality disorder" on Nov. 10, 2005 -- exactly one year after his picture made worldwide news.

Back home in Kentucky, the Millers settled into a sparsely furnished second-story apartment. Four small windows afforded little light. The TV was always on.

Miller bought a motorcycle and went for long rides. He and Jessica drank all night and slept all day. He started collecting a monthly disability benefit of about $2,500. The couple spent hours watching movies on DVD, Coronas and bourbon cocktails in hand. Friends and family gave them space.

Miller had hoped to pursue a career in law enforcement. But the PTSD and abrupt discharge killed that dream. No one would trust him with a weapon.

But at least he didn't have to go back to Iraq. He started to realize he wasn't the only one traumatized by war.

"There's a word for it around here," Jessica said. "It's called 'vets.' " She talked of Miller's grandfather, forever changed by the Korean War and dead by age 35. Her Uncle Hargis, a Vietnam veteran, had it too. He experienced mood swings for years.

Sometimes, Miller's stories about Iraq unnerved his young bride. He sensed it and talked less. Nobody really understands, he said, unless they've been there.

On June 3, 2006, the Millers renewed their vows at a hilltop clubhouse overlooking the forests and strip mines. It was a lavish ceremony paid for by donors from across the country who had read about Miller's travails or seen him on television. Local businesses pitched in as well.

His father and two younger brothers were supposed to be groomsmen but didn't show up. His estranged mother wasn't invited.

Miller looked sharp in his Marine Corps dress uniform of dark-blue cloth and red piping. Jessica was lovely in white, her long hair gathered high.

Instead of a honeymoon, the young couple traveled to Washington, D.C., at the invitation of the National Mental Health Assn. The group wanted to honor Miller for his courage in going public about his PTSD. Its leaders also wanted him to visit key lawmakers to share his experience.

As a boy, Miller confided, he had embraced religion, even going so far as to become an ordained minister by mail order. He knew the Bible verses, felt the passion for preaching.

That's how he found his new mission: to tell people what it was like to come home from war with a broken mind.

Three days after their wedding, I tagged along as the young couple flew to the nation's capital. Easily distracted by the offer of free drinks for an all-American hero, Miller stayed out until 3 a.m. He was hung over when he met with House members a few hours later.

Miller chatted up GOP Rep. Harold Rogers, the congressman from his district. He smoked and frequently cursed while recounting his combat experiences. I cringed but stayed on the sidelines, snapping photos.

Miller shuffled from one congressional office to the next, passing displays filled with photos of Marines killed in Iraq. As he told his story over and again, the politicians listened politely and thanked Miller for his service. One congressman sent an aide to tell Miller he was too busy to meet. No one promised to take up his cause.

After Miller picked up his award, he took a whirlwind tour past the White House and Lincoln Memorial, but his mind was elsewhere. At a bar the night before, free booze had flowed in honor of the Marlboro Marine. Miller wanted more.

"Let's get drunk," he said.

I returned to Los Angeles the next morning, thinking I would catch up with Miller in a couple of months.

A week later, Jessica called. After they got home, Miller's mood had become volatile. He was OK one minute and in a deep funk the next, she told me. Then he'd disappeared. She hadn't seen him for days.

Could I come to Kentucky and help?

Why me? I thought. I am not Miller's brother. Or his father. I could feel the line between journalist and subject blurring. Was I covering the story or becoming part of it?

I traveled all night to get to Pikeville, Ky., and soon found myself with Jessica, making the rounds of all the places Miller might have gone. I wanted to be somewhere else -- anywhere else.

Finally, the next morning, Jessica saw her husband driving in the opposite direction. She did a U-turn, hit the gas and caught up with him down the road.

He got out of his truck. A woman sat in the passenger seat.

"Who is that, Blake?" Jessica demanded. "Who is she?"

He said her name was Sherry. They had just met, and he was helping her move. Jessica didn't believe him.

I thought: Didn't I attend this young couple's fairy tale wedding just 10 days ago? Now, here they were, in a gas station parking lot, creating a spectacle.

Jessica grilled Miller. He bobbed and weaved. He appeared sober and sullen. Then he dropped a bomb. He didn't want her anymore and had filed for divorce.

"You guys might want to go home and talk," I suggested.

There, the tortured dialogue escalated.

Jessica pleaded with Blake to stop and think. They could quit drinking, she said. They'd get help for him and as a couple. Maybe they could move away -- anything to work it out.

Miller slumped on the couch. I sensed his unease and feared he would become violent, so I stayed for a while even though I felt intrusive. But he remained strangely calm, albeit brooding and distant.

I returned the next morning. He called his attorney and put the phone on speaker. If uncontested, the lawyer said, the divorce would become final in 60 days. Jessica went to the fire escape to gather herself.

Miller remained unmoved, chain-smoking. The local newspaper had been calling him about rumors that he was getting divorced. It was a major local story. Finally, he wrote a statement. He asked for compassion and respect for their privacy.

The next day, I found Miller in a back bedroom at his uncle's house. He told me that he had come close to committing suicide the night before. He had thought about driving his motorcycle off the edge of a mountain road.

He showed me the morning newspaper. His divorce was the lead story.

I felt torn. I didn't want to get involved. I desperately wanted to close the book on Iraq. But if I hadn't taken Miller's picture, this very personal drama wouldn't be front-page news. I felt responsible.

Sometimes, when things get hard to witness, I use my camera as a shield. It creates a space for me to work -- and distance to keep my eyes open and my feelings in check. But Miller had no use for a photojournalist. He needed a helping hand.

I flashed back to the chaos of combat in Fallouja. In the rattle and thunder, brick walls separated me from the world coming to an end. In the tight spaces, we were scared mindless. Everybody dragged deeply on cigarettes.

Above the din, I heard what everybody was thinking: This is the end.

I've never felt so completely alone.

I snapped back to the present, and before I knew it, the words spilled out.

"I have to ask you something, Blake," I said. "If I'd gone down in Fallouja, would you have carried me out?"

"Damn straight," he said, without hesitation.

"OK then," I said. "I think you're wounded pretty badly. I want to help you."

He looked at me for a moment. "All right," he said.
Link.
James Blake Miller was in a world of pain, and I figured I should be by his side.

A veterans' treatment program in West Haven, Conn. -- arguably the best in the nation -- offered hope. Moe Armstrong, a pioneer in vet-to-vet counseling, had heard of the Marlboro Marine's troubles and sent him feelers about coming for a visit. Despite my reservations about getting too involved, I had flown from Los Angeles to Kentucky to help Miller grab this lifeline. I coaxed him into my rental car and we headed north.

I questioned myself. Was this the right thing to do? For Miller, yes. But for me? What awaited us at the end of this journey? I caught Miller's eyes reflected in the rearview mirror, droopy and lifeless. He hadn't slept well, and a long road led from his home in the Appalachian coal country to New England.

I had taken a photo of Miller for the Los Angeles Times during the battle of Fallouja in November 2004. He was leaning against a wall, a cigarette dangling from his lips. To my surprise, the image became iconic, capturing a sense of the front line in a young Marine's face. It appeared in dozens of newspapers and on TV broadcasts, giving Miller a moment of fame.

Back home, he had struggled to put Iraq behind him. He was medically discharged from the Marines, suffering from post- traumatic stress disorder. He suffered flashbacks, drank heavily and retreated into a shell.

We had stayed in touch, casually at first. Then something deeper had developed between us. I was one of the few people who could reach him, who understood what he had been through.

I'd flown east in June 2006 after Miller's wife called me, asking for help. During the long drive to Connecticut, it began to sink in that despite our 25-year age difference, Miller and I had a lot in common. We both had religious upbringings. We both went to public schools and ran with reckless crowds. We'd both found acceptance through sports.

Like Miller, I'd faced obstacles growing up. Despite my good grades, my high school counselor saw only a Filipino immigrant in homogeneous Olympia, Wash., and lumped me in with the underachievers. Instead of college catalogs, she offered me Army recruitment brochures.

The military would be better than "setting chokers," she said, referring to the equipment used to harvest clear-cut timber off steep mountainsides. It's dangerous work -- like mining coal in Kentucky.

As dusk descended, Miller and I drove on, talking about movies, music, motorcycles and cars. We talked about Iraq, where our lives had intersected.

On assignment for The Times, I was embedded with Charlie Company of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment. Miller was a radioman with the unit.

He recalled intense training as the Marines prepared to enter Fallouja. There was bluster, bravado. Some of the men talked about notching "kills."

On the eve of battle, they became reflective and subdued as they wrote last goodbyes. Their letters home basically said: If you get this, I am dead.

Miller was haunted by the brutality of the fight.

I remembered that, of course, but my mind had also stored a consoling image, one of transcendent serenity.

I told Miller about it as we drove north. The morning sun was streaming gloriously through the broken windows of the shattered Khulafah Rashid mosque in Fallouja, where Marines had taken refuge during the battle. The light splashed over deep red prayer rugs where Marines sprawled in fitful sleep, their packs serving as pillows, their dusty boots laced tight.

Rubble littered the floor, and dust floated up through shafts of light. Copies of the Koran lay open amid shards of glass. I recalled leaning against a towering pillar in the vast space, breathing the tranquillity.

Miller talked about killing the enemy.

"To try to live with that . . . how do you justify it, regardless of what your causes are or what their causes are?" he said.

"To see somebody in your sights and to pull that trigger, it's almost like you're with them, seeing their life flash before their eyes as well as taking it. It's an insane connection that you make with that person at that point."

We talked about the dissonance we felt. We existed in our own postwar world, forever changed by the experience. Meanwhile, everyone around us seemed distracted by trivialities -- the price of gas, a sex scandal in Washington, a paparazzi photo of Britney Spears without panties.

Fueled by coffee and Marlboros, we crossed six state lines and covered 870 miles. At dawn we arrived in West Haven. It was pouring rain.

We checked into a motel pushed up against the freeway, and Miller quickly nodded off. A CNN special report about the war glowed on TV.

I couldn't sleep. A journalist wasn't supposed to get personally involved with his subjects. But I felt somehow responsible for Miller. Over and over, I thought: It will be my fault if something bad happens to him.

"You know you're going to be OK, right?" Laurie Harkness, who runs Errera Community Care Center for veterans, said when she met Miller the next day.

