« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »
September 30, 2006
Is That Not Legal?
Mr. Lippman
It's come to my attention that you and the cleaning woman have engaged in sexual intercourse on the desk in your office. Is that correct? [Ed.: This guy knows how to ask a question . . . unlike some reporters.]
George Costanza:
Who said that?
Mr. Lippman:
She did.
George Costanza:
[pause] Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorence on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon . . . you know, cause I've worked in a lot of offices, and I tell you, people do that all the time.
Mr. Lippman:
You're fired!
Seriously. Giving the president the say so to ship off U.S. citizens in the dark of the night to detention camps outside our country for interrogation.
Seems to me -- and I could be wrong -- that that sort of thing should be frowned upon more than sex with the help.
UPDATE: A couple of commenters insist that U.S. Citizens cannot be hauled off in the dead of night to GitMo -- and so they make snarky comments. I wish they were right. But they're not. Here's the key language from the statute:
‘‘In this chapter:
‘‘(1) UNLAWFULENEMYCOMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means—
‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
There's nothing defining "person" to mean only non-U.S. citizens. Sorry to break the news.
Posted by shertaugh at 8:15 AM | Comments (10)
September 29, 2006
Saddest World Series Moment
Forgotten is the heroic performance of the Mets' rightfielder Rusty Staub. Staub played the entire series with a separated shoulder injured after crashing into Shea Stadium's right-field wall in game 4 of the NLCS against the Reds. But against the A's, Staub hit .423 with 1 HR, 6 RBI, .464 OBP, and a .615 SLG. Staub outhit WS MVP Reggie Jackson, who likewise had 1 HR, 6 RBI, but hit .310 with a .355 OBP, and a .586 SLG. And Jackson struckout 7 times to Staub's 2.
But more memorable than Staub's performance was the agonizingly painful denouement to the legendary career of the Mets' Willie Mays. In Game 1, Mays was forced to short-toss an extrabase hit in the right-field gap to Mets' rightfielder George Theodore so he could throw it back to the infield. Mays no longer had the arm strength to do it.
It remains for me the saddest moment in all my years of watching baseball. Baseball's most exciting and talented player so weakened and feeble.
Posted by shertaugh at 4:42 PM
Update
Posted by Eric at 3:06 PM
Say It Ain't So
Among the items discussed in a report released yesterday by the House Government Reform Committee, per WaPo, was this. An e-mail apparently suggests that a former Abramoff lobbying team member was able to get GOP bigwig Ken Mehlman to pressure Justice Department appointees to release millions of dollars for a new jail for one of Abramoff's Indian tribe client. Tony Rudy of team-Abramoff wrote his boss in a series of November 2001 e-mails that Mehlman said, after learning the tribe had made a big GOP donation, that he would "take care of" the matter involving DOJ.
According to the WaPo, Mehlman did not return a call to comment on the story.
Then the WaPo article adds:
But White House spokesperson Dana Perino called the suggestions of improper influence by Mehlman "triple hearsay by people who have admitted to having lied and oversold their influence with policymakers."
Interesting. Perino colorfully characterized the information cited in the House Report. But she did not deny the accusation.
Seems Ms. Perino is a lot sharper than Scott McClellan when it comes to making denials for White House political operatives. The key is say something disparaging about the information. But never, never answer the question.
I wonder if the WaPo reporter responded to Perino by saying something like this: "Great, thanks. But that wasn't my question. My question is, is it true . . . yes or no?"
UPDATE: In Dan Froomkin's WaPo "White House Briefing Column", he reports another Rove-Perino two-step:
"On learning in July 2002 that Mr. Rove planned to dine at Signatures with a party of 8 to 10 people, Mr. Abramoff wrote to a colleague: 'I want him to be given a very nice bottle of wine and have Joseph whisper in his ear (only he should hear) that Abramoff wanted him to have this wine on the house.' In another e-mail message, Mr. Abramoff directed his restaurant staff to 'please put Karl Rove in his usual table.'"[Dana] Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said the offer of a free bottle of wine was actually proof of how little acquainted Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Rove were because 'Karl doesn't drink alcohol.'"
Again, I ask, did the WaPo reporter getting Perino's sidestep follow-up with: "Thanks for that interesting bit of biographical info on KR. But my question is, is it true . . . yes or no?"
Posted by shertaugh at 2:12 PM
The Rule of Law Above All Else
What a remarkable statement. Young, upstart America, speaking from the hilltop, would grant the world's citizens a forum in which human rights recognized by the "law of nations" and American treatries could be vindicated. America would be better than everyone else. We held ourselves above everyone . . . so much so, we'd let utter foreigners come to our courts to invoke the rule of law to protect themselves.
All I can say is, "You should have seen the Atlantic Ocean in those days".
Posted by shertaugh at 12:20 PM
Coddling the Coddlers
All well and good. But where's the hue and cry from Bush, Cheney, pick-a-GOP senator, and Blair that our oil-rich so-called Arab "allies" -- like the Saudis, Egypt, Kuwait, UAE, etc. -- need to step up and (i) shame terrorists as un-Muslim, (ii) cut off all funding to these people, and (iii) cut the price of oil to show their good faith. Where's the criticism?
I say that for this reason. Bush, Cheney, and the GOP attach machine have long been quick to call Democrats everything short of wretched cowardly traitors. But where's a word of criticism about our so-called Arab allies? [For that matter, where's Andrew Sullivan asking that question of Blair?]
Why is that? Why is it alright for Bush to viciously attack Americans as cowards and traitors, yet stand mute about our Arab allies' direct financial support of terrorism -- including the anti-west, anti-Judeo-Christian Madrases?
These countries are not our "allies." They are our drug dealers, holding us hostage with oil.
Bush should not merely be threatening to spend $300 Billion on a Manhattan project to get us off oil -- which he doesn't, by the way. He should be leading us to energy independence by twisting GOP arms in Congress to spend that money. [Did I say twisting arms? In these times, perhaps I should say jawboning.]
Instead, since it's all about keeping power for power's sake, Bush -- or "Merkle," as I think he'd like to be called, given his penchant for nicknames and all things baseball -- comforts America by telling us that Democrats are cowardly terrorist coddlers.
So, by not challenging the energy-based status quo in the Mid-east, what kind of coddler does that make Bush?
UPDATE: A commenter makes energy independence a political issue, arguing for ANWAR and windmills near the Kennedy Compound. As I note in that comment, I guess I wasn't clear enough. My point is not Mid-East oil independence alone only to be dependent on oil from another source -- in which case Mid-East oil just gets sold to China or Germany or Japan or someone else. My point is energy and security independence based on a source or technology that renders OIL OBSOLETE in competitive terms, thereby cutting off all funds to Middle East countries that support terrorists -- from us or China or Japan or anyone else, and refunnels that money to the U.S. Drilling in Anwar and putting up windmills near the Kennedy compound won't do that. If it would, I'd be all for it.
Posted by shertaugh at 11:24 AM | Comments (5)
America Imitating Art
The movie spares the viewer any graphic torture scenes -- leaving instead a trail of equally revealing evidence. But it makes quite clear that the occupying Germans saw the un-uniformed Resistance fighters as, umm, well, "unlawful enemy combatants" -- and not entitled to POW status. Rather than kill their French fighters, the movie suggests the Germans would use interrogation techniques that brought their prison's close to death but would not allow them that freedom. At the same time, the Germans made sure to deny their prisoners the power of suicide.
Senator John Warner has made a point, in supporting yesterday's torture/tribunal bill, of saying that previous wars -- like WWII -- have been different because the enemy wore uniforms. But history shows that occupying uniformed forces abused those not in uniform. My point is, nothing is so clear cut when it comes to war and wartime interrogation as Senator Warner and others would like us to think.
But this I believe to be very clear cut. Movies will be made around the world -- by creative, insightful directors like Melville with personal experience from which to barrow -- showing America to be no better than the Germans who occupied France.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it's fair. I'm saying only it will happen. And because these movies will be based on truth, history will make us suffer for it -- when we had the chance not to.
Posted by shertaugh at 9:11 AM | Comments (2)
September 28, 2006
May It Not Completely And Entirely Infuriate The Court
Now that's funny.
Posted by Eric at 9:40 PM
Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Malkin (Note update) (Note further update)
FURTHER UPDATE, 10/1/06, 1:40 p.m.: I have been contacted by the woman whose images were stolen to create the bogus flickr page to which this post linked. She asked me to remove this post and the link to the flickr page. So I am doing so. Though I did not know that the images were hers or were faked or stolen, I'm certainly very sorry that my mistake ended up affecting her as well.
Posted by Eric at 7:22 PM
The Ethics of Intentional Walks in September
Since then, Howard -- in 17 games -- has gone 20 for 56, a hefty .357 average. But he's hit only 2 HRs. (He was robbed of another HR because of an umpire's horrendous blown call in Houston 12 days ago who mistook a fan trying to catch a HR as the ball hitting the top of the wall and dropping straight down. Physics, man, physics.)
Why the sudden power outage? Howard has received 22 walks in that 17 game span -- including 3 intentional passes in the Phillies' 14-inning win over the Nationals last night (and a handful against other recent opponents). In his first 141 games, Howard had 115 BBs -- or .81 per game. But since he hit his 56th HR, he's averaged 1.3 BBs per game -- a 50% increase. (Over a full season, that would be 210 BBs. Barry Bonds holds the record with 232 BBs, including a mind-boggling 120 intentional walks in 2004, when he hit 45 HRs.)