"Maybe you did some horrible things in Iraq. But war is terrible," she said. "You do what you have to in order to survive. And you survived. That's good news, right?"

Miller nodded. He agreed to check in to the program. Veterans benefits would cover the cost of treatment. Miller would pay $300 a month for room and board.

Between the intense counseling offered by Harkness and peer support from Moe Armstrong's group, Vet to Vet, it seemed Miller would finally get the help he needed. But shortly after signing in, he insisted on returning to Kentucky to get his motorcycle. Harkness reluctantly issued a weekend pass. I crossed my fingers.

Worried that I was in over my head, I asked Armstrong to accompany us as we covered the same highways we had traversed just days before. I figured that if Armstrong was there to offer professional counseling, I could retreat into my role as journalist. Besides, my patience was wearing thin. Another 1,700 miles -- for a motorcycle!

All the way back to Connecticut, I kept my eyes on the rearview mirror, constantly checking to make sure Miller hadn't pulled a U-turn. On the program. On himself. On me.

Over the next month, I stayed by Miller's side as he began to reveal the things that weighed so heavily on his mind. At his request, I sat in on most of his therapy sessions. He said my presence put him at ease, but I never put down my camera, never stopped documenting the story.

Miller told Harkness how empty and confused he had felt when combat ended. How he had placed the barrel of an M-16 assault rifle in his mouth on the outskirts of Fallouja one day, taken a deep breath and reached for the trigger.

"What made me so special that I deserved to stay here and my buddies didn't?" Miller asked, speaking of friends who had died. "At one point, I was almost mad at them. How could my buddies leave me like that? We came together. We were supposed to leave together. I don't know how you can disconnect that feeling."

He told us about an event that haunted him. From an observation post in Fallouja, he had seen a head pop up amid the wreckage of several cars. It was a free-fire zone. He squinted into his rifle scope, saw a patch of dark curly hair and squeezed the trigger.

Later, Marines advanced on the scene and found a dead boy, 6 or 7 years old, his curly hair mottled by bits of brain and blood.

There was more, he said -- terrible things he couldn't divulge. Not now. Maybe never.

"To kill the snake, we had to cut off its head," was all he would say.

On July 10, 2006, Miller turned 22. He seemed to be getting the help he needed.

I had been away from my wife and three children for a month. It was time to go home to Los Angeles.

The night before my departure, I joined Miller and some other vets for a birthday dinner. We broke it up about 10 p.m. I told Miller to call me day or night if he needed help. I encouraged him to hang tough.

"You stuck your neck out for me to keep mine here," he said. "And I feel with everything in me that you have saved my life. I thank you for that."

Relief washed over me. It was like shedding a rucksack of rocks. I got into my car as he started up his motorcycle. A deep, loud rumble ripped the night.

We traveled together for a time. He slowed and waved as I turned in to my hotel. I watched him roar into the darkness.

Over the next several weeks, Harkness took a special interest in Miller's recovery. She told him that, in time, he might even enroll at Yale University through a special admissions process.

Miller began to realize that guilt and fear were ruining him. It's what prompted the rush to marry his high school sweetheart, Jessica Holbrooks, after he got home from Iraq, even though he knew deep down he wasn't ready. Now he understood that even Jessica couldn't make him feel safe or accepted. She couldn't make him stop scanning the darkness for the enemy beyond. It's what made him drink all night, finding sleep in the arms of exhaustion.

Still, he didn't say much in group therapy, preferring to stay in a shell. He commonly skipped the daily meetings and instead spent hours on the phone with Jessica. He put off sessions of "cognitive behavioral therapy," which would require him to discuss his troubling memories.

"It's all good," he told me over the phone. He said he was gaining clarity. He borrowed a guitar and strummed all day. He expressed optimism.

But soon Miller began talking about going home.

Once again, I made the cross-country trip. I wanted to grab him by the shoulders and tell him not to blow an excellent opportunity to put his life back together. A chance to go to Yale? I would jump at that myself.

But Miller wasn't receptive. He had scuffled with some local motorcycle toughs and felt threatened. He missed the mountains. He wanted to go home. Period.

Disappointing all who had tried to help him, he dropped out just two months into a program that was supposed to last six months to a year.

We left Connecticut in the middle of the night. I followed in my rental car as he rode his motorcycle for 18 hours through a sweltering summer day to be reunited with Jessica.

It was August 2006. The couple hoped to get a fresh start in Princeton, W.Va., which offered a veterans center, the mountains Miller loved, and the privacy so lacking in his hometown.

In the gloaming, they held each other tight. They thought maybe they could work things out.

They shopped for used furniture and found an apartment that was light and airy, with a porch for barbecues.

"I'm just in a tizzy," said Jessica. "I missed him so."

But Armstrong, a Marine veteran of the Vietnam War, was worried. He had had high hopes that he could help Miller and that Miller could help him reach a younger generation of combat veterans.

"Blake Miller is a flipped-out, 21-year-old former Marine who was involved in a major battle," Armstrong said. "He's been through a lot, seen a lot. I can't endorse the quick fix. It's a common pattern that vets are in and out of therapy for years."

Miller began seeing psychologist and retired Marine Ernie Barringer at the veterans center in Princeton. Miller knew I was disappointed in him for leaving the Connecticut program. He and Jessica went out of their way to reassure me everything would be OK.

They drove me to the secluded mountaintop outside Pikeville, Ky., to show me the spot where Miller had asked Jessica to be his girl, just days before he shipped out to Iraq. She promised to be there when he returned.

They laughed, embarrassed by the story. Miller sipped root beer and Jessica Nehi orange soda. Insects hummed in the dark.

Under a splash of stars, the moon rose. A gentle breeze rippled the woods. One could almost imagine Fallouja never happened.

By mid-October 2006, Miller had again slipped into depression. Memories flooded back as the second anniversary of the Fallouja battle approached. As the death toll mounted in Iraq, he worried about his buddies who had again deployed to the Middle East.

Marriage counseling proved difficult; sessions often ended in stony silence. Vaguely familiar facial features reappeared in Miller's dreams: a mole, thick beards and curly black hair. Then, body parts exploding.

Jessica became frustrated. They didn't talk. They stopped having sex. One night later that month, Miller called me, sounding depressed. I offered to come see him. By the time I arrived, Jessica had moved out.

They next met at a law office in Pikeville. The smoke from Miller's cigarette hung thick in the air. The couple sat across a wide table and agreed to proceed with a divorce.

So much for happy endings, I thought, recalling their wedding.

As Miller and I drove back to West Virginia, news crackled over the radio. The Democrats had routed the GOP in the midterm congressional election. Public sentiment about Iraq had soured, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the architect of the war, was resigning.

Miller had mixed feelings. "That's good news, I guess," he said. "But it should've happened a long time ago. Everybody that's dead now. I mean, what's the point?"

It was Nov. 9, 2006 -- two years after I took the famous picture of Miller and a year after he left the Marines.

In his empty apartment, Miller took his wedding picture from the wall and replaced it with a Meritorious Mast, a certificate detailing his valor in combat. He drank beer for comrades living and lost.

He spoke the names of the dead: Brown, Gavriel, Holmes, Ziolkowski.

"I didn't cry then, and I won't now," Miller said. "I just can't."

Over the next 10 days, we awoke late and drove aimlessly in the countryside. He attended meetings at the vet center. I took more pictures.

Winter was upon the mountains. Miller blamed his melancholy on the season.

Within weeks, Miller moved back to Kentucky and got an apprenticeship at a custom motorcycle shop, working up to 14 hours a day.

"This makes me feel like I still have some purpose in life," he said. "Fixing things. Making them right."

The shop's owner presided over the local chapter of the Highwaymen, a Detroit-based motorcycle club under constant scrutiny by law enforcement.

Miller acknowledged that the Highwaymen were into "serious business" but said he joined the club for the camaraderie. The uniforms and codes of conduct reminded him of the Marines.

I worried about this new affiliation. After joining, Miller never went out without his 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol, and he kept a shotgun in his truck. To me, his new friends seemed overly interested in his combat "kills." One biker, a Vietnam veteran also plagued by PTSD, promised me he'd get Miller to join the local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

"We'll connect veteran to veteran," the biker told me, his breath tinged with moonshine.

Miller now sees Jessica a couple of times a month. They have not completed their divorce but remain separated.

"I see him on his good days," Jessica said, "and everything is wonderful. We actually have conversations." But then weeks pass without sight of him.

"He has to get stable," she said. "If he was better, we'd be together all the time."

Miller lives in a refurbished trailer behind his father's house. Two televisions provide constant background chatter. The refrigerator is bare. A hound named Mudbone spends most days tied in the yard.

Miller is estranged from his mother. He talks with his father, Jimmy Miller, 43, about everything except Iraq.

"What am I going to say? 'Son, I know what you've been through'? 'I know what you're going through now'?" the father said. "Well, the truth is I don't. Maybe it's just better that we leave it alone."

Miller's brother Todd, a 21-year-old diesel mechanic, doesn't pretend to understand.

"I'm glad I didn't join the Marines," Todd said one day. "I got a nice house, a wife and twin baby daughters, and I drive a Durango that's used but damn near new. You're divorced, drive a beat-up pickup and live in a trailer."

On top of that, Todd told his brother, your head is screwed up.

The months go by. One disability check comes, and then the next -- about $2,500 a month. Miller sees Barringer, the psychologist, but only occasionally.

"Sometimes you just have to look at the culture of small-town eastern Kentucky," Barringer said. "Blake graduated from high school and had no future. So he joined the Marines, and now he's home and has a steady income. Things are good.

"But sometimes that's more of a negative than a positive," he added. "Look, every time you go out to that mailbox and get your disability check, it tells you you're sick."

It took a while to get to know Miller. But I've come to appreciate his intelligence, generosity and dignity. He is a talented musician and skilled mechanic. I try to relate to him as a brother, even though I'm older than his father.

He has helped me sort through the craziness of Fallouja. I can't stop the war, but Miller has given me a chance to make a difference -- by helping him. And maybe myself.

Often, I wonder if I've done enough. Can I let go now? Can I ever let go?

The experts tell me I may be in it for the long haul.

Armstrong says Miller is "playing out his symptoms on cue."

"He's just keeping his head above water," he said. "He can't afford any downtime because it allows him to think."

Harkness holds out hope that Miller will eventually seek intensive therapy of the kind she offered.

"He won't come in for help because a part of him is very macho," she said. "He really comes across as the Marlboro Man. My fear is that at some point, it's all going to come crashing down.

To me, she said: "You are a constant object for Blake. You are the only person to follow him from the war zone to back home in America. You have a bond. He would be much lonelier and lost without you."

Some experts estimate that 30% of the troops who have seen combat in Iraq will suffer from PTSD.

As that thought lingers in my head, I remind myself that the sweetest victory is survival. The rest of life is a glittering gift, tempered in the forge of Fallouja.

Sometimes in the night, I hear a grenade launcher belching rounds. Or maybe it's just Miller gunning his Harley. He's roaring over Foggy Mountain, the wind blowing by, cleansing his thoughts.

Blake, son, I know it sounds crazy, but my mind always takes me back to that distant rooftop in Fallouja, where I snapped your picture. I think of that sunrise, bright and warm, and how lucky we were to see it.
Link.

So Much For A Rising Sea Lifts All Boats

Fox Bidness Journal:

Blacks born into the middle class in the late 1960s are far more likely than whites to earn less than their parents, a new study of economic mobility has found.

The study examined how children born in the late 1960s fared in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Overall, it found that two-thirds of the adult children earned more, adjusted for inflation, than their parents did at the same age in the late 1960s.

READ THE REPORT

The Economic Mobility Project will release its latest report, "Economic Mobility of Families Across Generations," on Tuesday.
But when the study examined families by race and their rank by income, they found stark differences between black and white families.

Children of black parents earning in the middle 20% of all families in the late 1960s had a 69% chance of earning less than their parents, the study found. For white children, that chance was just 32%.

"Economic success in the parental generation...does not appear to protect black children from future economic adversity the same way it protects white children," the study's author, Julia Isaacs, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, writes in the report, to be released today.

• The News: Blacks born into the middle class in the late 1960s are far more likely than whites to earn less than their parents, a new study of economic mobility has found.
• The Big Picture: Overall, two-thirds of adult children in the study earned more, adjusted for inflation, than their parents.
• The Conclusion: Parents' economic success doesn't appear to protect black children from future economic adversity the same way it does white children.

The study doesn't develop its own explanations for the disparity. But Ms. Isaacs says other research has raised several possibilities. One is that black parents have less wealth, in the form of homes or other assets, than white parents of the same income, which might affect the economic prospects of their children. Another is that marriage rates are lower for blacks than for whites, so black children may be more likely to grow up to be single parents.

Yet another theory is that in the 1960s, black women were more likely to work than white women, and thus black incomes received less of a boost as women's overall participation in the labor force rose in subsequent years.

The report is part of a continuing examination of economic mobility conducted under the auspices of the Pew Charitable Trusts, with contributions from Brookings, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Urban Institute.

The study used data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, run by academics with federal funding, which has been following several thousand sets of parents and children since the 1960s. The study's sample comprised 2,367 individuals between the ages of birth and 18 in 1968; their median family income in 2006 was $71,900, up 29%, after inflation adjustment, from the median income of their parents' generation.

Its findings may both contradict and reinforce Americans' image of their society as highly mobile. On the one hand, it found that parents' income ranking was a strong determinant of their child's. For parents born into the bottom 20%, 42% of children were also in the bottom 20% four decades later. For parents born into the top 20%, 39% of their children were also there four decades later. On the other hand, that means the majority of children ended up in a different income quintile than their parents.

Moreover, the poorest children were the likeliest to do better than their parents: 82% of the children of parents in the bottom quintile earned more as adults than their parents did; that was true of just 66% of children of parents in the middle quintile, and 43% of children of parents in the top quintile. Ms. Isaacs says it is easier to move up from the bottom than the top.

But Ms. Isaacs says the experience is quite different depending on race. For white families, 90% of children born to parents in the bottom 20% earned more by adulthood; for black families, it was 73%. In the middle quintile, commonly referred to as the middle class, 68% of white children grew up to earn more than their parents, but just 31% of black children did.

"Black children and white children do not have equal chances of moving up the income ladder," Ms. Isaacs writes.
And here's a near-tragic example of how being black and successful isn't as successful as being white and successful.

More Craziness And, Well, Certified Horseshit

Your Creation Museum Report

Yes, finally, ladies and gentlemen, I present you with your Creation Museum report! Thank you for your patience. Our report today has two parts: The first part is a photographic tour, with all the snarktasticness you’ve been no doubt hoping for. Click on the first picture and cruise on through. It’s long — 101 pictures — but, hey, you guys paid top dollar, so I don’t want to skimp. The second part, a think piece, if you will, is directly below. It’s no less snarky (as you will soon discover), but also somewhat more thoughtful. Enjoy.

ON THE CREATION MUSEUM
By John Scalzi

Here’s how to understand the Creation Museum:

First, imagine, if you will, a load of horseshit. And we’re not talking just your average load of horseshit; no, we’re talking colossal load of horsehit. An epic load of horseshit. The kind of load of horseshit that has accreted over decades and has developed its own sort of ecosystem, from the flyblown chunks at the perimeter, down into the heated and decomposing center, generating explosive levels of methane as bacteria feast merrily on vintage, liquified crap. This is a Herculean load of horseshit, friends, the likes of which has not been seen since the days of Augeas.

And you look at it and you say, “Wow, what a load of horseshit.”

But then there’s this guy. And this guy loves this load of horseshit. Why? Well, really, who knows? What possesses someone to love a load of horseshit? It’s beyond your understanding and possibly you don’t actually want to know, even if you could know; maybe it’s one of those “on that path lies madness” things. But love it he does, and he’s not the only one; the admiration for this particular load of horseshit exists, unaccountably, far and wide. There are advocates for this load of horseshit.

And so this guy who loves this load of horseshit decides that he’s going to do something; he’s going to give it a home. And not just any home, because as this is no ordinary load of horseshit, so must its home be no ordinary repository for horseshit. And so the fellow builds a temple for his load of horseshit. The finest architects scope this temple’s dimensions; the most excellent builders hoist columns around the load of horseshit and cap them with a cunning and elegant dome; and every surface of the temple is clad in fine-grained Italian marble by the most competent masons in a three-state radius. The load of horseshit is surrounded by comfortable seats, the better for people to gaze upon it; docents are hired to expertly describe its history and features; multimedia events are designed to explain its superior nature, relative not only to other loads of horseshit which may compete in loadosity or horseshittery, but to other, completely unrelated things which may or may not be loads of anything, much less loads of horseshit.

The guy who built the temple, satisfied that it truly represents his beloved load of horseshit in the best possible light, then opens the temple to the public, to attract not only the already-established horseshit enthusiasts, but possibly to entice new people to come and gaze on the horseshit, and to, well, who knows, admire its moundyness, or the way it piles just so, to nod in appreciation of the rationalizations for its excellence or to clap in delight and take pictures when an escaping swell of methane causes the load of horseshit to sigh a moist and pungent sigh.

When all of this is done, the fellow turns to you and asks you what you think of it all now, now that this gorgeous edifice has been raised in glory and the masses cluster in celebration.

And you say, “Well, that’s all very nice. But it’s still just an enormous load of horseshit.”

And this is, in sum, the Creation Museum. $27 million has purchased the very best monument to an enormous load of horseshit that you could possibly ever hope to see. I enjoyed my visit, admired the craft with which the whole thing was put together, and was never once convinced that what I was seeing celebrated was anything more or less than horseshit. Popular horseshit? Undoubtedly. Horseshit hallowed by tradition and consecrated by time? Just so. Horseshit of the finest possible quality? I would not argue the point. And yet, even so: Horseshit. Complete horseshit. Utter horseshit. Total horseshit. Horseshit, horseshit, horseshit, horseshit. I pity the people who swallow it whole.

***

So that is the key to understanding the Creation Museum. But what is the enormous load of horseshit that sits, squat yet moundy, at its very center? It’s simple: That the Bible is the literal and inerrant Word of God. If the Creation Museum doesn’t have that, it doesn’t have anything. So what it does — and very cleverly — is to position the Word of God as a non-threatening and accommodating given right from the start.

In the first room of the Creation Museum tour there’s a display of two paleontologists unearthing a raptor skeleton. One of them, a rather avuncular fellow, explains that he and the other paleontologist are both doing the same work, but that they start off from different premises: He starts off from the Bible and the other fellow (who does not get to comment, naturally) starts off from “man’s reason,” and really, that’s the only difference between them: “different starting points, same facts,” is the mantra for the first portion of the museum.

The rhetoricians in the crowd will already see how a card has been palmed here. The Museum is casually trying to establish an equivalence between science and creationism by accrediting them both as legitimate “starting points” for any discussion of biology, geology and cosmology. This would cause any scientist worth his or her salt to have a positively cinematic spit take, because it’s horseshit, but if you don’t know any better (say, if you’ve been fed a line of crap your whole life along the lines of “science is just another religion”) it sounds perfectly reasonable. And so if you buy that, then the next room, filled with large posters that offer on equal footing the creationist and scientific takes on the creation of the universe and evolution, seems perfectly reasonable, too: Heck, we can both have our theories! They’re both okay.

The problem with this is that creationism isn’t a theory, it’s an assertion, to wit: The entire universe was created in six days, the days are 24-hour days, the layout for the creation and for the early history of the planet and humanity is in the first chapter of Genesis and it is exactly right. Everything has to be made to conform to these assertions, which is why creationist attempts at science are generally so damn comical and refutable. This is also why the “different starting points, same facts” mantra is laughably false on its face — creationism has to have different facts to explain the world. It’s a little idiotic to establish as a “fact” that both science and creationism acknowledge, say, that apes exist, but to paper over the difference in the set of “facts” that explain how the apes got here, or to imply that a creationist assertion (apes created on the fifth day) is logically or systematically equivalent to decades of rigorous scientific process in the exploration of evolution.

But none of this is immediately obvious stuff and certainly the Creation Museum isn’t going to go out of its way to point it out; quite the opposite, in fact, since everything relies on the audience swallowing that whopping load of horseshit right up front. Thus the avuncular fake paleontologist at the start of the tour, looking all squinty and trustworthy and setting forth his load of utter horseshit in a tone of calm sincerity. Why wouldn’t you believe him? He’s a scientist, after all. Once you buy the initial premise, the rest comes easy, or, well, easier, anyway.