Clearly, teams are pitching Howard more carefully. Okay. But teams are also intentionally walking Howard with runners on first base -- as in last night's game, 3 times in extra innings to put the winning run in scoring position.
So, is that right, fair, ethical? Call it what you want. Should teams -- especially teams out of the pennant race -- be intentionally walking Ryan Howard at this point? Should baseball etiquette (if such a thing exists) dictate that teams like the Nationals, or the Phils' upcoming opponent, the Marlins who are also out of the playoff hunt, challenge Howard to beat them? Or is taking the bat out of his hands okay?
In comparison, in Roger Maris's last 18 games in 1961 -- from September 10th through October 1st -- he played in 18 games, hit 4 HRs in 59 ABs, and walked only 13 times. During that 18-game span, Mickey Mantle, who hit behind Maris that year in which they both chased Ruth's record of 60 HRs, missed 7 games because of injury and hit only 2 HRs in the other 11 games. Maris hit 2 of his 61 HRs without Mantle behind him down the stretch.
Howard, on the other hand, has had Jeff Conine hitting behind him most of September. Conine has hit 0 HRs, 4 2B, 0 3B since September 8th.
UPDATE: Commenter Syd points out the interesting fact that every post-Maris player who's broken the 60 barrier was a National Leaguer.
Posted by shertaugh at 4:43 PM | Comments (4)
Try To Hit That Optical Illusion
For more than 80 years after baseball's formal establishment, until the mid-20th century, many so-called experts contended the curveball was just an optical illusion -- one that 10s of 1000s of fans, not to mention the batter and the TV audience, simultaneously saw after the pitcher released the ball. Even after Look and Life Magazine used stop-action photography in 1941, the dispute continued. The issue was finally settled in 1982 (as though it needed to be for anyone who's stood in the batters box and tried to hit that optical illusion) after a study by physicists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. No optical illusion.
At the moment, some Americans are under the impression that to save our civil liberties, we need to cast aside them aside. Witness the torture/miltary tribunal legislation about to be passed on Capitol Hill. The president and his GOP senators and congressmen (and those knee-buckling Democrats who agree) know that this legislation has no real purpose but to gain a political advantage for the GOP. But in the process, unfortunately, it cedes what seems like unlimited power to incarcerate without the right of appeal every person in the world -- including Americans -- to a president whose nickname should be Merkle.
How long before Americans realize that the Bush/GOP line on national security is an optical illusion?
Posted by shertaugh at 3:24 PM | Comments (3)
End-of-Session Energy Legislation
We're less than six weeks from the mid-term election, right. Wasn't this a priority for our security-conscious president?
Posted by shertaugh at 2:59 PM
September 27, 2006
Iva Toguri D'Aquino, 1916-2006
(180).jpg)
Here is what I wrote about her World War II treason case in a recent article, "The Japanese American Cases: A Bigger Disaster Than We Realized," 49 Howard Law Journal 417 (2006):
The third and last treason prosecution brought against a Japanese American for conduct during World War II was the notorious case of United States v. Iva Toguri d'Aquino. It was known as the "Tokyo Rose" case, because it arose from the nightly Radio Tokyo propaganda show that American servicemen in the Pacific liked to say was anchored by a disc jockey named "Tokyo Rose." In fact, though, Radio Tokyo had no disc jockey by that name. Quite a few women did English-language broadcasts for Radio Tokyo during the war, and "Tokyo Rose" was a made-up name that soldiers used for all of these female voices.Note: I have omitted the footnotes from this excerpt, in keeping with the blog format. My principle sources were Stanley I. Kutler, Forging a Legend: The Treason of "Tokyo Rose," 1980 Wisc. L. Rev. 1341, and Frank F. Chuman, The Bamboo People: The Law and Japanese-Americans (Del Mar Publishers, Inc., 1976).There is no question that one of those voices was Iva Toguri d'Aquino's. d'Aquino, a Nisei, was born in Los Angeles in 1916, and attended public schools in a variety of southern California communities. She graduated from U.C.L.A. with a degree in zoology in 1940, and then began working toward a graduate degree. In July of 1941, however, her family got word that her mother's only sister, who lived in Japan, was seriously ill, and that she wanted d'Aquino's mother to visit her. Her father decided that d'Aquino would go as the family's representative, because d'Aquino's mother was herself ill. They were unable to obtain a passport for her quickly enough, but at that time a passport was necessary only during war or national emergency, so they instead prepared a simple photo identification card and had it notarized. With that in hand, d'Aquino left for Japan on July 5, 1941, for what was to be a six-month stay. She arrived in Japan on July 24, 1941, and took up what she thought would be temporary residence with her aunt and uncle. The state of war that arose with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor changed her plans drastically, because with no passport, and no means of obtaining one, d'Aquino was stranded in Japan for the duration of the war.
d'Aquino eventually landed a position as a typist at Radio Tokyo in August of 1943. Her job at first was to type material for Radio Tokyo's English-language broadcast. Late in the fall of 1943, however, she was approached by two Allied war prisoners--an American and an Australian who had radio experience and were producing "Zero Hour," an evening program of music, recorded messages from prisoners of war, and news items. They liked her "Yankee personality" and asked her to join the program as an announcer. Certainly everyone involved understood that these broadcasts were Japanese propaganda, but d'Aquino believed that the Allied war prisoners creating the show were working as hard as they could to make the program "as entertaining as possible rather than propaganda," and that the scriptwriters were inserting passages with "'a double meaning' in their scripts." In any event, d'Aquino understood these "requests" that she take up the announcer's position as "tantamount to [Japanese] army orders which one did not disobey."
She began broadcasting in mid-November of 1943. One of the Allied war prisoners wrote her scripts until mid-1944, when he got sick; she took over the writing duties at that point, using the earlier scripts as a guide. She was always introduced on the show as "Orphan Ann," "Orphan Annie," "your favorite enemy, Ann," or "your favorite playmate and enemy, Ann." Mostly she announced and played music, while others read news, commentary and announcements.
After Japan's surrender, d'Aquino was questioned and then arrested by military police. She was held in military custody and repeatedly interrogated for nearly a year. Throughout this time she told the same story, which was that she had gotten stranded in Japan, had landed a job at Radio Tokyo, had been more or less conscripted into doing announcements for "Zero Hour," and that through it all she had remained critical of Japan's aggression and a loyal American, albeit in difficult and coercive circumstances. The army ultimately declined to prosecute her, and she was released from detention in Tokyo in May of 1946.
d'Aquino applied for a U.S. passport in the fall of 1947 so that she could return home. The Justice Department at first voiced no objection to her obtaining a passport; her case had been investigated and closed more than a year earlier. However, word somehow leaked to the press that "Tokyo Rose" had applied for a passport, triggering a firestorm among veterans' groups and West Coast nativist organizations, and they demanded a treason prosecution. Bowing to this strong public pressure, the Justice Department opened a new investigation. It lasted until October of 1948, when Justice Department lawyers, having overcome hesitations about the innocuous nature of the broadcasts, concluded that the facts presented a colorable--if not overwhelming--case of treason, and obtained an indictment. d'Aquino, who had again been arrested in Japan, was brought back to San Francisco by ship to stand trial.
The indictment identified eight overt acts of treason, all of them related to broadcasts that d'Aquino had allegedly made between November of 1943 and August of 1945, but during the course of three months of trial, the government's case came to focus primarily on a single comment in a single broadcast that d'Aquino allegedly made in October of 1944. Two witnesses testified that they saw her read the following words into Radio Tokyo's microphone shortly after a typhoon caused the loss of a number of American ships: "'Now you fellows have lost all your ships. You really are orphans of the Pacific. Now how do you think you will ever get home?"' When d'Aquino testified in her own defense, she denied uttering these words.
As in the Kawakita case, the jury's deliberations were long and difficult. The jurors debated the case for almost four days, once reporting hopeless deadlock along the way. Nine out of ten reporters covering the case expected d'Aquino to be completely exonerated, and she nearly was. The jury convicted d'Aquino of treason, but only on the strength of one of the eight overt acts charged in the indictment, the one concerning the loss of ships. The trial judge sentenced her to ten years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine; she served the sentence at the federal prison for women in Alderson, West Virginia, and was released in January of 1956.
Thus, the government eked out a victory in the d'Aquino case, but it was a thin one, obtained from a reluctant jury on the strength of hotly contested testimony. In the view of one of the case's closest observers, Iva Toguri d'Aquino "was a pathetic, isolated, relatively insignificant individual" whose "acknowledged acts of broadcasting for the enemy took on a legendary mystique that heightened her importance far beyond the innocuous substance of her activities." This sense lingered in the Japanese American community long after her release from prison. Three times her supporters applied for a presidential pardon, in the administrations of Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon, and were refused. Finally, on his last day in office in January of 1977, President Gerald R. Ford issued a full pardon to Iva Toguri d'Aquino, bringing to a forgiving close her rather muddled prosecution for treason.
Posted by Eric at 8:46 PM | Comments (4)
The NIE "Key Judgments" Fiasco Proves the Bankruptcy of Our Document Classification System
Then somebody leaked a passage from it to the New York Times.