***

Let me say this much: I have to admit admiration for the pure balls-out, high-octane creationism that’s on offer here. Not for the Creation Museum that mamby-pamby weak sauce known as “Intelligent Design,” which tries to slip God by as some random designer, who just sort of got the ball rolling by accident. Screw that, pal: The Creation Museum’s God is hands on! He made every one of those animals from the damn mud and he did it no earlier than 4004 BC, or thereabouts. It’s all there in the book, son, all you have to do is look. Indeed, every single thing on display in the Creation Museum is either caused by or a consequence of exactly three things:

1. The six-day creation;

2. Adam eating from the tree of life;

3. Noah’s flood.

Really, that’s it. That’s the Holy Trinity of explanations and rationalizations. And thus we learn fascinating things. Did you know, for example, that Adam is responsible not only for the fall of man, but also for the creation of venom? It didn’t exist in the Garden of Eden, because, well. Why would it? Weeds? Adam’s fault. Carnivorous animals (and, one assumes, the occasional carnivorous plant)? Adam again. Entropy? You guessed it: Adam. Think about that, won’t you; eat one piece of fruit and suddenly you’re responsible for the inevitable heat death of the universe. God’s kind of mean.

The interplay of this Holy Trinity of explanations comes to its full realization when the Creation Museum considers what really are its main draw: Dinosaurs. Are dinosaurs 65 million years old? As if — the Earth is just six thousand years old, pal! Dinosaurs were in the garden of Eden — and vegetarians, at least until the fall, so thanks there, Adam. They were still around as late as the mid-third millenium BC; they were hanging with the Sumerians and the Egyptians (or, well, could have). All those fossils? Laid down by the Noah’s Flood, my friends. Which is not to say there weren’t dinosaurs on the Ark. No, the Bible says all kinds of land animals were on the boat, and dinosaurs are a subset of “all kinds.” They were there, scaring the crap out of the mammals, probably. Why did they die off after the flood? Well, who can say. Once the flood’s done, the Creation Museum doesn’t seem to care too much about what comes next; we’re in historical times then, you see, and that’s all Exodus through Deuteronomy, ie., someone else’s problem.

But seriously, the ability to just come out and put on a placard that the Jurassic era is temporally contiguous with the Fifth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom of Egypt — well, there’s a word for that, and that word is chutzpah. Because, look, that’s something you really have to sell if you want anyone to buy it. It’s one thing to say to people that God directly created the dinosaurs and that they lived in the Garden of Eden. It’s another thing to suggest they lived long enough to harass the Minoans, and do it with a straight face. It’s horseshit, pure and simple, but that’s not to suggest I can’t admire the hucksterism.

***

I’m quite clearly immune to the ideological charms of the Creation Museum, but then, I never was the prime audience for the place. How were other people grokking the museum the day I was there? Honestly, it’s hard to say. The place was certainly crowded; I and the friends I went with had to wait in line an hour and a half to get into the place (there’s a bottleneck in the middle of the museum in the form of a short film about the six days of creation). No one I could see was getting sloppy over the place; people just more or less shuffled through each room, looked at the displays, read the placards and moved on. My friends occasionally heard someone say “oh, come on,” when one of the placards tested their credulity (there’s apparently only so much of “T-Rexes were vegetarian” propaganda any one person should be obliged to take), but for my part I just noticed people looking, reading and moving on.

There have to be people who believe this horseshit unreservedly, but I suspect that perhaps the majority of the visitors I saw were Christians who may not buy into the whole “six days” thing, but are curious to see how it’s being presented. To be clear, the “horseshit” I’ve been speaking of is not Christianity, it’s creationism, which to my mind is a teleological quirk substantially unrelated to the grace one can achieve through Jesus Christ. Now, the Creation Museum rather emphatically argues that a literal reading of the Bible is essential for true Christianity — it’s got a whole red-lit section that suggests the ills of society are directly related to folks deciding that maybe some parts of the Bible are, you know, metaphorical – but that’s just more horseshit, of a slightly different flavor. There are lots of Christians who clearly don’t need to twist their brain like a pretzel to get around the idea that the universe is billions of years old and that we’ve evolved from earlier forms. For those folks, the Creation Museum is probably about culture, to the extent any installation largely created by someone who previously worked for Universal Studios can be about culture.

At the very least, this is high-quality stuff on the level of production. There are lots of things here that are cheesy, but there’s not much that’s chintzy; you can see where the $27 million went. Whether this will all age well will be an interesting question, although I don’t plan on returning in five years to find out. Here and now, it’s all pretty damn slick, and I think that in itself may be a draw for mainstream Christians. Christian culture has only recently ramped itself up into being something other than a wan and denatured version of pop culture (this is evidenced in part by the fact that many evangelical Christian teens now dress as badly as the rest of their peers), and this is another high-production-value offering for this particular lifestyle choice.

Will these folks find the arguments they find at the Creation Museum convincing? Again, you got me. I certainly hope not, but more to the point I would hope that these folks don’t come away feeling that their love of Christ obliges them to swallow heaping mounds of horseshit from people who are phobic about metaphor. I really don’t think Jesus would care if you think that you and a monkey have a common ancestor; I think he would care more that you think you and your neighbor have a common weal.

What about non-Christians? I can’t imagine that anyone who wasn’t strongly religious or already inclined to agree with creationist ideas would be converted by this place. Between blaming Adam for everything from poisons to sweating and T-Rexes eating coconuts and a particularly memorable placard explaining why in early Biblical times it was perfectly fine to have sex with your close relatives, it’s just way too over the top.

***

Indeed, it’s over the top enough that I never could actually get angry with the place. Not that I was planning to; I admit to dreading coming to the place, but that’s primarily because I thought it would bore and annoy me, not make me angry. In fact, I was never bored, and was genuinely annoyed only by the “paleontologist” at the start of the walk-through. The rest of the time I enjoyed it as I suspect anyone who is not some stripe of creationist could enjoy it: As camp. At some point — specifically the part where the Scopes Monkey Trial was presented as the end of decent Christian civilization as we know it — I just started chuckling my way through. By the time I got to the Dinosaur Den, with its placards full of patent misinformation about how soft tissue fossilization strongly suggested a massive, worldwide flood, I was a little loopy. It was just so ridiculous.

And I’m happy about that. In the end, the Creation Museum is one of those things that I suspect will comfort those who absolutely believe in creationism, amuse those who absolutely don’t, and be a interesting way to spend a day to lots of people somewhere in the middle. It’s not a front in the culture war, as much as I think it would like to be; it’s designed too much like an amusement for that.

It is what it is: An attractive and diverting repository for a massive load of horseshit. And, well, let’s be realists: That load of horseshit’s not going away anytime soon. Might as put it somewhere that it’s out of everyone else’s way. The Creation Museum manages that well enough.


Link (photos!).

They Are ALL Crazy

This is not a parody. When I say wingnut, I mean really, really out of their minds or deliberately lying with reckless disregard.



Link.
Sometimes, we think, it must be nice to be John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. After all, if we were Bolton, then we too would get to go on CNN and lie without so much as a peep in response from anchor Wolf Blitzer.

That's what Bolton did in an appearance Monday. The bombastic, hawkish former ambassador was busy asserting that negotiations with Iran about that country's nuclear program wouldn't accomplish anything when Blitzer asked him, "But why not? Why not? Libya agreed to give up its nuclear ambitions. North Korea supposedly is doing that as a result of pressure and negotiations. Why not the Iranians?"

Bolton was ready with an answer. "Let's take it one at a time. Libya agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program because Muammar Gadhafi believed, mistakenly, that our having overthrown Saddam Hussein meant he was probably next."

Compelling! But, sadly, not true, as Blitzer's audience would have found out if Blitzer had challenged Bolton's assertion. In fact, it's been well-established for a couple years now that Libya's move wasn't tied in any way to the invasion of Iraq, and that talks about disarmament had started as far back as 1992 and became serious shortly after 9/11.

How do we know this? Well, author Ron Suskind has a pretty good rundown of the facts in his book "The One Percent Doctrine." He summarizes the series of negotiations that began after 9/11 (details of which can be read in the book excerpt available here) by saying, "[M]uch to the chagrin of White House hawks, the disarming of Gadhafi wasn't due to the Bush administration following its 'new rules' for angrily confronting rogue states. It was due to the Bush administration setting them, for once, aside."

And if that isn't enough evidence for you, well, then, there's always the words of both Libya's foreign minister and Gadhafi's son Saif Al-Islam. Each of them have separately denied that Iraq had anything to do with Libya's decision to disarm. Actually, in 2004, it was none other than CNN that reported the younger Gadhafi's denial. "The son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi told CNN Saturday that 'the capture of Saddam or the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant' to Libya's announcement that it is to abandon its weapons of mass destruction program," an article on the network's Web site reads. The article further quotes him as saying, "In fact, we started the cooperation even before the invasion of Iraq."

Back to you, Wolf.
Link.
What kind of a critical mind does it take to be a Dittohead, a follower of Rush Limbaugh? The man himself, "America's Truth Detector", led by example last week, when he broadcast news of a scientific paper titled, "Carbon dioxide production by benthic bacteria: the death of manmade global warming theory?" The paper was a hoax. (The Web site for the invented "Journal of Geoclimatic Studies" that "published" the study has been taken down; the paper is cached here, and the New York Times's environment blog has a good run-down of the whole affair.) To a climate-change denier, though -- especially one conditioned to believe that the scientific establishment is out to get them -- the paper had a ring of truth. In the article's abstract, the embattled "authors" complain that a "powerful and hostile" scientific establishment turned a deaf ear to their hard evidence: "When we have challenged prominent climate scientists who subscribe to the climate change 'consensus'," the "authors" wrote, "our concerns are met with evasion and in some cases aggression. Discussion of this issue has been all but prohibited by the editors of peer-reviewed scientific journals. This journal is a courageous exception, but it too has come under great pressure not to raise the issue."

Cue the bloggers.

"I applaud the courage of these researchers to put forth their study which will almost certainly be viciously attacked by the global warming cultists," said a blog that styles itself "Florida's premier conservative Weblog". On his blog at Reason Magazine's Web site, libertarian Ronald Bailey sounded a slightly milder tone: "This is a rather sweeping conclusion from research published in a minor journal and will likely produce howls of outrage from defenders of the consensus. Only further research and time will tell if these guys are on to something significant or if they have somehow misinterpreted what they believe they have discovered." Not exactly. Had any of these commentators read beyond the article's title, they would have quickly happened upon something in the introduction that might have at least prompted some skepticism: "Significant fluctuations in benthic eubacterial populations... cause far greater impacts on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than all other ecosystem effects." In other words, bacteria at the bottom of the ocean are have more effect on the atmospheric carbon dioxide ultimately blamed for warming than everything else in the world. When the hoax was revealed, some of the victims launched counter-attacks, decrying left-wing "Black PR ops," and warning of more to come. Many of them gave good-natured mea culpas. One act of contrition stood out. Roy Spencer, a prominent climate-change denier, took the blame for the head Dittohead's embarrassment: "I sent an e-mail to Rush about the issue regarding the hoax, with a copy of the 'research study,'" Spencer wrote. "Unfortunately, my very brief note to Rush was not very clear, and he thought that I was calling global warming a hoax, rather than the study."
Link.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Our Leaders Give Freedom In America Another Stab In The Heart

As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.
[more]

One Reason To Fear Rudy


Just about any leader wants something of a cocksucker working below him but he also has to value, you know, competence and, for pols, that the underling isn't a thieving, lying jerk as well.

Rudy, on the other hand, seems to value cocksucking as the one and only criterion.

RawStory:
This week, a federal grand jury voted to indict Former New York City police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, the corrupt protege of Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani, on charges stemming from tax evasion and corruption allegations. While it was believed that Giuliani did not know of Kerik's legal woes before they grew close, Andrew Kirtzman, a journalist for CBS 2 in NYC and a long-time Giuliani reporter, tells a different story.

Advertisement

"It turns out that Giuliani was briefed about Kerik's relationship with this allegedly mobbed-up company even before Giuliani named him police commissioner, long before Giuliani recommended Kerik to be Homeland Security Chief," he told John Roberts on CNN's American Morning. "So, it raises a lot of questions. Giuliani has a lot of questions to answer on the campaign trail about his judgment."

The journalist made clear the value Giuliani ascribes to allegiance, perhaps at the expense of pragmatism or honesty. "I've been covering Giuliani as long as anyone and I can't guarantee to you, sitting here this morning, that he wouldn't make the same mistake again if he became president because Giuliani values loyalty over everything."
Link and video.

Tocsin Of The Day: Speculation Meltdown A'Comin'

My neighbor, Alan Abelson, in Barron's; a rightwing capitalist in a Rupert publication, worries about the hit to the economy by complete speculation out of control:
And those mammoth marvels of imprudence -- otherwise known as banks (and brokerage houses playing at being banks) -- are in a frantic scramble to see which gets the tin medal for the biggest write-down (that's bankers' euphemism for "loss") on loans gone sour. Friday's resumption of the long, bumpy ride down in the stock market got fresh impetus from the disclosure that Wachovia will take a $1.1 billion whack to its loan portfolio just to cover the damage in October, and rumors of kindred woes at Barclays.

But whether these are the end-days or merely the beginning-of-the-end days, don't anyone tell Mr. Bernanke; it might disturb him. For he convincingly demonstrated in his testimony last week before Congress that it's possible to be chairman of the most important central bank on the planet and seemingly not have a clue about what's happening to the economy, let alone what, if anything, to do about it.

At one point or another, he ventured that the economy would soldier on, if somewhat slowly for the next few quarters, unless, he cautioned at another point, it didn't; that inflation was a threat, but not a reality, at least not yet. And that the economy was perking along, nicely negotiating the shocks of the housing collapse, even as evidence to the contrary -- plunging consumer confidence, weak retail sales, dragging auto demand and all the grisly et ceteras -- mounted as he spoke.

Understand, if you will, we don't expect the Fed chairman to be omniscient or clairvoyant; but we do expect him, even if he doesn't know what's going to happen, at the very least to know what's going on. Nor are we demanding a foolish consistency; stuff happens, things change. All we ask is that if your opinions are firm, as Mr. Bernanke obviously feels they are, that they be fast as well, at least for as long as it takes to befuddle a bunch of slack-jawed congressmen.

All things considered, a Clueless Ben, we suppose, is preferable to an Easy Al, but incorrigible optimist that we are, we had hoped for something better. It's always possible, to be sure, that Mr. Bernanke knows more than he lets on. Certainly, the way the Fed has been opening the monetary spigot suggests that he may entertain greater anxiety than he's willing to exhibit publicly. Which may be effective in keeping the natives from getting restive, but it doesn't exactly enhance his credibility.

For sure, this is not the time for bromides. One needn't conjure up a doomsday scenario to realize that the economy and the stock market are on very thin ice. The Fed has plenty of company, both in Washington and Wall Street, in not fully grasping what a precarious condition we're in. A generation of living dangerously, often way beyond our means, as individuals and collectively, confusing credit with cash and leverage with assets, has brought us to this most unpretty pass.

The great boom in credit, a heck a lot of it shaky, has finally gone bust, and many of the remarkable creations it engendered, such as monster global bull markets in equities and housing, are suddenly on shifting sands. It's becoming apparent that a day of reckoning so long delayed, so many times interrupted, is at hand.

Obviously, we don't think, even in a figurative sense and except possibly for the financial elite who run hedge funds and private-equity money, the world is coming to an end. But our conviction is strong that we are entering a New Era. And not, regrettably, the kind of New Era that sent investors' pulses racing and fed their gaudiest dreams of avarice when that phrase was last a byword -- and, even more, a buy word -- on Wall Street. Ah, those were the days.

GISELE BUNDCHEN IS A MUCH-IN-DEMAND BRAZILIAN who commands a king's ransom to do her modeling thing. We admit that Gisele was completely unknown to us (which, it appears, and we say this somewhat ruefully, didn't hurt her career one whit) until her highly publicized pronouncement that henceforth the king would have to pay his ransom in euros, not dollars, for her services.

This prompted a number of observers, including MacroMavens' Stephanie Pomboy (who, incidentally, wowed 'em at Barron's recent investment conference) to speculate as to whether Gisele's disdain for the dollar meant that the greenback's plight was so widely recognized as to signal a bottom. Stephanie, in her usual deft fashion, dismissed this possibility (as did Peter Schiff in a recent commentary, noting "the only notable bottom here belongs to Gisele herself").

We've never really bought the condescending notion that when Main Street knows it, it's no longer worth knowing. And in the case of the dollar, we doubt if there's a sentient being anywhere who's unaware of its horribly reduced status. And since the decline and fall of the dollar apes the woes besetting the economy at large and the financial system in particular and we see no immediate relief in sight for either, Gisele, we submit, is right on the money.

A recent analysis by Bob Janjuah -- the Royal Bank of Scotland's chief credit strategist -- as relayed by Bloomberg, powerfully supports our forebodings for the credit markets and, by extension, the economy, the stock market and the not-so-almighty dollar. Before the dust clears (and the bodies are all carried out), he reckons that credit losses will run between $250 billion and as high as $500 billion.

More specifically, Janjuah predicts that U.S. banks and securities firms are looking at perhaps $100 billion of write-downs on so-called Level 3 assets, as the new Financial Accounting Standards Board rule 157, slated to go into effect this week, takes it inevitable toll.

FASB dicta call for Level 1 assets to be marked to market. No big deal, since these are instruments that are traded in a familiar market and consequently are easy to get a quote on. Level 2 assets aren't very actively traded, and hence it's not a cinch to get a reliable price; however, they consist of parts for which pricing information is available and which permit a reasonably reliable estimate of the asset's value. An interest-rate swap has been cited as an example.

That brings us to the tens of billions of Level 3 assets. Typically, these are packages of stuff like mortgages, credit-card receivables, leveraged loans and various and sundry other things -- a bit of the lending kitchen sink, in other words. Market pricing is pretty much nonexistent, and such assets are valued at more or less what management says they're worth. In Janjuah's sardonic phrase, Level 3 assets are "marked to make-believe."

And here's where the new rule is destined to make life a lot more difficult for holders of Level 3 instruments, by mandating far more stringent means of figuring their value or else. And the or-else could translate into writing them down. Reason enough why no one seems in a particular rush to buy such assets.

According to Janjuah's calculations, Morgan Stanley, which is still grimacing over a recently disclosed trading loss of $3.7 billion, has 251% of its equity in Level 3 assets. At Goldman Sachs, the Level 3 commitments run 185% of equity. At Lehman, such assets are the equivalent of 159% of equity; at Bear Stearns, 154%.

Citigroup, which owns up to something like an $11 billion hit from subprime and other bum loans, a dismal total that occasioned the exit of its top man, has Level 3 assets equal to 105% of its equity. Rather ironically, Merrill Lynch, which is upward of $8 billion poorer after taking its bitter medicine to purge itself of overvalued subprime and assorted other loans, and whose CEO also was shown the door, has Level 3 loans equal to 38% of its equity. That makes it the least vulnerable of the major lenders.

We're not suggesting, need we say, that every Level 3 security on a bank's books is at risk or will have to be written down. But in total, they represent one massive pile of uncertainty, of which the lenders and the credit markets already have more than a surfeit, thank you.
Speaking of which: Steve Forbes is so orthodox on creating wealth; what's his position on the people who bought, then lost, homes financed by sub-prime bombs, er, loans?

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Rudy: Traitor!! -- Ally Of Al-Qaida


What a man of principle.... My God, when did the fucker last say something true?? His love of whoring is heartwarming....
Following earlier reports that Giuliani was still getting paid by the consulting firm he created, Mary Jacoby of the Wall Street Journal sheds light on some potentially problematic sources of Giuliani's private income. Chief among them is Qatar, the U.S. ally that paid Giuliani Partners for "security advice" regarding their petroleum facilities. The article uncovers a "potential political pitfall" for Giuliani's candidacy and image given Qatar's spotty record in fighting Al Qaeda, but it stops short of explicitly addressing an aspect of the business arrangement that could dog Giuliani during his quest for the presidency.

Specifically, the ostensible chief consumer of Giuliani's security advice in this case would be Qatar's internal security ministry—currently headed by a known Al Qaeda associate.