Then, miraculously, the entire NIE "Key Judgments" document became safe for the public to see.
If this grotesque dance is not evidence that the whole concept of government document secrecy is corrupt and in need of overhaul, I don't know what is.
Please note that this is not a comment on, or criticism of, the leak or the President's decision to declassify the document. It is a comment on (and criticism of) our current rules for document "classification," and the ways in which we allow our "representatives" to decide what we are and are not allowed to know.
Posted by Eric at 8:32 AM | Comments (3)
September 26, 2006
A Wyoming Democrat in King Hastert's Court?
Yes, I'll give you a moment to clean your glasses.
There, is that better?
Yes, you read right. Wyoming might send a Democrat to the House of Representatives in November. Challenger Gary Trauner is within a couple of percentage points of six-term embarrassment Barbara Cubin.
Surely it can't help Cubin that she promised back in '94 that she'd run for no more than 6 terms, and is now running for her seventh.
Posted by Eric at 9:40 AM
September 25, 2006
What's in a Name?
Posted by shertaugh at 5:46 PM | Comments (1)
September 24, 2006
The Mr. America Pageant
This was America's values on parade. And the winners almost invariably came from the South and Midwest. (No snarks about Vanessa Wiliams . . . I'd stopped watching by then.)
This past weekend, GOP presidential hopefuls convened for their own beauty pageant at the "Values Voters" Summit. No batons. No opera singing. Just lots of ventriloquism -- every contestant seemed to say the same thing: Abortion bad, Prayer good, Democrats evil.
What can you say . . . America's values on parade.
Posted by shertaugh at 11:57 AM
September 23, 2006
Eric Muller's Hierarchy of Legal Scholarship
I guess I see things a little differently. So I present to you:
Eric Muller's Hierarchy of Legal Scholarship:UPDATE: D'oh! A commenter asks, "Where does your blog fit in?"0 - Student-written work by people other than me.
1 - Articles using two or more of the following four words or phrases: "intersectionality," "rent-seeking," "hegemony," "externality."
2 - Work in my field that totally ought to cite my work but fails to do so.
3 - First novels by professors at Yale Law School.
4 - Student-written work by me.
5 - Work that cites my work.
6 - My work.
7 - Scholarship ranking scholars, schools, and scholarship.
8 - Scholarship by faculty on the appointments committees of schools from which I'm hoping for lateral offers.
9 - Revolver, The Beatles. (UK version.)
10 - Articles ranking scholarship ranking scholars, schools, and scholarship
The answer should be obvious. Eleven.
paralegal degree programs from accredited colleges and universities. Earn
your law degree online, and begin to accelerate your career. Find an online
degree that's right for you today!
Posted by Eric at 5:27 PM | Comments (7)
I Hope I Get a Poney on Election Day
Well, that's about the level of politcal strategery in the Democrat[ ] Party.
In an article in today's WashPost, one aid to the House Democrat's leadership said this about the deal cut between the President and those rebel GOP Senators devoted to American principles on torture and military tribunals:
We had really hoped the White House had caved, but it's looking more and more like the senators caved.
"Oh my!", as announcer Dick Enberg likes to say.
That comment is strategery at its height -- banking on "hope" that three GOP senators will buck this White House in an election year that could cost the GOP control of everything. When one of those Senators wants be the next GOP nominee for president. Another was the House's lead prosecutor in the Clinton impeachment. And the third -- gentleman John Warner -- signed off on the so-called nuclear option on judicial filibusters (showing his commitment to the institution of the Senate).
Geez. The Democrat[ ] Party has no business taking over the House or the Senate. They have no vision. No backbone.
They have no strategery
Posted by shertaugh at 4:20 PM
September 22, 2006
Sleep Deprivation - Movie Style: Stalag 17
I say this because of a scene in Stalag 17 when Camp Commandant Colonel Von Scherbach (played by Otto Preminger) forces an American officer suspected of sabotage -- Lt. Dunbar -- to keep him company, as he called it, in his quarters because Von Scherbach suffered from insomnia. On that pretext, Dunbar was forced to stand against a wall in Von Scherbach's office and stay awake after having not slept for the past couple of days as he was transported to the POW camp.
A Geneva Convention man shows up at the Stalag 17 while Dunbar is in with Von Scherbach. On visting the Commandant's office, there's this exchange:
GENEVA MAN
I want to talk about Lieutenant Dunbar. Is this Lieutenant Dunbar?
VON SCHERBACH
It is.
GENEVA MAN
What exactly is he charged with?
VON SCHERBACH
Whatever it is, it's out of your jurisdiction. This man is not a
prisoner of war. Not any more. He is a saboteur.
GENEVA MAN
He is a prisoner of war until you can prove sabotage.
DUNBAR
I didn't do it. I was in the Frankfurt station and the train was three miles
away when it blew up.
VON SCHERBACH
Oh, come now! You threw a time bomb.
DUNBAR
How could I have had a time bomb? They searched me when they took me
prisoner.
GENEVA MAN
And the way you search your prisoners, it does sound rather unlikely.
VON SCHERBACH
All I know is he did it. I am satisfied.
GENEVA MAN
I am not. According to the Geneva Convention --
DUNBAR
Is there anything about letting a guy sleep in the Geneva Convention? [Dunbar shuffles over to the sofa, and plunks himself down -- instantly asleep.]
VON SCHERBACH
(to the Geneva Man)
You were saying --?
GENEVA MAN
Simply this. After the hostilities are ended, there will be such a thing
as a War Crimes Commission. If this man should be convicted without proper
proof, you will be held responsible, Colonel von Scherbach.
VON SCHERBACH
Interesting.
GENEVA MAN
Isn't it?
A great exchange reflecting the prevailing view of the times -- a winner's history of sorts.
Amazing how far we've come. How far we've fallen.
Posted by shertaugh at 4:58 PM | Comments (2)
Lamb - It's Not Just for Passover
We'll be celebrating at my brother's house. And I have the pleasure of preparing the meal . . . a favorite past time. On the menu, a marriage of tradition (at least, in our house) and modern.
We'll start with a quick round of apples and honey, followed by home-made chopped liver, warmed slices of a baggette, and Alsatian gewurztraminer. The chopped liver's not too smooth, not too coarse, hand chopped, with a nice dose of home-rendered chicken fat, and some hard-boiled egg (and a couple other ingredients). The chopped liver comes from a recipe of my maternal grandmother -- whose love of cooking I share, though not her ability to fill every dish with her love of family. Everything she made -- veal chops, sesameed potatoes, salmon, lemon chicken, apple crisp, crisp challah toast, and the most incredible poached eggs -- just said love. And nothing filled her heart more than to watch us enjoy her handiwork. The most amazing person I've ever known.
Second course -- chicken soup with feathery-light matzah balls. Also my grandmother's recipe. The key to the matzah balls is two tablespoons of ginger ale. The soup: one Empire kosher chicken -- cleaned forever. A parsnip, white onion, lots of parsley, carrots, celery, and pinch of salt and pepper. And lot's of skimming to keep the broth clear. We'll open a bottle of Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc from New Zealand.
Next up, a small salad -- straight from fresh heads of mixed lettuces. Romaine. Boston Bib. Raddichio. Very thinly sliced Bermuda onion, sweet red beats, and some crumbled Greek feta cheese. Topped with a balsamic vinigrette (the BV, salt, pepper, lemon juice, crushed garlic, fresh chopped basil, some white horseradish and parisian mustard, a bit of mayo, and olive oil -- then whipped with a hand-blender). Plus another baggette.
We'll also open our first bottle of Ridge Zinfandel. Ridge Vineyards is known for its blending of several grapes Bordeaux style. Great value.
For the main course . . .
a 6 lb roast leg of lamb with a madeira wine sauce. Pretty conventional preparation. Marinated overnight in a pulsed mixture of lemon juice, olive oil, mint, thyme, rosemary, onion, salt and pepper, and chopped prunes. I'll seer the lamb -- rubbed with olive oil, garlic butter, lots and lots of cracked pepper, sea salt, rosemary and thyme -- in the oven on 500 degrees for about 20 minutes, then lower the oven to 325 degrees and cook it until the meat thermometer says it's ready (about 2.5 hours). For the sauce, I'll mix the strained pan juices from the lamb with a roux of wholewheat flour and sweet butter, along with about a cup of Madeira that I've cooked down from a full bottle.
With the lamb, those sesameed new potatos a la my grandmother (rolled in melted butter then sesame seeds and roasted for about a 1.5 hours with the lamb at 325.) Jello mold -- which I confess my mother's making because I just never acquired a taste for it. A mix or roasted veggies: carrots, snow peas, chopped portobello mushrooms. Noodle koogle (no raisins).
After dinner, we'll open a bottle of port, and serve Granny Smith apples with some Gorgonzola, Reggiano-Parmigiana, and Camenbert cheeses . . . and more baggettes.
We'll also have a sweet dessert brought by our cousins, so I'm not sure what that will be.
All in all, I expect it to be a wonderful evening. And we'll be missing those in our family no longer with us. L'Shana Tovah Tikatevu to all.
Posted by shertaugh at 2:38 PM
Law Faculty Hiring Horror Stories
Two cherished moments from my own rounds on the entry-level market:
1. A job talk where a senior faculty member took over the floor for the final 10 minutes or so to tell me that my analysis was "infantile and immature" and that he doubted I had actually read the books and articles I was citing in my paper.