As Radar reported earlier this year, Qatar Interior Minister Abdullah bin Khalid Al-Thani has long had ties to top Al Qaeda operatives including Osama Bin Laden, and is believed by many U.S. officials to have personally arranged the narrow escape of Al Qaeda big-wig Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from U.S. agents in 1996, thereby ensuring his freedom to mastermind the 9/11 attacks.

Qatar's stability and the petroleum facilities Giuliani's firm helped protect are vital to American interests. But Giuliani's incessant 9/11 know-it-all-ism, his refusal to release specifics of the case, and his decision to remain on the firm's payroll while running for president make the whole deal fair game for speculation. Wise opposition researchers charged with sinking Giuliani are undoubtedly trawling for more details, envisioning hyperbolic mail pieces and television ads showing Mr. 9/11 happily dispensing his sage "security advice" for a few bucks to a known Al Qaeda supporter who personally helped make the 9/11 attacks happen. (Incidentally, public reports about the minister's apparent Al Qaeda ties came out in 2003, two years before Giuliani's firm agreed to work with Qatar.)

Such imagery would provide a stark contrast to the pious Giuliani of 2001 who on behalf of the city rejected Saudi Prince (and 'Stache Register honoree) Alwaleed Bin Talal's offer of $10 million in disaster assistance. In that instance, the prince's assertion that U.S. policies were partly to blame for the 9/11 attacks made his money dirty in Giuliani's eyes. Take-home message: Suggesting generally that American policies may have contributed to the 9/11 attacks is a far worse crime in Hizzoner's eyes than actually having played a role in the attack itself. Look out Ron Paul!


Link.

And here's the Journal story:

But since he became a candidate for president, the Republican front-runner has rebuffed all calls to disclose details about the clients and dealings of Giuliani Partners, the consulting firm he founded in 2002.

Some of those clients have controversial records. Among those he hasn't disclosed is the government of Qatar, a Persian Gulf state to whom the firm provided security advice, according to the former U.S. ambassador there. Qatar is a strategic U.S. military ally and energy supplier, yet also a country that has been criticized for its conduct toward al Qaeda -- a potential political pitfall for a candidate pitching himself as an uncompromising foe of Islamic terrorism.

Other potentially controversial dealings have been disclosed by the firm or by clients over the years. They include Purdue Pharma, a drug company that hired the firm in 2002 to help with a federal investigation into overdose deaths attributed to the pharmaceutical firm's powerful OxyContin painkiller, and New York nuclear-power-plant operator Entergy Nuclear Northeast.

But more recent Giuliani clients aren't known. Because the firm is closely held, Mr. Giuliani isn't required to disclose much about his income and wealth, other than his holdings in the firm itself, where he remains chairman and chief executive and receives income in the form of guaranteed payments and partnership distributions.

Campaign watchdog groups say that raises some red flags. "Are there folks who might want to have greater influence with a potential President Giuliani? If so, they may be partnering with him now in the hopes of currying favor with him later," says former federal prosecutor Melanie Sloan, head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

Mr. Giuliani so far has fended off all queries. Giuliani campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella said the campaign wouldn't comment on any matters to do with the candidate's business, and said such questions should be answered by Giuliani Partners. A spokeswoman for Giuliani Partners, Sunny Mindel, said in an email: "We do not discuss our clients."

Earlier this week, he reiterated that he wouldn't release his client list in an Associated Press interview. "Everything I did with Giuliani Partners has been totally legal, totally ethical," he said. "They are a very ethical and law-abiding business ... There's nothing for me to explain about it. We've acted honorably, decently."

Still, Mr. Giuliani could face questions about his business ties if he wins his party's nomination. The Qatar contract offers a window into the potential complications.

Many details of the deal aren't known, including whether it is still in effect. It was signed with state-run Qatar Petroleum around 2005, according to Chase Untermeyer, who left a three-year term as President Bush's envoy to Qatar in August. It involved a subsidiary, Giuliani Security & Safety LLC, which offered security advice to a giant natural-gas processing facility in Qatar.

Mr. Untermeyer provided the information after The Wall Street Journal asked him about a 2006 speech in which he said Mr. Giuliani's firm had "important contracts" in Qatar.

He is a Republican who says he hasn't endorsed any candidate in the party's nominating contest; he hasn't donated to any campaigns this cycle. A spokeswoman for Giuliani Partners declined to comment on the connection.

While Qatar is a U.S. ally, it has drawn scrutiny for its involvement in the U.S. effort to combat terrorism. In 1996, the Federal Bureau of Investigation went to Qatar to arrest al-Qaeda operative Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, then under indictment in New York for a plot to blow up U.S.-bound jetliners. But Mr. Mohammad slipped away, apparently tipped off by an al-Qaeda sympathizer in the Qatari government, U.S. officials told the bipartisan 9/11 commission. Mr. Mohammad went on to mastermind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Qatari officials have denied they tipped off Mr. Mohammad, and a State Department report says the country has offered "significant" counterterrorism support to the U.S. since the 2001 attacks.

Phone calls, emails and faxes seeking comment from officials at Qatar Petroleum in Qatar and at the country's embassy in Washington went unanswered.

The emirate also hasn't always followed U.S. wishes in recent years. The Bush administration has pressured Qatar to tone down the anti-American rhetoric of Al-Jazeera, the television station based there. But Qatar rebuffed the request, citing freedom of the press. Qatar also has lagged behind President Bush's ambitious global-democracy agenda. While the emir has made limited moves toward elections, political parties remain banned and proselytizing by non-Muslims is illegal.

The public financial disclosure report Mr. Giuliani filed in May to run for president doesn't require him to disclose such contracts as the one with Qatar. It requires him only to reveal his 30% equity stake in Giuliani & Company LLC, the holding company that is the umbrella corporate structure of Giuliani Partners, Giuliani Security & Safety and other related entities.

Other 2008 presidential hopefuls also have faced scrutiny of their private-sector ties and investments. Democratic hopeful John Edwards worked as a consultant for a private-equity fund before running for the 2008 nomination but has faced questions about his $16 million stake in the firm.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney helped found and run private-equity firm Bain Capital, but he retired from the firm in 1999 before holding public office. He still has stakes in Bain funds but has no say in how Bain makes or disposes of its investments, his financial-disclosure report says.

No candidate's wealth is as closely tied to one entity as Mr. Giuliani's. He earned income of more than $4 million from Giuliani & Company between January 2006 and May 2007, his financial-disclosure report shows. He values his 30% stake in the company at between $5 million and $25 million.

Barring disclosure from Mr. Giuliani, it isn't known how much the consulting contract in Qatar contributed toward his income. In addition, Mr. Giuliani receives $1 million in guaranteed income each year from his law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, which opened an office in Dubai, United Arab Emirates in June.

A Life Well Spent, An Inspiration For All

This guy was so not-21st century. Standards... values....
An Anglican priest, Varah conducted his first funeral at the St. Peter-in-Eastgate church in Lincoln, England, in 1935 -- for a 13-year-old girl who had committed suicide. "Little girl, I didn't know you, but you have changed the rest of my life for good," he said later: he decided to concentrate on helping those contemplating suicide. By the 1950s he learned that there were three suicides a day in London, so in 1953 he founded The Samaritans (now simply called Samaritans) in London, the world's first crisis hotline service, offering non-religious telephone aid to people contemplating suicide. It has since grown to 202 branch offices in the U.K. staffed by more than 15,000 volunteers. The idea went international when Varah founded Befrienders International in 1983, which now operates in more than 40 countries. The 13-year-old girl had committed suicide because she thought she had a shameful disease; in reality, she had simply reached menarche. Varah thus fought his entire life for "well-informed" sex education, which made prudes call him "a 'dirty old man' by the time I was 25," he once said. He ignored the critics and kept at it: in 1992, with the influx of East Africans to England, he founded MAGMOG -- Men against Genital Mutilation of Girls. Dr. Varah didn't retire until he was 92, and he died November 8 at 95.
Link.

Project For Today

Just sign the damn thing. Nearly all of them make crap money but the issue is the exploitation of creators. That's never right. And yes, it is that simple.

So just sign it
!

Torture: The Best Means For Extracting Lies

In virtually all cases, what would you do if tortured?

Tell your torturers what they want to hear to stop the torture and if it happens to be true....

These guys actually got what they wanted: A lie that they needed to push for the Iraq invasion. Didn't need the truth, needed an Arab to parrot the already-decided lie.

And it worked!
Sometimes the music was American rap, sometimes Arab folk songs. In the CIA prison in Afghanistan, it came blaring through the speakers 24 hours a day. Prisoners held alone inside barbed-wire cages could only speak to each other and exchange their news when the music stopped: if the tape was changed or the generators broke down.

In one such six-foot-by-10-foot cell in February 2004, equipped with a low mattress and a bucket as a toilet, sat a man in shackles named Ibn al Sheikh al Libi, the former al Qaeda camp commander described by former CIA director George Tenet in his autobiography last year as "the highest ranking al-Qa'ida member in U.S. custody" just after 9/11.

In this secret facility known to prisoners as "The Hangar" and believed to be at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, al Libi told fellow "ghost prisoners," one recalled to me for a PBS "Frontline" to be broadcast tonight, an incredible story of his treatment over the previous two years: of how questioned at first by Americans, by the FBI and then CIA, of how he was threatened with torture. And then how he was rendered to a jail cell in Egypt where the threats became a reality.

In his book, officially cleared for publication, Tenet confirms how the CIA outsourced al Libi's interrogation. He said he was sent to a third country (inadvertently named in another part of the book as Egypt) for "further debriefing."

The Bush administration has said that terrorists are trained to invent tales of torture.

Yet, on this occasion, the CIA believed al Libi's tales of torture -- an account that has proved to be one of the most serious indictments of the agency's practice of extraordinary rendition: sending suspected Islamic terrorists into the hands of foreign jailers without legal process.

In a CIA sub-station close to al Libi's jail cell, the CIA's "debriefers," who had been talking to al Libi for days after his return from Cairo, were typing out a series of operational cables to be sent Feb. 4 and Feb. 5 to the CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va. In the view of some insiders, these cables provide the "smoking gun" on the whole rendition program -- a convincing account of how the rendition program was, they say, illegally sending prisoners into the hands of torturers.

Under torture after his rendition to Egypt, al Libi had provided a confession of how Saddam Hussein had been training al Qaeda in chemical weapons. This evidence was used by Colin Powell at the United Nations a year earlier (February 2003) to justify the war in Iraq. ("I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to al Qaeda," Powell said. "Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.")