2. A job talk at a school that I gave in the noon hour. It was supposed to be over lunch, but the food delivery guys were really late. By around 12:20, with no lunch appearing, the chair of the committee told me to go ahead and just get started. So I got up at the lecturn and started talking. After about 5 minutes, the delivery guys snuck in the back of the room and put out the bread, the lunch meats, the chips, the sodas. The faculty stood up, en masse, the way an orchestra rises for applause, and went to the back of the room to make their sandwiches -- leaving me talking, rather self-consciously, to a roomful of empty chairs and turned backs. Only one or two kind souls stayed behind and listened.
Have a story you want to share? Shave off the identifying details about the schools and individuals involved, email them to me (isthatlegal - at - bellsouth - dot - net), and I'll post them here. Anonymity assured.
Posted by Eric at 9:57 AM | Comments (1)
September 21, 2006
My "Most Unethical Law Firm Interview" Story
Happily, I don't have a law firm interview story as "funny" as that one, but I do have a "Most Unethical Law Firm Interview Story" that I'll share.
It was the fall of 1985, and I was looking for a job with a DC law firm for the summer after my second year of law school. On a Monday, I interviewed at Big Firm X. It was one of the most repressed and boring places I'd ever stepped into. One of the lawyers I interviewed with there I'll call Joe Jones.
On Tuesday, I interviewed at Smallish Firm Y. Midway through the morning I sat down for an interview with a lawyer I'll call Susan Green. She started with, "So, Eric, are you talking to a lot of firms this week?" "Yes," I said, "one each day." "Oh," she asked, "where were you yesterday?" "I was at Big Firm X." "And what did you think of Big Firm X?" Susan Green inquired. I paused for a moment, trying to think about how to respond diplomatically. Wanting to make the point (which was true) that I preferred a smaller to a larger firm, I said, "Well, it was OK, but probably not the right thing for me." "Really? Why not?" she asked. I said something about that firm being too big and impersonal. She pressed on: "And what did you think of the lawyers that you met there?" "Well," I said, "to tell you the truth, I found them a pretty boring crew."
At that point she threw up her hands with a smile and said, "Wait, we should probably stop right there; I ought to tell you that my husband is Joe Jones, one of the lawyers you interviewed with yesterday." And then I looked behind her and saw on her desk a little framed picture of attorney Jones from Big Firm X.
Just slimey.
Posted by Eric at 4:24 PM | Comments (12)
Kewpie Doll for GOP Rebels
Let's look at this issue dispassionately--like Bush and McCain surely did.
First, the Congress adjourns in a few days and -- even though the detainees have been waiting for up to 4 years to be tried -- it was essential to get things done fast.
Now why would that be? Yes, yes. It's an election year, and the GOP wants to see if they can pass a law that leaves the Geneva Convention intact in name but eliminates it's importance by removing any resort to habeas for people wrongly held or tortued -- like Mahed Arar? Could that be the reason? Or is it that nothing's more American than carrying out justice swiftly. 'Cause then, when the war's over, the innocent terrorists will be released. Right? I mean, it's only the guilty ones who'll have to stay in jail after the war's over.
If it's a political decision, then the GOP will have some a reason to say,
Look at the Democrat Party. They're proterrorist. They believe that people who want to destroy your family should be able to appeal to American Courts -- like regular Americans, you know, your neighors and friends these people want to kill.
The subtext of this sort argument is that the "Democrat Party doesn't believe in the infallibility of our President -- whom God put here on earth to lead us in a religious battle against evildoers and heathens who don't believe in Jesus as our Lord and Savior."
If this is not a purely partisan political decision, one would think that McCain -- of "Straight-Talk Express" fame -- would have included at least a token member of the Democrat Party in negotiations with the White House. Not to be. Did he need room to look "independent" to the masses, but not too disloyal to the President's GOTV ground troops? I don't know.
Where will this leave Senator Arlen Spector, who presently objects to eliminating habeas for terrorists (not suspected or alleged terrorists . . . as he's not prepared to doubt publicly the infallibility of the President). Does it really matter? There will 51 votes with or without Spector.
So tell me, if there's no "speedy trial" requirement, exactly why did legislation on these tribunals need to be enacted now?
Posted by shertaugh at 3:55 PM | Comments (1)
No More White House Passes For You, Buddy!
He sets up his shot at the President by describing in hopeful tones what he sees as the rise of the silent, independent middle "mobilizing to resist not only Bush but also the extremist elements in American society" (which he describes as lefty bloggers and righty religious extremists).
Broder -- a mild-mannered, exceedingly polite and patient midwesterner, as anyone who's seen him on "Meet the Press" would know -- drops this bomb:
The country thought Bush was a pleasant, down-to-earth guy who would not rock the boat. Instead, swayed by some inner impulse or the influence of Dick Cheney, he has proved to be lawless and reckless. He started a war he cannot finish, drove the government into debt and repeatedly defied the Constitution.
WOW!!! David Broder going for Bush's jugular with words like "lawless" and "reckless" and "defied" is . . . well . . . staggering.
I don't know if anyone who pulls the levers of power in the political establishment listens to him anymore. Or that he has a handle on the pulse of middle America. But he seems to be speaking with the blessing of the old guard (Warner, McCain, Leiberman, Powell). Either his column signals a turn in how a cowed media will present Bush going forward. Or maybe it's just that gurgling sound you hear right before the last bit of air from a sinking ship bubbles to the surface.
In the immortal words of Vince Lombardi, "what the hell's goin' on out there?"
Posted by shertaugh at 8:52 AM | Comments (3)
September 20, 2006
Be The Lawprof With The Moves
I know that Brian Leiter tracks law faculty moves after they've been announced. But is there a website that tracks rumored law faculty moves?
Aspiring lawprof bloggers, take note: here's a niche for you.
Posted by Eric at 7:29 AM
There But For The Grace Of God ...
One was the man who got the job: Nelson Rockefeller.
Another was the man who badly wanted it: George H.W. Bush.
Do you know who the third finalist was?
Answer below the fold.
Donald Rumsfeld.
(Source: Barry Werth, 31 Days: The Crisis That Gave Us the Government We Have Today (New York: Nan A. Talese, 2006).)
Posted by Eric at 7:16 AM
September 19, 2006
And Down The Stretch They Come . . .
There's Bob Gibson. In 3 WS with the Cards (in which they beat the Yanks in '64 and Boston in '67, and lost to Detroit in '68), Gibson was 7-2, starting 9 games, completing 8, pitching 81 innings, KOing 92 hitters, walking 17, with a career ERA of 1.89. In the '67 series against the BoSox, Gibson was 3-0, three complete games, ERA of 1.00, 1 shutout, 26 Ks and 5 walks.
Next, Sandy Koufax. In 4 WS appearances, he had a career ERA of 0.95, appearing in 8 games, starting 7, completing 4, pitching 57 innings, KOing 61, walking 11, but going only 4-3 for the light hitting Dodgers of '59, '63, '65, and '66. Against the powerful '65 Twins (with Killebrew, Allison, Oliva, Mincher, and MVP Zoilo Versalles), Koufax was 2-1 with 2 complete games and an ERA of 0.38! He lost game 1, working only 6 innings and giving up 1 earned run. But in games 5 and 7, Koufax pitched consecutive complete-game shutouts, surrendering only 7 total hits, KOing 20, and walking only 4.
Then there's Babe Ruth -- baseball's greatest player. In two WS for the BoSox, Ruth started 3, won 3, completed 2, pitched 31 innings, and compiled an 0.87. He KO'd only 8, walked 10, and gave up 19 hits.
Whitey Ford, the anchor of the great Yankees Dynasty, pitched in 11 WS from 1950 to 1964, going 10-8 with a 2.71 ERA. Ford is best known for pitching a WS-record 33.3 consecutive shutout innings starting in the '60 WS against Pittsburgh (18 innings in 2 complete game shutouts), the '61 WS against the Reds (2-0 in 14 scoreless innings), and .3 of an inning against the Giants in '62.
There was Ford's teammate, Allie Reynolds who went 7-2 in 15 WS games, 9 starts, 5 complete games, and a 2.79 ERA in 6 WS -- all Yankee victories. Or how 'bout Jack Billingham of Cincinnati's Big Red Machine of the early '70s. He wasn't the horse of their staff, like Gibson or Koufax, but in 3 WS, he went 2-0, pitched 25.3 innings, allowed only 14 hits with 19 KOs, and an incredible 0.36 ERA! Roger Clemens has pitched in 6 WS, going 3-0 in 8 starts but only 49.3 innings with a 2.37 ERA.
Any others?
Posted by shertaugh at 2:23 PM | Comments (4)
Oh, Canada . . . Not So Glorious and Free
The United States refused to participate in the inquiry. You can find newspaper accounts here, here, here, but not here.
Arar, after being returned to Canada, filed suit in federal court in Brooklyn against several former and current U.S. officials. His case was dismissed based on the administration's invocation of the state-secret privilege.
When did the Bush Administration establish such cozy relations with Syria? Is the rendition agreement we apparently have with Syria a step toward establishing a democracy there? What message does this send to Israel? Can we take seriously anything this Administration says about its support for Israel and mid-east democracy, when we secretly are using Syria to torture terror suspects? And if we're in bed with Syria -- Iran's new best friend -- does our presence in Iraq have anything to do with building a democracy there or anyplace else.
Imagine if Arar had been sent to Gitmo. He'd still be there. If he were really lucky, he'd be awaiting trial before the Bush-style military tribunal. And, if the Bush Administration has its way with Congress, Arar could have then been convicted based not only on secret evidence, but his own confession to something that never happened.
What the hell is happening to us?
Posted by shertaugh at 8:13 AM | Comments (4)
September 17, 2006
Why Jacob Levy Is Wrong About Pope Benedict on Islam
I'm not at all persuaded. What Jacob does not address (even though he does quote them) is the precise words that the Pope included. Surely the Pope is entitled to express his Church's view that Islam is a false faith. But the Pope did more than that. He plucked from obscurity a 700-year-old assertion that Mohammed brought nothing but evil and inhumanity into the world, and plopped it, as a digression, into a public address.
The Pope didn't just assert that Mohammed had brought violence to religion (a contestable claim, to be sure, especially coming from the Vatican) -- which was, sort of, the subject of his speech. He quoted a ludicrously broader assertion -- that Islam had brought the world nothing but inhumanity and evil, and that cited compulsion as an example.
Think of it this way. I might detest your wife's cooking. And I might wish to say in public that her sauces are horrid. But what would you think if I put it this way: "As the fourteenth-century chef Julius Puer put it, 'your wife is a slut and a harlot; she is as loose with her body as she is with her sauces?'" I think you'd be pissed off. You probably wouldn't be in much of a mood for a thorough and careful debate about saucemaking.
This is what the Pope did.
He chose these words. Nobody forced him to quote them. Certainly nobody forced him to quote them verbatim, including the words that denigrated an entire religion.
Some of the reaction of the Muslim world has obviously been absurd and contemptible. But this time, it was not the Muslim world that picked the fight. It was the Pope. He was not, as Jacob Levy argues, just quoting words to the effect that Islam was false; he was quoting words to the effect that Islam is inhuman and evil. We should be condemning this choice, not straining to contextualize and justify it.
UPDATE: From the Pope's apology of today: “The true meaning of my address in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.” This places my point in sharp relief. If you want to invite somebody to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect, you'd probably be well advised not to quote the proposition that your audience are inhuman and evil.
Posted by Eric at 5:29 PM | Comments (10)
Too Cool for (Law) School?
"He's like Steven Spielberg" -- "strangely cool."
Posted by Eric at 11:35 AM | Comments (1)
September 16, 2006
More on the Pope's Regensburg Speech
Angela Merkel is defending the Pope against his critics: "'What Benedict XVI emphasised was a decisive and uncompromising renunciation of all forms of violence in the name of religion,' she said."Maybe. But isn't it likelier that they're objecting to the Pope's gratuitous quotation of a description of their religion as having introduced nothing but evil into the world?Maybe that's what they're really objecting to.
Posted by Eric at 7:58 PM | Comments (3)
Keeping Up With The Joneses in Baghdad
I don't understand why it is that the Administration won't invoke similar security measures around the United States. I'd have thought that the unimpeded illegal entry by people meaning us serious harm would be high atop the Administration's and Congress's agenda -- especially with a November election looming.
Why is it that Baghdad gets pushed ahead of the good ol' U-S-of-A when it comes to national security?
Posted by shertaugh at 5:46 PM
September 15, 2006
Pope Benedict Takes A Swipe At Islam
Muslim leaders around the world are expressing everything from confusion to outrage about the Pope's decision to include in his speech the following passage:
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".The Pope needs a new speechwriter, methinks.
I read the entire (lengthy) speech. Much of it is quite interesting. This little digression on Islam is the only mention of that faith in the entire speech, the theme of which is non-compulsion in religion. And -- more importantly -- the words he chooses to quote, to the effect that Islam has introduced nothing but evil into the world, are unnecessary even to his little digression.
Obviously, they're incendiary words, even though they're not originally the Pope's own. (The Pope himself notes their "brusqueness" and "forcefulness.")
So, to recap: The words are plainly provocative. They were irrelevant to the Pope's speech. They were unnecessary even to the Pope's digression within his speech.
So what good did he imagine might come from quoting them?
Posted by Eric at 8:26 AM | Comments (11)
Bush on Coercion and Eavesdropping: "Is It Safe?"
On the other hand, President Bush objects to FISA -- which limits his ability to spy domestically -- because FISA is too specific . . . too much crystal clarity, I guess.
What the president is trying to do with Congress's witting assistance, as Jack Balkin explains, is to expand his powers by (i) statutorily limiting the ban on coercive questioning under CA3, and (ii) nixing the statutory limits on his spying power.
The bottom line will be a president facing no limits on torturing people to find out whom he should be spying on. A perfect harmony.
Clearly, neither the president nor his advisors have seen the movie "Marathon Man" (or they've forgotten their cinema history). When someone's drilling into the nerves in your teeth, you'll say just about anything to make them stop.
So, after Congress finishes off CA3 and FISA, let's all say together: "Is It Safe?"
Posted by shertaugh at 12:37 AM | Comments (2)
September 13, 2006
Masada . . . Never Again?
Which brings me to a column in yesterday's USA Today by Karen Hughes, the under secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs at the State Department. The column, entitled "Where's the Outrage?", says about the "extremists" (the administration's new nom de jure, I guess, for Al Qaeda) using terrorism to destroy families of many faiths and countries:
This is not right, or normal, or acceptable . . . Where are the fathers promising to teach their sons to choose to live rather than choose to die? Where are the religious clerics and congregations of all faiths arguing that no just and loving God would call on young men and women to kill themselves and others in the name of religion?
So were the zealots on Masada wrong? Should they have surrendered to the Romans? Maybe to fight a more conventional war another day, however doubtful that would have been [despite the resurrection of Judah Ben Hur]? Or maybe just submit and convert . . . to paganism or the new strain of Judaism inspired by a Nazarene?
I'm not intending to suggest, and do not want to be misunderstood to say, that Al Qaeda equates to those who died on Masada or in the Warsaw ghetto. Terrorists -- starting with Osama Bid Laden -- should be hunted down and eliminated.
I'm merely remarking on the irony of the Bush Administration's thesis, given its political dependence on the religious right for which Israel (particularly, its history and eschatoligical role in Christianity) carries so much symbolism.
Posted by shertaugh at 9:15 AM | Comments (6)
Raffle Waffle
They're saying they stopped it because some parents complained that the tickets were being sold from a concession stand at a youth football practice, but what I heard is that they ran out of tickets after a huge block purchase by the Volokh Conspiracy.
Posted by Eric at 8:01 AM
September 12, 2006
What Stands Out from "What Stands Out."
Two readers included in their otherwise accessible (to me, that is) accounts a sort of comment that caused me to recoil a bit -- to slip off of the common ground that it felt like we were standing on. They were these two:
I was hard at work in my cubicle, and got up to go around the corner to ask a coworker about some code. He happened to be walking in the door from the hallway outside, and told me that he had just come from the canteen and heard that a plane had crashed into the WTC.And:I immediately thought of the Empire State Building getting hit in a fog many, many years ago, and assumed it was the same thing. He said that no, it was perfectly clear up there. I then thought that it had to have been a light plane. It wasn't the first time that something like that had happened, heck, somebody crashed on the White House lawn a few years ago. It had to be a lone nut at worst, in a cessna. But in the back of my head, I started to worry. Surely not. But could it? There had been that Egyptian copilot who crashed his airliner into the ocean...
I asked my question and went back to work. But just a few minutes later, he came back and told me that a second plane had flown into the other tower.
There never was any question after that. Things just solidified. We were under attack. I started getting angry.
I walked to the canteen, and watched the replays on the TVs overhead. I didn't get to see the second one live, but I've seen the clips, the stunned reactions from broadcasters on the air so many times that it feels like I have. I just stood there in anger, muttering "We're at war. We are at war." Thoughts of Pearl Harbor began to pop into my mind, especially when I came back to check again and the Pentagon had been hit. There were reports of bombs, and snipers, and it looked like an all-out decapitation strike might be underway. I couldn't understand why the Capitol hadn't been hit; that would have hurt our psyche far worse as a nation, but I eventually came to understand that our foes didn't really get that, and their one shot was taken down in America's first counterattack.
Perhaps the worst part was when I went to see my manager about something around lunchtime. I asked her how she was holding up, and by her cheery voice I realized that she had been inside her office all morning and didn't even know. I had to stand there... and tell her that it looked like 50,000 innocent people had just died, and that we were at war. Fortunately, they hit us too early in the day, to high up the buildings, and the evacuations worked relatively well. We could have lost ten times as many as we did, rather easily.
I sit here and wonder, five years later, how so many can simply forget or dismiss the cruelty or the evil of the attack.