But now, hearing how the information was obtained, the CIA was soon to retract all this intelligence. A Feb. 5 cable records that al Libi was told by a "foreign government service" (Egypt) that: "the next topic was al-Qa'ida's connections with Iraq...This was a subject about which he said he knew nothing and had difficulty even coming up with a story."

Al Libi indicated that his interrogators did not like his responses and then "placed him in a small box approximately 50cm X 50cm [20 inches x 20 inches]." He claimed he was held in the box for approximately 17 hours. When he was let out of the box, al Libi claims that he was given a last opportunity to "tell the truth." When al Libi did not satisfy the interrogator, al Libi claimed that "he was knocked over with an arm thrust across his chest and he fell on his back." Al Libi told CIA debriefers that he then "was punched for 15 minutes." (Sourced to CIA cable, Feb. 5, 2004).

Here was a cable then that informed Washington that one of the key pieces of evidence for the Iraq war -- the al Qaeda/Iraq link -- was not only false but extracted by effectively burying a prisoner alive.

Although there have been claims about torture inflicted on those rendered by the CIA to countries like Egypt, Syria, Morocco and Uzbekistan, this is the first clear example of such torture detailed in an official government document.

The information came almost one year before the president and other administration members first began to confirm the existence of the CIA rendition program, assuring the nation that "torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture." (New York Times, Jan. 28, 2005)

Last September, these red-hot CIA cables were declassified and published by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but in, a welter of other news, one of the most important documents in the history of rendition had passed almost without notice by the media. As far as I can tell, not a single newspaper reported details of the cable. (Senate Intelligence Committee, page 81, paragraph 2)

A spokesman of the intelligence committee told me last month: "We were not able to establish definitively who was told about the cable or its contents or who read it." Other members of Congress may soon be taking up this story to find out just who at the White House was told about the cable.

Meanwhile, al Libi, who told fellow prisoners in Bagram he was returned to U.S. custody from Egypt on Nov. 22, 2003, has disappeared. He was not among the "high-value prisoners" transferred to Guantanamo last year.
Link.

See How Rudy Loves Madman Robertson!



Link.

The 411 On Kerik

TPM Muckraker has nearly all (maybe ineptitude in Iraq doesn't count:
No rundown of Bernard Kerik's ethical shortcomings could ever hope to be comprehensive, but we've done our best. So here, without any further ado, is our grand catalogue. Thanks to TPMm research hounds Adrianne Jeffries, Will Thomas and Peter Sheehy and TPMm readers for all the help.

In today's indictment:

-- Bribery. Accepted $255,000 worth of renovations to his apartment in an upscale section of the Bronx from a mob-connected construction company, Interstate Industrial Corporation, that sought his help in winning city contracts. Kerik was Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections at the time. He already admitted to charges from city prosecutors that the payments constituted an illegal gift.
-- Tax fraud. Kerik failed to report $236,269 in rent for his Upper East Side apartment where he lived from December 2001 to December 2003 with his family. One of the city's biggest real estate developers, Steve Witkoff, paid the $9,650 in monthly rent. Kerik asked for Witkoff's help with the apartment while he was still police commissioner of NYC, and the real estate mogul made the payments because the two "anticipated doing business in the future."

-- More tax fraud. Kerik also failed to disclose $20,000 in consulting fees from a computer software company and $75,953 in royalties for writing his autobiography.

-- Even more tax fraud. Kerik failed to report wages paid to his nanny (more about that below), claimed $80,000 in phony charitable contributions, and falsely claimed a home office deduction for a home he had not moved into yet.

-- False statements. Lied on application for head of Department of Homeland Security about the nanny, payments from the construction company, and other things he preferred to keep quiet.

From before Kerik's time in city government:

-- Deported from Saudi Arabia. In 1982, Kerik was hired to provide security for a Saudi Arabian hospital. Nine former hospital employees have argued that Kerik acted as enforcer for his employer, Nizar Feteih, who used the security team to keep an eye on a handful of female hospital employees, as well as the men with whom they were in contact. Kerik is accused of inappropriate surveillance, including wiretapping staff members.
Kerik declared one doctor disliked by Feteih as drunk and had him arrested (and later deported) under Saudi law. The outrage prompted an investigation by the Ministry of Health, which determined that many allegations of security abuse by Kerik were accurate. Kerik was fired over the incident and deported.

Kerik's many, many ethical shortcomings while working first as New York City corrections commissioner and then police commissioner:

-- Bringing Tammany to Rikers. Kerik was named in a 1999 civil suit alleging that correctional officers were coerced into supporting Mayor Giuliania’s campaign efforts and that those who refused or privately supported Democrats were punished or run out of their jobs. The case, which was eventually settled, was brought by a Democratic warden who claimed that Kerik threatened to "hunt down" anyone who was "disloyal."
-- Gifts from mob-tied buddy. Interstate, that mob-connected construction company hired the best man at Mr. Kerik's wedding, his good friend Lawrence Ray, on Kerik's recommendation in late 1998. Ray, who has mob ties, said he gave Kerik $7,000 worth of cash and other gifts while Mr. Kerik was commissioner of correction and the police. Ray was indicted in 2000, alongside Edward Garafola (brother-in-law to mob underboss Sammy "The Bull" Gravano) of a $40 million market manipulation scheme of penny stocks.

-- 9/11 love nest. Kerik used a downtown Manhattan apartment, originally donated for the use of weary police and rescue workers who were helping at Ground Zero, for extramarital trysts with celebrity book editor Judith Regan and Jeanette Pinero, a city correction officer with whom Kerik carried on a long-time affair. (Things went sour when Pinero found a love note that Regan had left for Kerik.)

-- Retaliation against city employees for crossing his mistress. A Correction Department officer claimed in a lawsuit that he was repeatedly passed over for promotion because Kerik's lover, Correction Officer Jeanette Pinero, accused him of harassment. A Manhattan federal judge ruled in April 2007 that there was not enough evidence to support Deputy Warden Eric DeRavin's case. DeRavin said Kerik passed him over for promotion six times from 1998 to 2000. He eventually was promoted in May 2000 and retired early the following year. Kerik admitted he had a romantic relationship with Pinero that began in the fall of 1995 and lasted through early 1997, a year before he was named the correction chief in 1998, although he said he and Pinero remained friends through December 2001.

In another lawsuit, the city paid $250,000 to Herbert Reed, a 16-year veteran who claimed that the department filed bogus disciplinary and sexual harassment actions against him after he wrote up a friend of Pinero's for insubordination.

-- Using homicide detectives to find his other mistress's lost cell phone. Kerik sent two homicide detectives to investigate the disappearance of Judith Regan's cell phone and necklace. The items Regan said were stolen were later discovered with no indications of theft -- jewelry was later found at the bottom of Regan's handbag, a credit card was later found to have been left behind at a pharmacy, and the missing phone was later found in a garbage can in a TV studio where Regan had been.

-- Used city detectives as researchers for his book. Kerik was fined $2,500 by the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board in 2002 for using a police sergeant and two detectives to research his autobiography.

-- Shirked condo fees until a warrant was issued for his arrest. In 1998, Kerik was sued for failing to pay about $5,000 in maintenance fees on a condo he owned in New Jersey. When Kerik failed to respond to a subpoena, a judge issued a warrant for his arrest. A Kerik spokesman later said Kerik paid the fees and the warrant was withdrawn, but the existence of the warrant was news to the White House and Kerik's handlers.

-- Ran prison cigarette slush fund. For five years under Kerik, the city’s Correction Department operated a charity foundation that took in and spent some $1 million in rebates from tobacco companies on cigarettes bought with taxpayer dollars and sold to Rikers Island inmates, which allowed the money to be spent outside rules that govern public expenditures.The rebates had gone into city coffers until Kerik became president of the foundation in 1995.

Kerik failed to list his position as the foundation's president in financial disclosure forms he filed and deferred questions about it to its treasurer, Frederick Patrick, also a deputy police commissioner, who eventually pleaded guilty to stealing $137,733 from the foundation and was sentenced to a year and a day in prison.

-- The nanny. In 2002 and 2003, Kerik failed to pay taxes for a family nanny-housekeeper who might have been in the country illegally. She returned to Mexico. The Kerik family employed the nanny for about a year, until his personal finances were reviewed after his nomination to head the Department of Homeland Security.

And after that:

-- Brush with corporate scandal. During Kerik’s tenure the Corrections Center bought multiple security doors from the company Georal (at a cost of $50,000 per door). The purchase was controversial; the doors were poorly sized, expensive, difficult to maintain, and many have never been used.
In 2003, Kerik was invited to join the board of Defense Technologies Systems; his advisory role granted him a commission on sales and a large number of stock options in penny stock. The next year, DTS earned the rights to sell Georal’s product, based on Kerik's introduction.

As Kerik's nomination looked likely in 2004, he returned his options to DTS. It is not clear whether he did so because of the recent scandal with Georgal, or to avoid scrutiny of his complicated financial relationship with the companies, given that his close associate Lawrence Ray had pleaded guilty two years prior to running penny stock pump-and-dump schemes for the mafia.

-- Another brush with corporate scandal. In 2004, Kerik was nominated to the board of Taser, giving him access to a large number of share options. On October 18th, 2004, selections of a government report studying the health risks of Taser's stunners was released; it found that the technology was "generally effective without significant risk." The company's stock skyrocketed, and Kerik exercised his options and realized a profit of more than $4.4 million. On November 26th, The New York Times questioned the validity of the government's report; only after the board sold shares worth $90 million was it discovered that the full report suggested there was "uncertainty in the results" of the tests.

-- Sued for legal fees. Kerik retained law firm Fulbright & Jaworski after his nomination to head the Department of Homeland Security was squashed and authorities began investigating his ties to Interstate, the mob-connected construction company. In October 2007, the law firm filed a lawsuit, claiming that Kerik has failed to pay $202,384 in legal fees.

A Half-Credit For Our Beloved Leader

Of course, that's how you earn a C....

Apparently Beloved Leader has gone visiting the families of the war dead...

Well, at least of those who support him.

But he does visit some, relatively quietly, for which he gets a little credit from here.

Story is here.