I will never forget the sound of my father's voice screaming over the phone that the tower was collapsing. I worked rotating shifts then and was actually watching a movie. I had a TV, but no cable. My phone rang and it was my father, in Erie, PA, calling to tell me to turn on the TV. He was frantic. I think he only wanted to make sure that his sons were still alive, even though there was no possibility that either of us were anywhere near NYC or (later) DC. As he was trying to explain what was going on, one of the towers collapsed. I remember him saying that one had collapsed already and OH MY GOD THE OTHER TOWER IS FALLING!What nags at me about these two posts is not that they somehow deviated from the invitation to share memories of 9/11/2001 and veered toward commentary about what followed. Others who wrote did that -- sharing, for example, their disbelief at the way the Administration frittered away the feeling of national and even international unity that welled up after the attacks -- and that did not bother me. So maybe the only difference between the commentary that bothered me and the commentary that didn't is that the stuff that didn't was stuff I agreed with. I concede that possibility.I’ve heard my father afraid. I’ve heard him angry, even furious. I’ve never before, nor since heard him horrified. I’d prefer never to hear him that way again.
I carried the phone downstairs and knocked on my new neighbor's door. We had not yet met and here I was waking them up (they had evening shifts that day) wearing only short pants, no shirt, no shoes, trying to convince them to turn on their TV. I was sure that it wasn't possible that my father was correct. I was sure that as soon as I could get the TV on I would see something else. Maybe some sort of War of the Worlds thing. We became friends, my neighbors and I. not because of that incident, but for others.
The video of the attacks and the collapses I have seen several times, always recorded. I was doing something else when it was playing live. The collapses were shown over and over again in the typical TV fashion, played until you are almost sick of them and then they stopped, like they were swept into a memory hole. It was as if the TV stations imagined themselves our parents and suddenly tried to cover our eyes, to prevent us from seeing the horror that had occurred. It was as if they suddenly realized we were angry about it and were seriously considering retaliation, revenge, a reckoning. It as if we suddenly woke up from a dream where we had imagined that the world was safe, but now we knew better. Now we knew that we had to act. The images suddenly disappeared; our intellectual betters decided that they wanted no part of this. They stopped showing the pictures, hoping that we would stop demanding the blood of our enemies. They had successfully paper[ed] over all the previous wounds, but they were astonished to find that they could not paper over this one. America got its wake-up call. For me, the sound of America waking up will always be the sound of my father, screaming in horror, over the telephone.
But maybe it's something else. These two readers see in the post-9/11 world an American forgetfulness about the horror of that day -- and a media-sung lullaby to calm our anger and our fear -- that I just don't even begin to see or hear. Surely it is possible for all Americans to continue to feel the shared sadness, anger, and fear at the attacks of September 11, and at the same time disagree about how to respond.
Isn't it?
Posted by Eric at 8:36 AM | Comments (3)
September 11, 2006
What stands out?
Hearing on a country music station, as I stepped into the shower, that a small plane had accidentally hit the WTC.
Turning on the TV 10 minutes later and seeing that it was no small plane, and no accident.
Hearing about the Pentagon as I pulled out of my driveway. The radio guy said, "America is under attack."
Going into a classroom of riveted and disbelieving law students, glued to a TV that someone had rolled in, to announce that the dean had cancelled all classes.
Using Martindale-Hubble to try to figure out which law firms had offices at the WTC, and whether I knew anyone.
Getting an eery business phone call from a very strange New Yorker who wanted to talk to me about a business matter as though it were any normal Tuesday.
A dazed numbness that set in and did not quit until the following Sunday, when, looking at the first profiles of the victims in the NYT, the tears finally broke through.
What stands out in your memory? Leave a comment, and I'll post excerpts of your memories here as well.
A reader writes:
Sitting in my office, working, hearing that "something" had happened, getting frustrated with the web news sites and running out and buying a little black and white TV because it was actually cheaper than buying a radio.Another reader:What doesn't stand out - After hearing so many details about the events of that day, I can no longer tell what I actually learned as it happened what I learned later - everything has melded together such that my brain tells me I saw the planes hit - even though I know that's not possible.
We had a funding review for my graduate research group in Albany that week. We were scheduled to fly from Orlando to Albany around 11am that morning. We were gathering in our lab, surfing the internet when the news came. I was married less than 3 months earlier, and I was thinking about things that most newlyweds don't and shouldn't.Another:
Prof. Muller:Another:I was in your Crim Law class on 9/11 (or, at least, I would have been). What stood out to me was the feeling that civilization--the very basis of the law--was under attack, and the realization that lawyers and lawyering are only possible because the police, firefighters and soldiers do the heavy lifting of preserving it.
I was in the seventh grade, and I remember that I had just been transferred to advanced classes that Monday. I had pulled on my backpack and was leaving through the front door for school when I noticed my mother sitting on the couch and just staring at the TV. I stopped, because my mom had the strangest expression on her face and I was worried about her. I stepped over into the next room and said, "Mom, what's wrong?" And she told me that someone had crashed a plane into the WTC.Another:I didn't understand what she meant, but I could watch the TV and see that something bad had happened. I still had to go to school, though, so I left, closing the door behind me. It didn't seem to really impinge on my classmates - I lived in El Paso, then, and NYC was two hours ahead of us - but by lunch, everyone was talking about it.
After school, I was walking home when my dad drove up and dragged him into the car. That was when I started getting scared, because my father never came and picked me up.
And the last thing I remember about that day was sitting in the gigantic line to get on Fort Bliss while my father told me that someone - they didn't know who - had probably killed tens of thousands of people that morning.
The look on my wife's face as I came into the living room.Another reader:The first sight of the towers burning - both had been hit - as I turned to look at the TV.
My 5-year old son's confusion. All he seems to have known was that his parents were - wrong. He had never seen grief before.
The sight of the first tower collapsing.
The hushed talking of the people in line outside the blood center. Waiting to give blood in a small Texas town, the line was at least 500 feet long, and probably more, when I got there, and kept growing through the afternoon. We all spoke of what we had seen and heard, and some people had radios and were passing along news updates. A special edition paper came out, and someone brought a few dozen copies to the people waiting in line. We read them over each others' shoulders, then passed them along. Even though we were under the DFW flight path, there were no planes. We all kept looking up, watching for them.
The first planes I saw were when I was driving home from the blood center. A pair of F-16s were orbiting North of Fort Worth.
The (false) reports of a car bomb at the State Department. That made me think that this was a more than one-dimensional attack, and that was when I first got scared, which was enough to let the rage break through. I'm still furious.
Watching the President's address that night, where he stated the first half of what would become the Bush Doctrine: we will treat nations that harbor terrorists the same way we treat the terrorists.
The feeling, as I went to bed, that the world tomorrow and the world yesterday were almost disconnected from each other, almost two different realities.
Going down to vote in a local primary election at about 9:30 am central time, already aware of the attacks, and being told by another voter that a plane had also hit the Sears Tower.Another:
My kids first day of pre-school. We went right in and they had their first day because no one knew what was going on.Another:It's a day you'd think you'd remember a long time, but I really will remember it forever because of the combined memory.
I was just starting my third year of law school and had started working at the coffee place down the block from my apartment.... I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and my law school was in Brooklyn.Another:I arrived at work at 6:30am and opened the coffee place. The weather was wonderful, the regulars coming in and out. My coworker showed up and how later as we busily hummed along. The CD player pumped out The Beatles as we bopped along.
At around 8:50 one of the guys who worked in the real estate office across the street ran in asking if we had a TV. We did not. "Turn on the radio!" He yelled, "A Plane hit the World Trade Center!"
My co-worker went to the radio to change it from CD to RADIO while I scoffed, "Aw hell, they'll give any drunk a pilot's license these days."
The information was sketchy at first and then we heard at 9:03 as the second plane hit the tower. Silence fell in our little coffee place. I suddenly found I couldn't stand and went to sit on the floor. That second plane meant it wasn't just some drunk guy. I found myself shaking.
And then they announced the pentagon.
And then they announced flight 93
And then they announced a fire on the National Mall (which, it turned out, was nothing, but we didn't know that at the time).
My mother had retired from her Wall Street job six month before. She still went down there in the mornings to go to the gym. I called her. She had stayed home because of a bad head cold. My father had left to go to the social security office. He originally was going to go to the office down by city hall, but had decided to go to the one near Times Square instead. My husband had flown in from being out of town on a project on September 10th. He was asleep when it happened, in our bed.
As we always say the weather was spectacular, one of those glorious fall days that only happen a few times a year here in New York. The humidity just right. The temperature 74. A cool breeze blew towards the east. It was surreal. It was as if nothing bad had happened seven and a half miles downtown.
Until about 2pm when the walking wounded arrived.
They were covered with white stuff. Some had masks, some had scarves, some had blood on their faces. The looked shell shocked. We gave them water and hoped it was enough.
School was cancelled until Friday, but I didn't even go then. I couldn't. I used to joke that I didn't understand why people in Israel stayed. That the moment they started to bomb New York, I was out of there.
Well I'm still here and I get it a little more now. This is my home and I love it here and I'll be damned if I'll leave because some asshole starts bombing. That opinion is subject to change however.
I was teaching an Urban Studies course at the time and was in such a state of denial that I was perfectly prepared to go and teach my class that afternoon. I was ready to walk in, tell my students that it had been "a very weird day," and then proceed, however implausibly, with a lecture on 19th century minstrel shows. Thank goodness the University of Minnesota decided to cancel classes that day.
Another reader: I was an active duty Marine at the time and, strangely, not horrified since I knew I'd play a small part in our response to the attack. It's only now, as a civilian, that I feel the full horror of that day.Another reader:Also, my then-future wife, while she was travelling in Europe, tracked me down to see if I was okay. Tomorrow is her birthday, and we will be married 4 years come October.