Meet The Next First Lady

Judith Giuliani always dreamed big, which got her out of small-town Pennsylvania, through two marriages, and into the arms of Rudy Giuliani. But, as her husband runs for president, people are asking, "Who does she think she is?"

Today she and Giuliani, when they are not boarding private Gulfstream IV jets to Europe or trying to woo voters, shuttle between a $4 million Hamptons house and a $5 million nine-room Upper East Side apartment near Madison Avenue, its dining room walnut-paneled and crammed with crystal, china, and linen from Scully & Scully.

Her annual salary has also improved: $125,000, evidently for helping to write some of the speeches Giuliani likes to give (for which he received $11.7 million between January 2006 and March 2007).

This comes as a surprise to at least one of Judith's acquaintances. Asked if he knew Judith was writing speeches, one former Giuliani aide replied, "Holy cow! God forbid!"

The details of Judith's life have also undergone some refurbishing. Her monogrammed hand-stitched napkins embraced by thick silver napkin rings are on display, along with the new cigar room designed for her husband, and a mantelpiece adorned with white porcelain figurines of Winston Churchill, the statesman with whom Giuliani likes to invite comparison.

She struck an odalisque pose in Hamptonstyle magazine, and appeared robed in a floor-length burgundy gown by Carolina Herrera on the cover of Avenue magazine, whose editorial director, Pamela Gross, accompanies her frequently, especially when TV cameras are present.

("Never get between Pamela, Judith, and a camera," advises one observer.)

Judith sits in the front rows of fashion shows, her hair freshly styled by a full-time assistant lured from Frédéric Fekkai, and, when asked to pose, thrusts out an obliging hip for the cameras.

Although she informed WWD, "I have no room for shopping in my life," she buys Dolce & Gabbana.

No one was surprised when Giuliani presented her with a $20,000 Ceylon sapphire-and-diamond ring, selected by the bride-to-be at a store in Atlanta, to which she had flown with one New York City police officer.

What did astonish friends was the venue where the couple exchanged vows before 400 guests: the lawn of Gracie Mansion, with Mayor Bloomberg officiating.

On May 24, 2003, Andrew Giuliani (as best man), Whitney Nathan (as maid of honor), Vera Wang, Barbara Walters, Henry Kissinger, and Donald Trump all witnessed Judith triumph at Donna's old home.

"It was definitely Judith's idea to have it at Gracie," a close confidant tells me. "Rudy—he doesn't give a shit about clothes, bags, suits, or where he gets married."

Judith, on the other hand, clearly put special thought into the occasion. The train of her pale Vera Wang dress was studded with Swarovski crystals; on her dark-red hair perched a Fred Leighton diamond-and-pearl-encrusted tiara.

"There is a reason why she wore that tiara at her wedding: she really does see herself as a princess," says another former Giuliani aide.

"Not as a queen. Queen is her goal. Queen is who she wants to be."

She has become used to getting her way. An organizer of a recent fashion shoot received a call from one of Rudy's business associates warning her to address his wife as Judith.

According to this source, Judith became so smitten with the dress she was modeling "that she simply didn't want to take it off. She didn't offer to pay.

She made it very clear she wanted it for free. You know how it is when someone stalls." Instead, says this source, Judith kept repeating a kind of mantra: "I'm a sample size, I'm a sample size."

The fashion insider sighs. "But the problem was the dress was a sample, and the designer's only sample. But she was very persistent. We had almost a metaphorical tugging of the dress away!"

And not just that dress. "There were a number of items she tried on she wanted. There was greed in the air. We finally brokered a deal with the designer to give her some sort of discount for the dress."

Around the office of Giuliani Partners, it is said, Sunny Mindel, Giuliani's communications director, spoke of the need for providing an entire plane seat for Judith's "Baby Louis"—a reference to her Louis Vuitton handbag, which sits in solitary splendor on her travels.
Link.

An Overview of Republican Morality in Reality As Opposed To In Lip Service

Recently "traditional values" conservative Republicans have been exposed as having any number of private perversions, such as:

Hunting while drunk, taking bribes, shopping addiction using bribe money, spousal abuse, pedophilia, using meth, long term sexual affairs with gay prostitutes, toe-tapping in public lavatories, etc.

It's just a matter of time before the next Republican goes before the press to deny he's engaged in some kind of perverted activity that he's obviously engaged in.

What do you think that activity will be?

Bestiality (look out, Barney!)

Nude wrestling in lime jello, with dwarves

Snorting ground money

Obscene phone calls to obese men

Dressing up as hookers and playing "Reds under the Bed"

Using Crayola crayons as a suppository

Lying down in front of Laura Bush and saying "Run me over, baby!"

Teaching Boy Scouts about raising the flagpole

Having man on man sex with Ann Coulter

Shit-eating fetish

Fart Fetish

Human sacrifice

Adult diaper parties

Bush blow-job contests

Riding Miss Piggy [Karl Rove]

***

If you're one of the millions still rolling on the floor in amazement at the greed and hypocrisy featured in last year's surprise hit: "REPUBLICANS GONE WILD," throw that DVD away.

Because you're not going to believe the extreme and hilarious action we've compiled for you in the brand new "REPUBLICANS GONE WILD 2."

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll kiss any chance of their recapturing Congress goodbye. But you'll never forget this brand new, never- before- seen footage featuring their patented wide stances and narrow minds.

You've seen their breakdowns on television.

You've read about their exploits in the newspapers.

You've witnessed their Family Value blustering for years.

Now relive their blathering and blubbering at your leisure.

Here it is ... the ultimate collection of the most crazed and sexed up elected official footage ever accumulated on one DVD. "REPUBLICANS GONE WILD 2," has it all! At the malls, inside stalls, even in the halls of the Capitol.

"REPUBLICANS GONE WILD 2," will have you saying "Fucking Hell!"

You may think the Republican Party needs this the same way a three-legged armadillo needs a rabid badger gnawing at his last remaining front paw on the gravel shoulder of I-95 in the dead of night. And you'd be right! Conduct unbecoming a senator? Conduct unbecoming a weasel.

All the hilarious escapades you loved in "REPUBLICANS GONE WILD" are back, only bigger and better and sleazier than ever in "REPUBLICANS GONE WILD 2."

The crazy zany antics of Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney will pale next to this madcap collection of weird and wacky wildness.

One hundred percent raw, real, and uncut! Wild solo gaffes.

Congressman-on-congressman action. 08 Presidential candidates hiding their faces behind their hands mumbling for Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig to "just go away. Please, go away." Plus much, much more. See them lie, deny and just plain cry.

All your favorite 2007 moments are here.

* Gasp as chastised Louisiana Senator David Vitter, southern regional chair of the Giuliani campaign, admits to frequenting a house of prostitution, but avoids any further questions by saying the matter is between his family and God.

* Inhale as newly elected millionaire South Carolina Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, chair of the SC Giuliani campaign, is charged with conspiracy to distribute a quantity of cocaine, carrying a possible sentence of 20 years in prison.

* Guffaw as Robert W. Allen, co-chair of Sen. John McCain's Florida legislative leadership team, is arrested for soliciting prostitution from an undercover police officer posing as a transvestite in a public park restroom but says he was intimidated into it due to being the only white guy in the area.

* Thrill as Idaho Senator Larry Craig, Mitt Romney's 08 GOP Senate coordinator, announces to the world "I am not gay. I have never been gay." Then repeats it about 87 times and thanks those in attendance "for coming out today."

Become a member of the "REPUBLICANS GONE WILD Pioneers Club," and enjoy instant access to a special website and all the "REPUBLICANS GONE WILD" archives. 24/ 7. Republicans never sleep. Why should you?

Get exclusive clips not available anywhere else. Updated daily. NOTE: "REPUBLICANS GONE WILD 3," being compiled by assistant DAs all over America as we speak. Act within the next 48 hours and get a free "FOLEY/ CRAIG 08" bumper sticker!

Power and perversion

Never did we think we'd be able to compare the Republican party to the artistic musings of R. Kelly, but it seems more and more Republicans are trapped in the closet.

And like the R&B musician, who was indicted in 2002 for having sexual intercourse with a minor, Republicans try time and again to surreptitiously address their suppressed sexual urges, only to have them erupt in a legal and media blitzkrieg.

Somewhere in Idaho, the hunched-over Republican senator Larry Craig is hoping his legal troubles stemming from a gay "cruising" incident in a Minneapolis airport bathroom last June will "go away."

Of course, he is actually talking about his sexuality, which isn't going anywhere.

His now-notorious airport bathroom foot tap wasn't his first public brush with alleged homosexuality. The Idaho Statesman reported that Craig had oral sex with a man at Union Station in Washington, D.C. in 2004.

Further investigation revealed that Craig tried to seduce a man at a Boise REI store 10 years earlier. In response to these allegations, Sen. Craig stated:

"... I don't go around anywhere hitting on men, and by God, if I did, I wouldn't do it in Boise, Idaho! Jiminy!" Clearly, the man has issues that may or may not be limited to his choice of exclamations.

But America has issues too, and everything old is new again as the 2008 election nears. Craig is asserting, in so many words, that there are no gay people in Idaho, and even if there were, one shouldn't be caught dead as out and proud.

Apparently, America is still a country where, if you want to be yourself in a relatively safe environment, you have to hide in a bathroom stall or behind a rack of polar fleece and rely on a language of lewd, hieroglyphic gestures.

Perhaps it's better for Republicans to just stay in their closets. Who can forget Mark Foley, a former Republican congressman from Florida, and his tender e-mails to underage male pages asking what they wanted for their birthdays and requesting pictures of their erect penises? And then there's Rep. Jim Kolbe from Arizona.

In 2000, Kolbe became the first openly gay Republican to speak at the Republican National Convention.

And although Kolbe supports civil unions and abortion rights, he still had a little Foleyesque fun of his own with some pages during a romantic trip to the Grand Canyon in 1996.

If these men can't be honest with themselves, how can they be honest with the country?

Even if they admit their indiscretions, can Republicans recover from the fallout? The party has dug itself into a deep grave of suggested morality that strictly prohibits any sort of social progression.

It sounds like a great scenario for the conservative right who, for the time being, don't have to lose much sleep over gay people finding ways to breed and have thousands of late-term abortions.

But as Republican leaders keep tripping over their own moral agendas, they are inserting nails in the coffin of their future.

Even R. Kelly knows that the truth is only a foot tap away.
Link (with R-rated photo).