I was at my home-office in upper Manhattan, working on a project for a company in Hoboken. I called my contact there to go over a few details. We talked briefly about the project, but he was distracted. From his office window, he'd just seen a plane hit one of the WTC towers. It didn't strike me as particularly important -- small planes seemed to crash into things all the time -- and I was even a little surprised when he said it was on TV. His mind wasn't on the project though, so I hung up and turned on the news. Almost immediately, the second plane hit, and soon after, the towers, and reality, crumbled.Says another:I sat glued to the TV for hours until restlessness overcame me and I wandered outside in a state of semi-shock. I don't remember whether there was any traffic or if there were more people out than on a normal weekday afternoon. There was no mistaking it for a normal afternoon, though. Those who were out were standing in small, muted groups, or, like me, walking aimlessly around the neighborhood. It was the sort of day when a complete stranger would fall into step beside you and without out a word of greeting, the two of you would talk quietly and intensely for a few blocks and then separate without a word of farewell. There was no need for introductions or explanations. We were all reeling from the same blow.
Sometime later a tide of blank-faced, silent people washed through the neighborhood. In my memory, they look like refugees, but -- as I discovered later -- they were just commuters, returning on foot to their homes in Queens or the Bronx. I wanted to speak to one of them, but it would have been like interrupting a funeral procession. On any other day, such a sight would have demanded immediate explanation, but on that day there didn't seem to be much point in trying to make sense of anything.
I was in Washington for a deposition. I had stayed at a hotel immediately behind (north of) the White House.My cousin Ruth:I did not turn on the TV in my room as I showered and dressed that morning. I did not hear the impact of the plane hitting the Pentagon. I had no clue that anything unusual had happened. Until I reached the hotel lobby.
That's where I saw a crowd of people, unusual for its size and rapt attention to the TV at such an early hour, watching the TV's in the hotel lobby bar. I looked over as I walked through the lobby and saw a tall building in flames. Not realizing what building it was or why it was in flames, I continued onward, thinking to myself that there must have been a tragic explosion or fire in a skyscraper somewhere.
Then I stepped out of the hotel onto the street, with a view to the back of the White House. I immediately noticed two things that made me realize that something was very different.
First, everyone was on a cell phone. I know that Washingtonians are busy people and that cell phone use is frequent. But I mean EVERYONE. So many people had phones to their ears that it caught my attention.
Second, there were people on top of the White House holding weapons that I had never seen before. I had been to Washington many times and had seen the White House many times. I know there are always sharpshooters up there, but I had never noticed anyone with THIS type of weapon. I am no military expert, but I believe they were ground-to-air missile launchers. The kind of thing you might use if you expected to have to shoot down an airplane. At any rate, they were HUGE -- clearly not ordinary rifles or machine guns.
At that point I knew something very strange had happened. But I still didn't know what. So I -- like everyone else I saw -- pulled out my cellphone and called my wife. Except that I couldn't get through. The circuits were all busy. So I continued along to the deposition site, unsuccessfully trying to place my call. When I reached the deposition site, I found the deponent panicking and the staff in the office running around going crazy.
It was only then that I learned what had happened: two jets had crashed into the World Trade Center and another jet had crashed into the Pentagon. (We did not yet know about United 93.) Rumors abounded of other threats -- a car bomb on Capitol Hill, other hijacked airplanes headed to the White House and the Capitol, and on and on.
We immediately cancelled the deposition and I let the grateful deponent try to go home to her family. The office closed, and everyone congregated around the TV for news updates. United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania -- where had it been headed? One Twin Tower collapsed -- how could that possibly happen? The other tower collapsed -- utterly unthinkable.
The rest of the day was consumed with trying to escape Washington. It was surreal, bizarre, and unforgettable in its own way -- especially the part where I walked right past the burning Pentagon as they were evacuating the day care. But the part that stays with me was the incremental and stunning process of learning what had happened, and trying to come to grips with each successively incredible revelation -- coordinated plane crashes, then the collapse of two of our most famous buildings....it was unthinkable then, and hasn't gotten much better in the intervening five years.
It took hours to learn what had happened, but it took days for it to sink in.
And to know that the culprit responsible for it all remains free five years later and isn't even being seriously hunted anymore? Well, that might be the most unthinkable thing of all.
Being dragged out of bed a few minutes after six by a flurry of calls on my cell phone.Another reader:Listening to the message on the cell phone -- a wrong number -- about someone being late for a meeting because a plane hit the World Trade Center and it's on fire and things are falling and she doesn't know where anyone is.
Telling my lover about the crazy person on the phone and then turning on the radio and finding out she wasn't crazy.
Getting to work and deciding it was okay to keep the TV in the classroom on.
The kids cheering when school was cancelled for the day.
My student teacher's horror that the kids were cheering, and my horror at my lack of surprise that the kids were cheering.
Walking the streets of downtown San Francisco, and finding them eerily empty.
Finding a parking space, finding lots of parking places, in Union Square.
Beginning to cry when I heard the first Muslim-bashing.
Walking up the middle of a still, silent, empty Fifth Avenue on a sunny September 12th afternoon.Another:Being furious that the one other person I saw was carrying a shopping bag: what could be so important that you had to go buy it today? Is that how it's going to be? We pretend nothing happened, we ignore it like we ignore everything anyone does to us, us the Great Satan whose fault it all is? Turning into a cross street in disgust, heading down 6th Ave. Seeing some workmen up on ladders in front of a building. You too, it's just business as usual today for you too? --And then getting closer, and realizing what they were doing: fastening an enormous American flag across the facade.
Oh.
I will never forget the sound of my father's voice screaming over the phone that the tower was collapsing. I worked rotating shifts then and was actually watching a movie. I had a TV, but no cable. My phone rang and it was my father, in Erie, PA, calling to tell me to turn on the TV. He was frantic. I think he only wanted to make sure that his sons were still alive, even though there was no possibility that either of us were anywhere near NYC or (later) DC. As he was trying to explain what was going on, one of the towers collapsed. I remember him saying that one had collapsed already and OH MY GOD THE OTHER TOWER IS FALLING!Another reader:I’ve heard my father afraid. I’ve heard him angry, even furious. I’ve never before, nor since heard him horrified. I’d prefer never to hear him that way again.
I carried the phone downstairs and knocked on my new neighbor's door. We had not yet met and here I was waking them up (they had evening shifts that day) wearing only short pants, no shirt, no shoes, trying to convince them to turn on their TV. I was sure that it wasn't possible that my father was correct. I was sure that as soon as I could get the TV on I would see something else. Maybe some sort of War of the Worlds thing. We became friends, my neighbors and I. not because of that incident, but for others.
The video of the attacks and the collapses I have seen several times, always recorded. I was doing something else when it was playing live. The collapses were shown over and over again in the typical TV fashion, played until you are almost sick of them and then they stopped, like they were swept into a memory hole. It was as if the TV stations imagined themselves our parents and suddenly tried to cover our eyes, to prevent us from seeing the horror that had occurred. It was as if they suddenly realized we were angry about it and were seriously considering retaliation, revenge, a reckoning. It as if we suddenly woke up from a dream where we had imagined that the world was safe, but now we knew better. Now we knew that we had to act. The images suddenly disappeared; our intellectual betters decided that they wanted no part of this. They stopped showing the pictures, hoping that we would stop demanding the blood of our enemies. They had successfully paper over all the previous wounds, but they were astonished to find that they could not paper over this one. America got its wake-up call. For me, the sound of America waking up will always be the sound of my father, screaming in horror, over the telephone.
I was hard at work in my cubicle, and got up to go around the corner to ask a coworker about some code. He happened to be walking in the door from the hallway outside, and told me that he had just come from the canteen and heard that a plane had crashed into the WTC.Another:I immediately thought of the Empire State Building getting hit in a fog many, many years ago, and assumed it was the same thing. He said that no, it was perfectly clear up there. I then thought that it had to have been a light plane. It wasn't the first time that something like that had happened, heck, somebody crashed on the White House lawn a few years ago. It had to be a lone nut at worst, in a cessna. But in the back of my head, I started to worry. Surely not. But could it? There had been that Egyptian copilot who crashed his airliner into the ocean...
I asked my question and went back to work. But just a few minutes later, he came back and told me that a second plane had flown into the other tower.
There never was any question after that. Things just solidified. We were under attack. I started getting angry.
I walked to the canteen, and watched the replays on the TVs overhead. I didn't get to see the second one live, but I've seen the clips, the stunned reactions from broadcasters on the air so many times that it feels like I have. I just stood there in anger, muttering "We're at war. We are at war." Thoughts of Pearl Harbor began to pop into my mind, especially when I came back to check again and the Pentagon had been hit. There were reports of bombs, and snipers, and it looked like an all-out decapitation strike might be underway. I couldn't understand why the Capitol hadn't been hit; that would have hurt our psyche far worse as a nation, but I eventually came to understand that our foes didn't really get that, and their one shot was taken down in America's first counterattack.
Perhaps the worst part was when I went to see my manager about something around lunchtime. I asked her how she was holding up, and by her cheery voice I realized that she had been inside her office all morning and didn't even know. I had to stand there... and tell her that it looked like 50,000 innocent people had just died, and that we were at war. Fortunately, they hit us too early in the day, to high up the buildings, and the evacuations worked relatively well. We could have lost ten times as many as we did, rather easily.
I sit here and wonder, five years later, how so many can simply forget or dismiss the cruelty or the evil of the attack.
The utterly spectacular weather.Another reader:The feeling when I walked into my office in midtown Manhattan and saw
a colleague leaving, in an obvious and panicked hurry. He said, "what
with the two planes that hit the Towers, I am getting out of a tall
building." I said, "wait, I thought it was only one plane." His
response to me has been seared into my memory: "John, do you have any
idea what is going on here?"Walking, with a vast mass of dazed New Yorkers, "uptown" towards
Central Park, to get away from the Times Square area where I worked,
due to the fear that "Times Square could be next." We didn't know
where we were going, just that we needed to get away from big
buildings.The sinking feeling, during that strange walk uptown in the sunshine,
when I overhead a man with a hand held radio say, "Jesus, they just
hit the Pentagon."Watching CNN in a bar on 85th Street from noon to about 4 pm, with
probably 100 frightened people gathered around the lone television
set.Walking home that night, emotionally devasted, and having to show my
ID to a National Guardsman with a Machine Gun to get into my
neighborhood, since I lived south of 14th Street.Calling Mom and Dad that night, and letting the tears come out.
Falling asleep that night to the sound of sirens, which seemed to
incessantly ring in the air for 48 hours after that day.Sept 12:
The line of people outside my apartment, which stretched from St.
Vincent's to my place at 11th Street and 5th Avenue. They were
waiting to meet with a rep from the hospital to learn the whereabouts
of their loved ones-- thinking (at the time) that they still might be
somewhere in that ER.The heartwrenching fliers they handed me as I walked to get a cup of
coffee, the faces, and the direct questions: "have you seen my
husband?"Reading 3 full newspapers on the 12th: the only time in my life I
have read the Times, the Post, and Daily News all cover to cover.The photos of the jumpers, God, the jumpers.
The large number of people who wore surgical masks as they walked
around the neighborhood, running errands, exploring the setting, so as
to avoid inhaling the smoke-- which had turned Northward on the 12th
and made the air smell like burnt rubber. Seeing all those people
wearing surgical masks only added to the sense that NY was a total
warzone.The UA Union Square Movie Theatre at Union Square and 14th, which was
showing all of its movies for free, all day, and the sign out front:
"Come in and see a movie for free; we know you have had a rough day,
come in and take your mind off things. Free popcorn and soda too."The massive refrigerated meatlocker trucks that stretched all the way
up the West Side Highway from my wife's apartment to 23rd street.
They sat there waiting to find the remains of those lost, and wound up
finding so much less than they had expected to find.The Sunday newspaper's list of final words, final phone calls, final
emails, which, like Eric, prompted me to break down and cry
uncontrollably.
Growing up in Israel, you are used to massive tragedies. Still, viewing the planes hit the World Trade Center on TV is still awful, frightening and way too concrete. I had two sons at NYU in lower Manhattan. You are worried to no end. The cell phones rang busy. Finally, email worked and my kids were together and fine.Another:For people who grow up here, life has changed. For people used to strife - Africans, Central Americans, Israelis – it’s deja vu; welcome to the club. The world didn't change; America came down towards the average.
We arrived in Canada for a month of fishing on September 9, 2001.An old friend writes:On 9/11, we were in a campground making breakfast and a small group of Germans walked past our campsite and asked if we were American. We said yes and they said "God bless you and we are standing with you today."
I had no idea what they were talking about. So I just kind of nodded and said "Thank you" or something and just chalked it up to some strange cultural difference.
Later that morning we turned on the radio and heard what had happened.
Throughout the rest of our stay there, I can't tell you how many Canadians (and tourists from other countries) went out of their way to say a kind word to us, tell us that we were in their prayers, and so on.
When I look back on that incredible outpouring of support and solidarity and see the way our government has pissed it all away - it is just tragic.
Sitting alone in a 25 person conference room with a big plasma screen watching replays of the second plane and the collapse of both towers ... sure that my meeting was cancelled, but not quite sure what to do next.The line at the cash machine of people making emergency withdrawals in case the banking system collapsed.
Returning home to hug my wife (who was fully aware of how our world had changed) and our kids (who were blissfully unaware, but will never really know the same childhood as we did).
The eerie silence of no commercial planes (only military) for the rest of the week.
Walks through our small community that afternoon, with adults sharing knowing, reassuring looks, and several weeks later when all screens were tuned to CNN showing the beginnings of the Afghani invasion.
Another:
California, late morning, sleeping.Warm, lazy. My mother in law calls back on the intercom, "Terry might want to get up and put on his funny clothes (my uniform, National Guard). The World Trade Center just blew up."
I thought about it and went back to sleep; if they needed me, they'd call, and NY was a long way away.
Maia got up, and when she came back to bed she asked why a plane hitting the WTC would make it fall down. I said I didn't know. As I drifted back to sleep I thought, "damn, that means the Windows on the World wine cellar is gone."
When I woke up, and went to watch the TV I was stunned. Angry, sad, horrified, numb.
The world, as we recall, stopped. The LA County Fair was running, and Maia and I were working at the Dairy display (a 24 hour a day operation, even though the fair is only open during the day). We dicided to go in, even though we weren't scheduled (being up until something like 3 the previous morning, looking after cows was why we slept until 10:00).
The cows would need milking, no matter waht else was going on in the world. We were among a very small number to show up (the milker, and us) so we washed cows, and loaded them up, and the cell phone rang, telling me to come to the Armory.
So I did. A time of strangeness. Things were going to be different (recall that at this point the smallest estimate of the dead was 10,000) Someone called to report something suspicious, down the block, and we went to check it out (civilian clothes, no weapons. Just a look see, if it had been an attack we were toast).
Maia called to say she was going to be helping with the evening milking. Around 9 p.m. I got a call that she was on her way to the hospital, because a pipe had broken on the pasteuriser and clobbered her in the head.
So I went to pick her up. Tired, frantic, confused, sad, angry still.
The next day I read an account by a friend, he had been in the area (his office was in Seven WTC, or some such).
He was angry, and terrified, and cool headed, with fury I'd known he had, but rarely seen; and said the song he was hearing in his head was "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", which I sang to myself with a new understanding; hearing it with the devotion of Puritan New England. Sung as an actual song of battle it's something to make the blood run cold, and the knees weak.
On the radio, that afternoon, I heard Wynton Marsalis performing the third movement of Haydn's trumpet Concerto (perhaps my favorite piece of classical music). The lilting rise and fall of the solo, the glorious ascent to the heavens it makes.
It made me remember, for just a moment, the sublime nature man can attain. It, to quote the psalm, restored my soul.
All those things are in my mind, the fall (and that prosaic moment when something I wanted to visit went away,and made it real, before I knew just what it was) the cows; who needed milking, no matter what tragedies the world was suffering, the chill of anger, hate and purpose, (as told in the hymn) and the quiet glory that Hayden brought back to me.
In twenty four hours I was taken through every single aspect of the human condition, with memories to make them all concrete.
And I'd give that understanding up in a moment.
Posted by Eric at 8:03 AM | Comments (21)
September 10, 2006
Al Qaeda Blue
Posted by Eric at 10:54 PM | Comments (3)
Cheney The Fraud
They can't beat us in a stand-up fight -- they never have -- but they're absolutely convinced they can break our will, that the American people don't have the stomach for the fight," Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press.
The Bush Administration has lied to America, been utterly inept in managing the Iraq fiasco, and used the GWOT as a political tool to keep power to, hmmmm, let's see, finance its tax cuts for the 1% of wealthiest Americans by borrowing 100s of billions of dollars from China -- now there's a smart economic strategy.
Let's not even talk about its "energy policy" (read: find ways to put money in the pockets of oil companies). A better title might be our "Let's Finance Al Qaeda and the Iraq Insurgents paid by Iraq by Staying Dependent on Mid-East Oil Policy."
Anyway, what so sickening is to read Cheney's quote and know that he is part of a cabal that has failed to capture -- strike that -- failed to make the effort to capture Osama Bin Laden. Why would that be? Did he figure out that having Bin Laden free is a convenient excuse for so totally screwing our country by invading Iraq?
But, oh, those Democrats -- can't trust them to keep us safe.
What a fraud. What a complete and total fraud.
Posted by shertaugh at 6:44 PM
September 9, 2006
There They Go Again
One's reaction to this story could be, "Oh well, the CIA is full of disloyal, Bush haters devoted to ruining his presidency." Or, "Gee, the CIA has a pre-911 mindset and doesn't get 'it.'" Then there's, "Oh, appeasers have long had control of the CIA."
My favorite is, "The CIA just doesn't know what Cheney's working group on national security knew -- like Fox News, Shaun Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the Powerline crew."
My money's on the last one. I for one believe, after having heard Bush and the Veep insinuate that Saddam had an Al Qaeda connection so many times, that it must be true -- otherwise, why would they keep repeating it?
Posted by shertaugh at 6:27 AM
September 8, 2006
Atlantic City
I think it's one of the great, underrated lines in American movies.
Posted by shertaugh at 5:08 PM
Blut und Ehre!
"I mean Cuban, Puerto-Rican, they are all very hot. They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it."In an Austrian accent, it's somehow even worse.
Posted by Eric at